PROVING THINGS 85: AN INABILITY TO PROVE EVEN A SMALL SUM MEANS IT WILL NOT BE AWARDED
Many of the issues that have been looked at in the Proving Things series have been in relation to failures to prove substantial issues, or substantial sums. However the need to prove things is a universal requirement. I want to look…
PROVING THINGS 84: THE NEED TO PROVE A LOSS IS A PRESSING ONE: THAT OLD FASHIONED NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIM REJECTED
In Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 83 (TCC) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered (and rejected) a claimant’s claim for damages for interruption to its business. It is…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM
In London Organising Committee of the Olympic And Paralympic Games (LOCOG) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision whereby a claimant was allowed damages. The claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in making a claim for…
SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DURING CLOSING SUBMISSIONS AT TRIAL: A “HIGHLY UNUSUAL CASE”
I am grateful to barrister Robert Smith for sending me a copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Gargan in the case of Jackson -v- Durham County Council & ors (20th December 2017). The judgment dealt with the issue…
AN UNAPOLOGETIC REPEAT: WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT’S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Every year or so I repeat one point about insurance. It has caused a stir every time I have written about it. As the numbers of people who read this blog increase, and because people can forget things. I am…
2018: A NEW YEAR RESOLUTION FOR LITIGATORS: DON’T LEAVE MATTERS TO CHANCE – LEARN TO PROVE DAMAGES
For nearly two years this blog has documented issues (and often failures) when parties fail to prove things. In a surprising number of cases the failures are very basic. Proving things is the basic job of the litigator. However we…
PROVING THINGS 82: ITS NO GOOD FISHING – THE JUDGE WON’T BITE
It is surprising how often litigants get to trial and find that they have not got even the most basic evidence to prove their claim for damages. This happened to the claimant today in One Fish Company Ltd v Iceland Foods…
INTERIM PAYMENTS: CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE AND EELES: THE ISSUES ADDRESSED HEAD ON: INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2.4 MILLION GRANTED
The problems caused to personal injury claimants by the change in the discount rate were addressed directly by His Honour Judge Curran (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Porter v Barts Health NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 3205 (QB). The court…
PROVING THINGS 81: PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS – AGAIN: FAILURE TO FIND WORK WAS NOT A FAILURE TO MITIGATE
We have looked at issues relating to proving mitigation of loss before*. The legal burden in establishing a failure to mitigate loss lies with the party asserting a failure to mitigate. This was made clear in the judgment of Mrs…
PROVING THINGS 80: PROVING A SUBROGATED CLAIM: HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS NOT RECOVERED IN FULL
It is not uncommon for an insurer to seek to add a claim for outlay to a claim. This is particularly the case in relation to health insurers who seek to recover outlay in a claim for damages for personal…
CLAIMANT BEATS HIS OWN PART 36 OFFER: INTERESTS, COSTS AND HOW THE ADDITIONAL 10% IS CALCULATED
In Mohammed v The Home Office [2017] EWHC 3051 (QB) Mr Edward Peperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered the appropriate award for interest and additional damages when a claimant had beaten their own Part 36 offer. …
SIXTY YEARS OF MUNKMAN ON DAMAGES: A PICTORIAL HISTORY
It is now sixty years since the first edition of Munkman on Damages was published, it is now in its 13th edition. Looking at how it has changed over the years says a lot about how the law has developed…
PROVING THINGS 76: A RECAP – I DIDN’T EXPECT TO GET THIS FAR…
Today saw the 75th in the series “proving things”. I never anticipated that the series would run so long, I initially planned around 10 posts. Now we have reached 75 (and with no plans to stop) this is an appropriate…
PROVING THINGS 75: PROVING CAUSATION ON AN UNDERTAKING TO PAY DAMAGES: THE INJUNCTION THAT COST THE APPLICANT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS: ROUND 2
We have looked before at the decision in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation -v- Yuri Privalov & others [2016]. An applicant for a freezing order was found to have obtained the order wrongly. Consequently they were ordered to pay damages that stretched…
Proving things 74: WHEN YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM FABULOUS AND COMES WITH A “HEALTH WARNING”: APPLICANT’S CASE PUT BACK IN THE BOX
There is an interesting discussion of the evidence in the Upper Tribunal decision in Fabulous Collections Ltd v Smith (Valuation Officer), Re: 3 Poplar Arcade [2017] UKUT 452. A central part of an applicant’s case essentially disappeared on the morning of…
PROVING THINGS 73: FORESEEABILITY: NOT A TEST SET IN STONE BUT A MATTER OF COMMONSENSE
Foreseeability of damages is one of those topics that takes up a lot of space in text books but is rarely an issue in practice. The question of foreseeability of damages did, however, form a part of the judgment we…
PROVING THINGS 71: NO EVIDENCE AT ALL: NO DAMAGES AT ALL
In Khan v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council [2017] UKUT 432 (LC) we see another examples of a total failure to prove damages. I include it as another example of a party attending a hearing with no evidence at all to prove a…
COSTS AFTER LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER: CLAIM £21.5 MILLION, ACCEPT £125,000: THE IMPORTANCE OF CLEAR VISION ON DAMAGES FROM THE OUTSET
In Optical Express Ltd & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 2707 (QB) Mr Justice Warby considered arguments in relation to costs after late acceptance of a Part 36 offer. On the facts of that case he ordered that the…
PROVING THINGS 69: SOLICITORS EVIDENCE OF (THEIR OWN) LOSS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT DELAY TOO
This blog often reports on cases where a party fails to appreciate the scope and depth of evidence needed to prove a claim for damages. This issue arose in the judgment today in Hersi & Co Solicitors, R (On the Application…
DEFENDANT IN CASE WITH PROTECTED PARTY ENTITLED TO RESILE FROM “COMPROMISE”: REQUIREMENT FOR COURT APPROVAL NOT A BREACH OF ECHR RIGHTS
In Revill v Damiani [2017] EWHC 2630 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans held that the rule that required a protected party to obtain a court order to approve a proposed settlement remained good law. It did not breach the claimant’s human rights….
