CLAIMANT SOUGHT TO AMEND NAME OF THE DEFENDANT: CLAIM STRUCK OUT: ANOTHER PERIL OF TRAVEL LITIGATION
I am grateful to barrister Katherine Howells for sending me a copy of the decision of Deputy District Judge Causton in Gregory -v- TUI Airways Ltd, a copy of that decision is available here Approved Judgment Gregory v TUI. …
DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW FROM ADMISSIONS: PRE-INQUEST ADMISSIONS FATAL TO DEFENDANT’S CASE
I am grateful to barrister Jo Moore for drawing my attention to the judgment of Master Sullivan in Somoye v North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 191 (KB). This is a case where the Master refused the defendant’s…
THE NEW RULES ON QOCS AND COSTS 1: IMPLEMENTATION
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023 make major changes to the rules relating to the set off of costs and QOCS, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court in Ho -v- Adelkun. Here I want to look at the rule…
PROVING THINGS 247: A NON-CONVICTION CANNOT IMPOSE A CIVIL DUTY OF CARE: CLAIMANT FAILS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION
In Lewin v Gray [2023] EWHC 112 (KB) HHJ Robinson (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) decided the issue of liability against the claimant. The case involved questions relating to the duty of care and the impact of…
MULTIPLE INJURIES AND TARIFF CASES: ASSESSING DAMAGES – A PRIMER
Following the judgment on Friday in Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 19 there is now a clear cut approach to assessing damages where a claimant’s injuries include damages for matters not within the whiplash tariff. Here…
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY: WHIPLASH TARIFF INJURIES AND COMMON LAW DAMAGES: HOW SHOULD THE COURT DEAL WITH “MIXED” CLAIMS?
In the judgment today in Hassam & Anor v Rabot & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 19 the Court of Appeal (by a majority view) decided that the Civil Liability Act 2018 did not impact on the assessment of damages for…
COST BITES 45: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION THAT CASE INVOLVING A CHILD BE BUDGETED: ACCEPTS CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS – BUT NOT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED
In CXS v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 14 (KB) Master Cook considered issues relating to costs in a case concerning a child where the matter is unlikely to be resolved for many years. The Master rejected…
UNDERSTANDING FATAL ACCIDENT LAW: A SERIES OF FIVE WEBINARS THIS YEAR
Together with solicitor Hilary Wetherell we are presenting a series of five seminars on fatal accident law and litigation. These take you through seeing the client for the first time, understanding the law relating to fatal claims, preparing a Schedule,…
QOCS PROTECTION APPLIED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE CLAIM WAS AMENDED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 3244 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne held that an action could not become subject to QOCS part way through. If the claim was a personal injury claim at trial then…
CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
I am grateful to Daniel Slade from Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Soole in AAA -v- BBB [2022] EWHC 3103 (KB). It is a case where the claimant was successful in appealing…
PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Taylor & Anor v Raspin [2022] EWCA Civ 1613 emphasises the difficulty in appealing findings of fact. The Court also took a little time to point out the limited role of experts in…
“THERE IS NO PORTAL FOR LOW VALUE PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS”: FIXED COSTS DID NOT APPLY
I am grateful to Paul Balen for sending me a case report of a product liability case he was involved in. The judge found that a product liability case is not required to be lodged in the portal. This had…
COST BITES 35: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT SUCCESS FEES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: 20% REDUCED TO 15% BY COSTS JUDGE
The judgment of Costs Judge Brown in MNO v HKC & Anor [2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO) considers the question of an appropriate success fee between solicitor and client in a personal injury case. The judge did not accept the argument…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 94: CLAIMANTS – DO NOT SHOW APPROVAL ADVICES TO THE DEFENDANT
An issue I have seen periodically, but twice this week, is a belief by some claimant solicitors that an advice obtained for the purpose of approval of a civil action for a protected party has to be shown to the…
BOOK REVIEW: GUIDE TO ACCIDENTS AT WORK: BRETT DIXON: ESSENTIAL READING
Brett Dixon’s book is essential reading for all those involved in litigation relating to accidents at work. Much has happened since the previous edition in 2008 and this book deals with all the essential elements a litigator involved in this…
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL IN BELSNER -V- CAM: DECISION CAN BE FOUND HERE
The Court of Appeal have allowed the appeal in Belsner -v- Cam Legal Services. The judgment [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 can be found here. I will conduct a detailed analysis of the decision in the near future. Here are the…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHERE 3% OF THE CLAIMED DAMAGES ARE AWARDED THE WHOLE CLAIM IS DEFINITELY TAINTED
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). The judgment recounts the history and detail of the legislation and principles governing fundamental dishonesty before applying them to the facts…
RECENT CASES ON LOSS OF EARNINGS: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 21st NOVEMBER 2022
