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…
LOSS OF EARNINGS AND THE SELF-EMPLOYED: SOME KEY ISSUES: (ALSO A WEBINAR…)
There are now a record number of self-employed people working in the UK and the numbers are increasing. The self-employed amount to 5 million, that is 15.3% of the workforce, (up from 12% in 2000). Here I want to look…
PROVING THINGS 185: SAYING “I’M BROKE” DOES NOT PROVE IMPECUNIOSITY: “THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CASE THEY HAVE TO MEET”
We are returning again to the Court of Appeal decision in Diriye v Bojaj & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1400. This time concentrating upon the Court’s comments in relation to the need to prove impecuniosity and the claimant’s failure to…
“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK” EXCUSE DOESN’T WORK WELL IN COURT: THE JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THE WAY “SIGNED FOR 1ST CLASS” OPERATED BUT THEY WERE RIGHT TO REFUSE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIION
In Diriye v Bojaj & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1400 the Court of Appeal held that the judges who heard a relief from sanctions hearing below were in error about the way that “Signed for 1st class” post operated, however…
ILLEGALITY AND DAMAGES: SUPREME COURT DECISION: SOMEONE WHO COMMITS MANSLAUGHTER CANNOT BRING AN ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE
In Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on the grounds that the claimant’s action was based on illegality. It found that someone found guilty of manslaughter due to diminished…
HOW SHOULD DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING BE ASSESSED WHEN PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ARE BEING AWARDED? A HIGH COURT CASE
In Hamilton v NG Bailey Ltd [2020] EWHC 2910 (QB) Dan Squires QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered the issue of what discount should be made on an award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, when…
SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE ON THE CASE AND HOW THE DECISION IS LIKELY TO WORK OUT IN PRACTICE
Following on from the previous posts about this case here is a set of useful links to commentary about the Carpenter decision. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers is also presenting a webinar on this issue on the 22nd…
THE CARPENTER DECISION: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES: FAIR DAMAGES “NOT A PENNY MORE BUT NOT A PENNY LESS”
I have written before about how judges regularly go back to the basic principles of damages when faced with challenging issues in relation to personal injury damages. To a large extent this happened in the Court of Appeal decision in Swift…