PROVING THINGS 68: CLAIM £4,177,782 RECEIVE £46,815: LEASE SAID SOONEST MENDED
If you are looking for a graphic example of a failure to prove damages you may well find it in the decision of Martin Rodgers QC in the Upper Tribunal (Lands) Chamber today in Bishop v Transport for London [2017] UKUT…
DISPUTE BETWEEN SOLICITORS: PERMISSION TO AMEND REFUSED AS IT WAS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON AN EARLIER DECISION: CONCESSION MADE BY MISTAKE CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN
In Mark Lewis Law Ltd & Anor v Taylor Hampton Solicitors Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2359 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple DBE refused an application by the defendant solicitors to amend its counterclaim shortly before trial. It is a case that…
PROVISIONAL DAMAGES NOT AWARDED FOR RISK OF DETERIORATION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION
In XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2318 (QB) Sir Robert Nelson considered the question of whether provisional damages should be awarded in relation to a possible deterioration in a claimant’s psychological condition. The fact that the deterioration was…
PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)
The case of Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 4097 could serve as a parable of modern litigation. The claimant won the first trial on this matter, establishing the defendant insurers were…
MIB CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO QOCS: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURN HOWE
“For the purposes of CPR Part 44.13, which describes the claims eligible for Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”), what is a claim for damages for personal injury? As Stewart J said it is a simple question but does not yield…
PROVING THINGS 64 : ABSENCE OF STRONG AND STABLE EVIDENCE LEADS TO DAMAGES AWARD OF £2.00
There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Jones -v- Oven [2017] EWHC 1647 (Ch). However this is another case where a claim for damages failed because the…
THE EXISTENCE OF PART 36 OFFERS MEANT THAT COSTS WERE RESERVED TO THE END OF THE CASE
In Interactive Technology Corporation Limited -v- Ferster [2017] EWGC 1510 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan held that the existence of Part 36 offers by the defendants meant that the issue of costs after a preliminary hearing had to be reserved to…
PROVING THINGS 62: “TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY” EVIDENCE AT TRIAL FAILS TO PROVE SPECIAL DAMAGES
I wrote about the judgment in Stewart & Chergui -v- The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 921 (QB), yesterday. There is no harm in repeating one element of that post in this series. I am repeating it because…
COSTS AT THE END OF THE CASE – WHO IS THE REAL WINNER? (AND MORE ABOUT FAILING TO PROVE DAMAGES)
It is uncertain how much a three week jury trial in the High Court will cost. It is certain that it costs a great deal more than the awards of £5,400 and £5,700 Mrs Justice McGowan awarded to the claimants…
DAMAGES, COSTS AND MEDIATION: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE BOUNDARIES
In the judgment today Gore -v- Naheed [2017] EWCA 369 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of damages being awarded (when they had not been claimed) and where costs should lie when a party – reasonably – declined to…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES WHEN ITS DEFENCE IS STRUCK OUT? NOTHING
What is the position of a defendant whose action has been struck out? This was the question considered by Mr Justice Soole in Michael -v- Phillips [2017] EWHC 1984 (QB). The short answer is the defendant cannot dispute any aspect…
“GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS”: THE ROLE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY AND DAMAGES
In Karapetianas -v- Kent and Sussex Loft Conversions Ltd [2017] EWHC 859 (QB) Mr Jonathan Swift QC considered the appropriate approach to damages when the claimant’s case as to ongoing symptoms was contradicted by video evidence. He found that the…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONSIDERS THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT
We have already looked at the decision in Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 in the context of the award of interest. The decision also contains important observations about evidence and the way in which the courts approach…
INTEREST ON DAMAGES AT 8% (AND THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT MATTERS): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION CONSIDERED
In Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 the Court of Appeal decided that the appropriate rate for interest on damages was 8% from the date of breach. It is not often that questions of interest on damages are…
INTEREST ON AWARD NOT AUTOMATIC: A DECISION WHERE NO INTEREST WAS AWARDED
The question of when, and whether, interest should be awarded is one of these issues in litigation that receives little coverage. In Pinfold -v- Ansell [2017] EWHC 889 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke decided not to award interest at all. It…
LIMITING CLAIM TO £10,000 DID NOT PREVENT COURT AWARDING £140,000: CPR 16.3(7) IN USE
In the judgment today in Harrath -v- Stand for Peace Ltd [2017] EWHC 653 (QB) Sir David Eady awarded £140,000 in a case where the claim form limited the claim to £10,000. This is an interesting development in an environment where…
INTEREST ON DAMAGES AFTER FAILING TO BEAT A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: THE AIM IS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD PRACTICE AND NOT SIMPLY TO COMPENSATE
In Ovm Petrom SA -v- Glencore International SA [2017] EWCA Civ 195 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision not to award 10% interest on damages in a case where a defendant failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer….
