Editor, Solicitors Journal

SAME ROOF RULE ABOLISHED

6 Jan 2019News

Victims of past crimes committed by family members can now claim compensation if they were injured, following a change in the rules on criminal injury compensation. Previously, adults and children who lived with their assailants at the time of the attack were ineligible for compensation. This 'same roof ' rule was abolished in 1979 but it was not retrospect. The rule has now been completely abolished so victims can reapply for compensation. Applications must be made within two years and the eligibility criteria must also be satisfied for a successful claim. It is estimated that up to 7,500 victims will now be able to claim. 13 June 2019

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Latest Articles

Post-Ukraine surrogacy and cross-border legal risk

As intended parents move beyond Ukraine, courts are confronting increasingly complex ethical, legal and public policy tensions

Unapproved AI use is widespread in UK law firms

New research reveals the alarming prevalence of unapproved AI tools among UK legal professionals highlighting regulatory challenges ahead

AI can enhance law firms' processes

AI accelerates legal work efficiency but requires rigorous human oversight to maintain accountability and reliability in outcomes

GMC v Grajn: High Court quashes MPT suspension after finding serious under-prosecution

All MPT determinations quashed; fresh tribunal hearing ordered following failure to allege dishonesty against transplant surgeon

DHL v Ignatowicz: EAT remits reinstatement and contributory fault findings over Facebook dismissal

Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies key principles on contributory conduct and reinstatement.

Solong v Samskip: High Court rules on "such loss" in landmark limitation judgement

Owners entitled to limit liability after Humber collision; Article 4 defence struck out

Fay of London v Axis Specialty Europe: High Court clarifies amendment rules where limitation defence is in play

A claimant cannot sidestep limitation arguments by framing an amendment application under CPR r.17.1 rather than r.17.4, the High Court has confirmed.

Verum Plus v Petroineos: Swiss insolvency assignees win joinder bid but blocked on contract claims

Swiss Article 260 assignees gain standing to pursue English litigation, but non-assignment clauses bar them from the underlying contracts.

Soundwave Studios v Visage Cinema: High Court sets aside statutory demand over total failure of consideration dispute

Restitutionary debt claim against music production company found to raise genuine and substantial dispute

ITH Group v Environment Agency: tribunal halves ESOS penalty after finding non-receipt claims insufficient to rebut service presumption

A healthcare group's civil penalty under the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme has been reduced from £33,750 to £16,875 after the First-tier Tribunal found the Environment...

SAME ROOF RULE ABOLISHED

Post-Ukraine surrogacy and cross-border legal risk

Unapproved AI use is widespread in UK law firms

AI can enhance law firms' processes

GMC v Grajn: High Court quashes MPT suspension after finding serious under-prosecution

DHL v Ignatowicz: EAT remits reinstatement and contributory fault findings over Facebook dismissal

Solong v Samskip: High Court rules on "such loss" in landmark limitation judgement

Fay of London v Axis Specialty Europe: High Court clarifies amendment rules where limitation defence is in play

Verum Plus v Petroineos: Swiss insolvency assignees win joinder bid but blocked on contract claims

Soundwave Studios v Visage Cinema: High Court sets aside statutory demand over total failure of consideration dispute

ITH Group v Environment Agency: tribunal halves ESOS penalty after finding non-receipt claims insufficient to rebut service presumption

Regulator faces surge in misconduct reports

Government launches crackdown on late payments

Cohen v Co-Operative Group: High Court dismisses £205m insolvency challenge over Project Chicago restructure

SJ Interview: Keith Froud

Navigating the accountability gap in a transformed legal landscape