PROVING THINGS 208: IMPACT OF COVID MEANS THAT THE CLAIMANT HAS LOST NOTHING AND DEFENDANT GAIN NOTHING: NO AWARD FOR THE CLAIMANT’S “LOSSES”
The judgment of HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wigan Borough Council v Scullindale Global Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 779 (Ch) has much of interest. The judge’s observation that “one of the particular pleasures of…
WEBINAR SERIES ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: STARTING JUNE 2021
In June this year I am presenting a series of six webinars which deal with major aspects of a claim for damages for personal injury. This series goes through each major element of a claim for damages, looking at…
CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER TO ACCEPT 90% OF DAMAGES NOT EFFECTIVE WHEN CAUSATION IS IN ISSUE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Seabrook v Adam [2021] EWCA Civ 382 the Court of Appeal considered when a Part 36 offer to accept a reduced percentage on liability was effective when only causation was in dispute. It was held…
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WEBINAR 11th MAY 2021
I am co-presenting a webinar with solicitor John McQuater on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury action on the 11th May 2021. HOW TO BOOK Details of how to book are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar will bring you right…
PROVING THINGS 205: COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO £6,922,532 IN FEES BUT WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
In Cakebread & Anor v Fitzwilliam [2021] EWHC 472 (Comm) Sir Ross Cranston (sitting as a High Court judge) considered an argument from the claimant barristers that an arbitrator had erred in refusing to award them their fees. The essential…
DAMAGES AND THE SCHEDULE OF DAMAGES IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 4th MARCH 2021
This webinar on the 4th March 2021 is part of the Avoiding Pitfalls series. It looks at rules and practice relating to drafting and proving damages in personal injury cases. The webinar considers schedules of damages and proving damages with…
DAMAGES AND LOSS OF EARNINGS DUE TO COVID: A MINOR REDUCTION IN INCOME FOUND
One of the things considered in the judgment in Kim v Lee [2021] EWHC 231 (QB) was whether the claimant would have suffered a reduction in income due to Covid in any event. This is likely to be a live…
AN INTERESTING CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: NO INTEREST AWARDED ON DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
In Rees v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2021] EWCA Civ 49 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to award interest on damages for damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. THE CASE The claimant…
PROVING THINGS 200: ALL THE SERIES IN ONE PLACE: THE (VERY) EXPENSIVE COSTS OF FAILING TO THINK FULLY ABOUT EVIDENCE
There are now 200 posts in the “Proving Things” Series. These centre, usually, on a failure to establish matters at trial. Sometimes the failures are dramatic. In Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm) i the claimants had…
PROVING THINGS 199: “THE BITTER TRUTH”: INNOCENT PARTIES MAY SUFFER NO LOSSES – AND RECEIVE NO DAMAGES
The judgment of Mr Stephen Houseman QC sitting as a Deputy High Court judge in YJB Port Ltd v M&A Pharmachem Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 42 (Ch) is another example of a party failing to prove it had suffered…
PROVING THINGS 197: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS IN A PANDEMIC: ACTUAL EARNINGS EXCEEDED POTENTIAL EARNINGS
Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 3541 (QB) is an unusual case in many ways. There are issues that are sensitive and require careful consideration. However there are also observations about claiming loss of earnings and proving…
PROVING THINGS 193: THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DECEASED PERSON HAVING INCREASED EARNINGS AND “LOSS OF CHANCE” CONSIDERED IN A FATAL CASE
In many ways the judgment Young v Downey [2020] EWHC 3457 (QB) is an extraordinary case, involving a terrorist killing taking place in 1982. On the other hand it shows a principle of general application in the assessment of fatal…
PROVING THINGS 191: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS (III): CLAIMING AND PROVING “FRINGE BENEFITS”.
Some jobs have “fringe benefits” which provide an important part of the employee’s overall remuneration. There are many examples of these benefits being claimed as damages. Here we look at some cases where the courts have considered the issue of…
PROVING THINGS 191: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS (II): A CLIENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Here we return to the basic issue of proving loss of income. This often applies in personal injury action, but is an issue that can arise in several other types of litigation. We have a questionnaire on the single issue…
PROVING THINGS 190: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS (1) : THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT: THE QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD ASK
The basic task of proving damages, particularly elements such as loss of earnings and disability in the labour market, are often overlooked in witness statements prepared for trial, both in personal injury actions and other actions were loss of income…
DEFENDANT’S LIABLE TO PAY INJURED SOLDIER FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS AFTER HE HAS TO HANG UP HIS BOOTS
There is much that is interesting to read in the judgment of David Lock QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Constance v Ministry of Defence & Anor [2020] EWHC 3029 (QB). One interesting point is the defendant’s interesting,…
A BARRISTER OF “GOOD JUDGEMENT”: WHEN THE PERSON WHO USUALLY DOES THE CROSS-EXAMINING IS IN THE WITNESS BOX
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Torrance v Bradberry [2020] EWHC 3260 (QB) is one that should be read by every practising lawyer. It is a case of a lawyer as defendant, being accused of negligence in their conduct…
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL SOLICITOR AND A PROFESSIONAL KICKBOXER? (THERE’S A WHOLE WEBINAR ABOUT THIS…)
What is the difference between a solicitor and a professional kickboxer? There are many answers to this – and I am certain that I am going to receive some interesting responses on social media. However, whatever the differences are, there…
PROVING THINGS 186: WHEN THE ONE WITNESS IN THE CASE HAD LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE FIGURES IN THE SCHEDULE HAD BEEN REACHED – THERE IS TROUBLE AHEAD…
In Crazy Bear Group Ltd v Patel & Anor [2020] EWHC 3023 (Ch) Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Jones (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered whether defendants in an action had proven that they had suffered damages…
CLAIMANT’S CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE IT SAID TWO CONTRADICTORY THINGS: “JANUS-FACED” PLEADINGS NOT ALLOWED
The judgment of Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Betesh Partnership -v- Evans [2020] EWHC 1589 (QB) contains interesting observations on the need for a claimant to plead a case that is not inconsistent. I am working and citing from the…