WITNESS STATEMENTS IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT: ACCIDENTS AT WORK AFTER 1st OCTOBER 2013

A fundamental change in the law relating to breach of statutory duties and civil liability means that greater consideration will need to be given to drafting witness statements.   I have prepared an article on this at http://accidentsatworkaftertheerra.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/witness-statements-and-workplace-accidents-after-the-1st-october-2013/ Some of the…

NEW BLOG ON ACCIDENTS AT WORK AFTER 1st OCTOBER 2013

I have started a new blog on the effect of effects on accidents on work after the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The Act abolishes civil liability for breach of statutory duty (with one limited exception).  The blog is not…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND COSTS BUDGETING: THE JUDGMENT IN MITCHELL -v- NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS IN FULL

The full transcript of the decision of Master McCloud    in Andrew Mitchell MP –v- Express Group Newspapers [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB) is now available. The case was discussed, in outline in an earlier post,  http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/litigatorswant-to-work-for-nothing-then-dont-file-your-costs-budget-on-time/  but that was on the…

ACCIDENTS ABROAD AND THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS ACT: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 5

ACCIDENTS ABROAD AND THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS ACT: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 5

  It is easy to assume that every jurisdiction has a limitation period of three years. However when an accident happens abroad the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 provides that the relevant limitation period is the period that prevails in…

TROUBLE AT SEA: LIMITATION PERIODS AND WATER TRAVEL: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE  4

TROUBLE AT SEA: LIMITATION PERIODS AND WATER TRAVEL: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE 4

We continue the examination of limitation periods that are not necessarily three years. Accidents that happen at sea, or on water generally, can be subject to different limitation periods and, normally, a two year limitation period applies. TWO YEAR PERIODS…

DO YOU NEED LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE ON BEHALF OF AN ESTATE?

A recent e-mail enquiry has led to my considering the issue of the right to issue proceedings on behalf of the estate of someone who died intestate.   The solicitor wanted to bring an action for personal injury on behalf of…

AVIATION AND LIMITATION: 10 QUESTIONS EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR SHOULD ASK

A tweet  on the 8th October 2013 read:  “PI Claim struck out because Montreal Convention pleaded instead of Warsaw Convention.” (The case in question is reported in detail by Jasmine Murphy on the Hardwicke Chambers website.) This reiterates the points…

EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PART 20 CLAIMS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT TEST?

Applying to extend time for service of the claim form is a practice fraught with danger, even if done prospectively.  In Haskew –v- Pannone LLP (and others) the Court of Appeal considered the relevant criteria for granting an extension when…

ADMISSIONS AND THE PORTAL: HOW WILL THE COURTS CONSTRUE PROCEDURAL ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE RTA PROTOCOL?

How significant are admissions made under the MOJ portal and what is their practical significance?  A close look at the case of Ullah –v- Jon and its significance in relation to construction of the RTA Protocol.   I am grateful…

SANCTIONS AND DEFAULT: THE NEW APPROACH IN PRACTICE. THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF BAKER -v- HALLAM ESTATES

The post yesterday looked at the duties owed by an applicant making a without notice application. The full transcript of the case is now available and contains some salutary observations.   Baker –v- Hallam Estates Baker -v- Hallam Estates [2013]…

THE DANGERS OF WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: THE WHOLE TRUTH IS THE ONLY OPTION

Since the advent of CPR 3.3 and  CPR 23.8 and 9 there appears to have been a growth in the number of applications made without notice.  Two recent cases highlight the very onerous duty on a party making such an…

DOES THE CIVIL LITIGANT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS? CPR 3.9, ARTICLE 6 AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

This post looks at the case law relating to Article 6 and the right to a fair trial in civil proceedings. It looks at whether decisions under the new CPR 3.9 need to consider the issue of “proportional response”.  …