ON THIS BLOG 10 YEARS AGO: PART 36; INTERIM PAYMENTS AND SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”

Now that the blog is 10 years (and 2 days) old it gives me an opportunity to look back at previous posts in a way that remains useful.  Some (but not all) of the posts over the past decade stand the test of time.  They still have relevance to today’s practitioner.   So this series will look back at key posts from the past.  Here we are looking at the posts from June 2013.   We look at interim payments; the problem of suing the impecunious defendant and the advantages of a claimant making a Part 36 offer.

INTERIM PAYMENTS AND THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CLAIMANT: SOMEWHERE TO LIVE OR DOWN AT EELES?

This post looked at issues relating to interim payments and accommodation claims in catastrophic injury cases.   In particular the problems caused by Cobham Hire Services –v- Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204.  Many of the cases in this post remain relevant today. The issues have not changed.

 

“The decision in Eeles has made the situation more complex, particularly in relation to funding housing needs. Suitable accommodation is one of the most fundamental problems for the seriously injured claimant.   Obtaining an interim payment to pay for housing is never a straightforward task. Firstly the damages award will never pay the capital costs of accommodation; secondly, the courts are much more conservative in their approach to the award of interim payments.

 It helps to take a close look at the cases that have followed Eeeles,  whether any coherent principles can be identified and the steps the claimant and defendant need to take.”

SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THE IMPECUNIOUS AND UNINSURED DEFENDANT?

 

This is a post I have repeated several times.   It deals with the problem of having a good personal injury case for damages but the potential defendant has no assets “it is often worthwhile looking at your own client’s home insurance policy. Many policies have a section which will pay. For instance the Lloyds TSB home insurance policy contains a term which states that cover includes:

“Unrecovered damages and costs.”

THANKS FOR THE £500,000. NOW WHERE’S THE EXTRA £50,000 YOU OWE ME? KNOWING THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES FOR THE CLAIMANT IN THE NEW PART 36

 

This post looked at the then relatively new provisions which allowed a claimant to make a Part 36 offer.  It highlighted the fact that a claimant lawyer who fails to make a Part 36 offer could be criticised and, arguably, negligent.

 

THE RISKS FOR THE CLAIMANT LAWYER

It is now more essential to make a valid Part 36 offer in an case that goes to trial. It is unwise to be wholly reactive to events. At least 21 days before the trial a Part 36 offer that is realistic should be made.