WEBINAR ON CARE, AIDS & APPLIANCES CLAIMS AFTER MUYEPA -v- THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: 18th NOVEMBER 2022

I have already written three times about the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in  Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB).  I have not explored in detail the important observations in that judgment in relation to claiming, and presenting, claims for damages, aids and appliances.  There are many lessons here for litigators and expert witnesses alike.    Those lessons will be considered in detail in a webinar on the 18th November 2022 “Claims for care, aids and appliances: The important lessons that must be learnt from the judgment in Muyepa -v- Ministry of Defence”

Booking details are available here.

 

“There is a danger that because comparatively few personal injury/clinical negligence cases reach a hearing where the issues of care/aids and equipment are contested, and as a result few reminders are given by the Courts of the correct approach to be adopted, that some reports will fail to approach the analysis of what should be claimed/funded with sufficient rigour”

THE WEBINAR

In Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB), Mr Justice Cotter was highly critical of the claimant’s approach to the issue of care, aids and appliances.  The judgment restated the purpose of damages in relation to care and aids and appliances.  The matters set out in the judgment affect every level of personal injury case in which there is a claim for care and/or aids and appliances.

This webinar looks at the judgment in detail and considers the practical implications for those representing claimants including:

  • The purpose of damages in relation to care, aids and appliances
  • The questions the court will ask
  • Are the costs proportionate? Is this a relevant test?
  • What factors are considered when “reasonableness” is considered
  • Would the claimant have had the benefit in any event?
  • Will the claimant use the care or items sought?
  • What went wrong in the Muyepa case and the lessons to be learnt
  • Where experts can go wrong
  • When is a jointly instructed expert appropriate?