PROVING THINGS 59: TO GET SPECIAL DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO PLEAD THEM AND PROVE THEM (EVEN IN DEFAMATION CASES)
In Lisle-Mainwaring -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) Judge Parkes QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) declined to award the claimant special damages for financial outlay on the grounds that they were never properly…
PROVING THINGS 58 : FAILURE TO PROVE CAUSATION LEADS TO AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES
For the third time in recent weeks I write about a case where a claimant has spent much time, energy (and no doubt money) in bringing an action but only recovered nominal damages. In Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC -v- Dubai…
PROVING THINGS 57: LEASE SAID SOONEST MENDED: CLAIM FOR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES FAILS (AND GUESS THE REASON)
This series often looks at cases that have floundered at trial – usually because of the absence of basic evidence to prove a litigant’s case. This can be seen again in the judgment of Mr Stephen Furst QC in Car…
TWITTER, LIBEL AND EVIDENCE: THE KATIE HOPKINS JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Monroe -v- Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) has already attracted a lot of attention. Here I want to look at the issues relating to the evidence. The case is one of the…
PROVING THINGS 55: I’LL SAY IT AGAIN: NO EVIDENCE – NO DAMAGES
The judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford in Kingsgate Development Projects Lt -v- Jordan [2017]EWHC 343 (TCC) is (yet) another example of a claimant asserting damages but there being no evidence to prove them. The claimant ended up with a judgment…
COMPOUND INTEREST OR SIMPLE INTEREST? COUNTING THE COPPERS: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT MISSES THE NET
In Ipswich Town Football Club Company Limited -v- The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2017] EWHC 375 (QB) Mr Justice Green considered the question of whether a claimant was entitled to compound interest or simple interest. The judge gave that particular…
CHANGES TO THE DISCOUNT RATE: WITHDRAWING PART 36 OFFERS: IMPORTANT FOR CLAIMANTS AND DEFENDANTS
I wrote yesterday of the practical steps that need to be taken by both parties as a result of the changes to the discount rate (that post is on the Zenith PI Blog and is available here). One point that…
PREVENTING DEFENDANT FROM DEFENDING DAMAGES IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF ENFORCING PEREMPTORY ORDERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
Workman -v- Forrester [2017] EWCA Civ 73 is an important example of the courts using peremptory orders in an attempt to secure compliance. The Court of Appeal upheld a decision to make a peremptory order that allowed the claimants to…
PROVING THINGS 54: GETTING £2 IN DAMAGES AFTER CLAIMING £15 MILLION: A MARATHON EFFORT WITH NO JACKPOT
The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt in Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm) has already attracted some publicity. It involved an award for £2 in nominal damages after the claimants had sought £15 million. It is…
REFORMS TO SOFT TISSUE PROCESS: LINKS TO OFFICIAL PAPERS AND COMMENTARY (FROM CLAIMANTS AND INSURERS)
The proposed reforms were set out in detail for the first time today. Here are links to the relevant documents and some of the commentary: Official publications The 49 page paper from the government is here The summary is here …
PROVING THINGS 53: BECAUSE A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST SOME OF THE TIME IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WERE DISHONEST ALL OF THE TIME
The case of Pemberton Greenish LLP -v- Henry [2017] EWHC 246 (QB) provides an interesting assessment of witness evidence and demonstrates the difficulty in proving dishonesty. Mr Justice Jeremy Baker held that the fact that a solicitor was negligent, breached…
BABIES, BUNDLES, HUMAN RIGHTS, PROPORTIONALITY, CONDUCT AND COSTS:ALL IN ONE JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Cobb in AZ -v- Kirklees Council [2017] EWFC 11 contains much of interest to the legal profession generally. It shows the danger of failing to comply with court directions; make or respond to appropriate offers…
PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS
The judgment of HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch) is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….
You must be logged in to post a comment.