Welcome to the November edition of The Round-Up!
This month, Napier Miles considers the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board  UKSC 11, a case in which the Supreme Court decided that before consenting to treatment a patient is entitled to be aware of any material risks and of alternative or variant treatments.
Derek Kerr focuses on the guidelines laid down by the TCC for the consideration and approval of budgets in the case of GSK Project Management Ltd (In Liquidation) v QPR Holdings Ltd  Costs LR 729 the TCC laid down some guidelines for the consideration and approval of budgets .
Elizabeth Dwomoh discusses the unreported case of Lee v Sommer, 19th November 2015, Ch D, which sheds light on the effect that a failure to serve a required notice under s.17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 has on the court’s jurisdiction to approve consent orders.
Finally, infant settlements and success fees – taking money from a baby? Ross Beaton provides a potential answer in his article, which focuses on the case of A v Royal Mail Group  EW Misc B24(CC) and B30(CC).