Imogen Smalley

Probate

S v W [2026] Obtained the strike out of a claim in its entirety for a financial provision in an estate valued at approximately £445,000.00 net. Imogen was briefed to represent the Defendants in a claim brought against them for a reasonable financial provision from their late father’s estate, brought under Section 1(1A) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975. The Defendants applied to strike out the claim for various failures to comply with court orders, pursuant to CPR r.3.4(2)(c). Imogen also argued that the claim was demonstrably vexatious, relying upon CPR r.3.4(2)(a).

S v W [2026] Secured a detailed ‘unless’ order in favour of the Appellants (Defendants) to a claim for a financial provision in their father’s estate. The Respondent (Claimant) had ignored court deadlines and provided no documentary evidence to support their case, whilst refusing access to the relevant property. The Court placed stringent requirements on the Respondent to not only progress what had become a stagnant case, through no fault of the Appellants, but to hand over multiple items belonging to the Appellants’ family.

D v D [2026] Acted in a CCMC for a multi-track case regarding the removal and potential substitution of an executor.

Possession

R v R [2026] Obtained an order for possession based on trespass against a beneficiary to the estate, to enable the sale of the property and the administration of the estate in accordance with the Will.

Civil

S v W [2026] secured a detailed ‘unless’ order in favour of her clients. The Respondent had ignored court deadlines and provided no documentary evidence to support their case, whilst refusing access to the relevant property.

CJK v KJB [2025] proved ground rent had unjustifiably been increased in a commercial lease.

Contract

Wickes v C [2026] Briefed to represent Wickes in a claim brought against them for purported breaches of contract, misrepresentation and failures to comply with the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015. Imogen was successful in defending all four allegations made by the Claimant. Ultimately, the Court agreed that the goods were as displayed in the showroom at the time of entering the contract. Because the main characteristics of the goods were therefore apparent from the context, Wickes were not required to provide any more pre-contractual information regarding the characteristics of the goods, as is otherwise mandatory due to Schedule 1 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Regarding the remaining two allegations, the Court agreed that the CRA 2015 had been complied with.

P v I [2026] Recovered unpaid sums for an accountancy firm, despite administration errors having caused the accountancy company to overlook the debt for many years.

CJK v KJB [2025] Successfully defended against a claim for unpaid service charges in a commercial lease, by proving that the claimant landlord had unjustifiably and unreasonably increased the defendant tenant’s apportionment of the annual service charges. The landlord’s determination of a ‘fair proportion’ of the service charges was neither rational in law nor in fact.

Crime

R v B [2025] secured a suspended sentence order for a prison officer convicted of misconduct in public office, by highlighting the exceptional circumstances of the case.

R v L [2025] prevented young adult offender from receiving custodial sentence, by reminding the Court of its obligation to consider relevant sentencing guidelines.