I am presenting a webinar “Recent Cases on Loss of Earnings: What you need to know” on the 21st November. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar looks at recent cases in relation to loss of earnings and…
PROVING THINGS 240: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
There are many edicts warning against reliance upon judgments that concern permission to appeal. However the judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Harrison v TUI UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2557 (KB) is of interest in the “Proving Things” series and…
COST BITES 24: DEFENDANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL AGAINST PART 7 COSTS IN CASE THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT THE PORTAL
I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bird in Lally -v- Butler (27th September 2022). The defendant successfully appealed an order that they were responsible for Part 7 costs rather…
PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIAL PROBLEMS WHEN REPRESENTING FOREIGN DEFENDANTS: WITNESSES COULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE BY VIDEO LINK: AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION OF A REPORT HAD BEEN PROVIDED
The judgment of HHJ Howells in Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2436 (QB) shows the difficulties that can occur when representing foreign defendants. The defendant was not permitted to allow witnesses to give video evidence from abroad. …
A CLAIMANT NOT CLAIMING A CONTRIBUTION FROM THEIR PARTNER FOR HOUSING COSTS HAS NOT UNREASONABLY FAILED TO MITIGATE THEIR LOSS
An interesting point as to damages (and also as to evidence and pleadings) arose in the judgment in Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 (KB). The claimant required accommodation as a result of his injuries. The…
PROVING THINGS 239: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH TO LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN A CLAIMANT IS DISABLED
We are looking again at at the judgment of David Allan KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 (KB). This time in relation to the claim for future loss…
PROVING THINGS 238: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON LIFE EXPECTANCY LEADS TO A PREDICTABLE RESULT
There are several reasons I want to look at the judgment of David Allan KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 (KB). The first reason relates to the…
AVOIDING UNDER-SETTLEMENT: A GUIDE FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS: WEBINAR 20th SEPTEMBER 2022
A webinar on “avoiding undersettlement” for personal injury lawyers is being held on the 20th September 2022. Booking details are available here. “We go back through your claim in fine detail and if we find that your previous solicitor…
COURT REFUSES TO GRANT RESTRICTIONS ON CLAIMANT’S ACCESS TO FORMER SOLICITOR’S FILE: NOT A CASE OF LIEN ON ME
In Ellis v John Hodge Solicitors (a firm) [2022] EWHC 2284 (Comm) His Honour Judge Pearce refused to place any restrictions on the disclosure of a litigation file to the claimant. The claimant was bringing an action alleging professional negligence…
COURT AWARDS CLAIMANT DAMAGES FOR HARASSMENT: FORTHCOMING WEBINAR ON THE LAW OF HARASSMENT AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER
In Thomas Hodson Hodson Developments Ltd v Person Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1960 (QB) Mr Justice Jay awarded damages in a case where he found that the defendants had harassed the claimant. An award was made for general damages…
THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH
There is one very tricky area of limitation law that I wanted to return to following the judgment in Coote -v- Ullstein [2022] EWHC 606 (QB). The case was looked at in detail here. However I want to concentrate on the…
PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: THE IMPORTANCE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: WEBINAR 9th SEPTEMBER 2022
This webinar looks at recent cases in relation to periodical payments and provisional damages and considers their practical implications for personal injury practitioners. Booking details are available here. WEBINAR CONTENTS Cases to be considered include: The decision in Mathieu v…
THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON CAN BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY WHEN THERE IS A PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Power v Bernard Hastie & Company Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1927 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson held that the estate of a claimant who had obtained a provisional damages order can take advantage of that order. The order was…
TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES … AND YOU’RE OUT
NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. SEE THE LATER POST ON THE DECISION HERE. In Abbott & 3,499 Ors v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB) Master Davison rejected the claimant’s arguments that it was permissible…
FIXED COSTS OUSTED WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE COSTS ARE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A DETAILED ASSESSMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In the judgment today in Doyle -v- M&D Foundations & Building Services Limited [2022] EWCA CIV 927 the Court of Appeal found that it was possible for parties to contract out of the fixed costs provisions of the protocols. THE…
NINE YEARS ON III: 2015: WITNESS STATEMENTS – WHO SAYS YOU’LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS
My, highly personal, selection of posts from each year moves on to 2015. Here we look at a blog post from February 2015 about the decision in Woodland and Maxwell. This is a case that was subject to much interlocutory…
NINE YEARS ON 1: SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THE IMPECUNIOUS AND UNINSURED DEFENDANT?
People were very kind about the 9th anniversary of the blog. I have decided to extend the celebrations slightly by taking a post from each of the nine years. This was the second ever post on the 25th June 2013. …
THE REDUCTION OF A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S COSTS BECAUSE OF CONDUCT: RELEVANT CALDERBANK OFFERS CONSIDERED: RECOVERABLE COSTS REDUCED BY 15% AND 60%
In Mathieu v Hinds & Anor (No. 2: Costs) [2022] EWHC 1624 (QB) Mrs Justice Hill reduced a claimant’s recoverable costs. An initial 10% reduction was made because of the pursuit of a claim for provisional damages which was not…
“SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” AND FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WE’LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT BUT WE DON’T SEE IT HERE: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO IMPOSE USUAL PENALTIES OVERTURNED ON APPEAL
In Woodger v Hallas [2022] EWHC 1561 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision of the Circuit Judge that the usual principles of a finding of fundamental dishonesty should not apply to the claimant. The judgment involves a consideration…
INTERIM PAYMENTS AND THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: CLAIMANT OBTAINS PAYMENT DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CONCERNS
In Salwin v Shahed [2022] EWHC 1440 (QB) HHJ Pearce considered the appropriate sum to be paid to the claimant by way of interim payment. This case shows a very careful consideration of the “Eeles” criteria and the factors the…
THE COMPENSATION RECOVERY UNIT, LISTED AND UNLISTED BENEFITS
I gave a webinar earlier today in relation to deductions from damages. One of the issues considered was the problems caused by Universal Credit. There is an important distinction, in law, between “listed” benefits – which are subject to CRU…
TEMPORARY HALT TO USE OF CLAIMS PORTAL: PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT BY A TWEET… THESE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES WILL NOT LONGER COME INTO EFFECT ON 2ND JUNE 2022
Practice Direction 51ZB was amended so that it would be compulsory for defendants to use the portal from the 2nd June 2022. However this has been delayed. A tweet from HM Courts and Tribunal Services made at 1.33 today…
AN INSURANCE PREMIUM WAS PROPERLY INCURRED: JUDGE, ON APPEAL, ALLOWS ATE COSTS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM CHILD’S DAMAGES
I am grateful to Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of a judgment of X -v- H&M Hennes, made by HHJ Lethem on 21st April 2022. It relates to the recoverability of an insurance premium between solicitor and client. …
DEDUCTIONS FROM PERSONAL INJURIES DAMAGES AND CURRENT ISSUES WITH CRU: WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2022
This webinar looks at issues relating to deductions from damages, it will also cover recent issues relating to mitigation of loss. Booking details are available here. TOPICS TO BE COVERED Non-CRU benefits and deduction from damages What is the…
IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
I have come across several examples recently of the CCMCC refusing to issue claim forms on the basis that proceedings should have been issued online using the Damages Claim Pilot. In every case the papers have been returned wrongfully, the…
JUDGE REFUSES TO STRIKE OUT ACTION ON THE BASIS OF “ILLEGALITY”: THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT CAPABLE OF COMMITTING “CRIMINAL” ACTS
For the second time today I am writing about a case where the court has refused to strike out a statement of case. In Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham…
THE THIRD PARTY (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) ACT 2010 AND THE DATE OF “ACTIONABLE DAMAGE”: COURT REFUSES TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIMANT’S CASE
In the judgment today in Brooks v Zurich Insurance Public Ltd Co & Anor [2022] EWHC 1170 (QB) Master Davison refused an application to strike out an action against insurers under the provisions of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers)…
PROVING THINGS 232: “THE RULES OF THE GAME OF ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL HAVE NOT BEEN DRAFTED WITH CIVIL LIABILITY IN MIND”: APPEAL LEADS TO OVERTURNING OF JUDGMENT ON FOOTBALLER’S NEGLIGENCE: A REMATCH IS ORDERED
In Fulham Football Club v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB) Mr Justice Lane allowed an appeal in a case where a footballer had found to be negligent when tackling an opponent. The judgment considers the issue of liability in the…
PROVING THINGS 231: ASSESSING LOSS OF EARNINGS OF AN ARTIST: THE WIDE PALETTE OF APPROACHES THE COURT CAN TAKE
There are many cases where the courts have had to consider the loss of earnings of a claimant whose career pattern, and thus earnings, are not wholly certain. Often these relate to those working in sports or entertainment. In Mathieu…
WHAT DO YOU DO IF THE DEFENDANT MAKES AN EARLY PART 36 OFFER? WEBINAR 8th JULY 2022
In the recent case of MRA -v- The Educational Fellowships Ltd [2022] EWHC 1069 (QB) it was held that the claimant had to face the usual Part 36 consequences when a Part 36 offer was accepted late. The fact that there…
PART 36: JUDGES SHOULD NOT LET THEIR HEARTS RULE THEIR HEADS: CLAIMANT ACCEPTING AN OFFER LATE FACES FULL COSTS CONSEQUENCES THAT FLOW
In the judgment in MRA -v- The Education Fellowship Limited [2022] EWHC 1069 (QB). Master McCloud held that it was not unjust for the usual principles in relation to costs to apply following a claimant’s late acceptance of a defendant’s…
COURT OF APPEAL ALLOW APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER STRIKING OUT AN ACTION: A CASE WITH “A NUMBER OF EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES”, NOT LEAST THAT THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE WAS UNRELIABLE
In Storey v British Telecommunications Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 616 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order striking out an personal injury action. The court was fairly critical about the evidence that had been placed before it…
PROVING THINGS 229: WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN A CLAIMANT SEEKS DAMAGES GROSS OF TAXATION
We are returning for the second, but not the last, time to the judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Mathieu v Hinds & Anor [2022] EWHC 924 (QB). The judge awarded an injured claimant damages for loss of earnings gross of tax. …
You must be logged in to post a comment.