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. …
PROVING THINGS 228: PLEADING AND PROVING MITIGATION OF LOSS: THE NEED FOR A DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH A “CONCRETE CASE”
The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Mathieu v Hinds & Anor [2022] EWHC 924 (QB) is interesting for a large number of reasons. Here we look at the judgment in relation to pleading and proving mitigation of loss. “A…
WHEN A WITNESS GIVES DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS IN DIFFERENT STATEMENTS IT RARELY HELPS THEIR CASE: JUDGE FINDS IT “UNIMPRESSIVE”
In Parry v Johnson & Anor (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 889 (QB) Mr Justice Ritchie considered the evidence of the defendant driver in a road traffic case. The defendant’s different accounts on different occasions did not help his cause. The judge…
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED IN GROUP LITIGATION ORDER
In Baker & Ors v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft & Ors (VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation) [2022] EWHC 810 (QB) Senior Master Fontaine refused the applicants’ application for relief from sanctions in relation to their inclusion in a register for a Group…
COURT ALLOWS CLAIMANT’S APPEAL AGAINST FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE ISSUES AND MADE ITS CASE CLEAR
In Jenkinson v Robertson [2022] EWHC 756 (Admin) Mr Justice Choudhury set aside a trial judge’s finding of fundamental dishonesty on the part of a claimant. This is a judgment that highlights the need for defendants to give clear notice…
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING AND CIVIL LIABILITY: JUDGES KNOW, YOU KNOW: “A CONCLUSION I REACH WITHOUT ENTHUSIASM BUT THE EVIDENCE IS COMPELLING”
In HRA v KGC [2022] EWHC 650 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the question of liability. It is an example of a phone record playing a part in the decision that the defendant was negligent. The judge found that the…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS OF THE SELF-EMPLOYED AND THOSE INVOLVED IN ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORT: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2022
There are 5 million self-employed people in the United Kingdom making up 15.5% of the workforce. A self-employed person (including directors of small companies) face particular difficulties when seeking to recover loss of earnings after being injured. Similarly those who…
THE COURTS WILL RARELY DETERMINE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
In Stannard -v- Euro Garages Ltd [2022] EW Misc 3 (CC) HHJ Walden-Smith dismissed the defendant’s application that the issue of alleged fundamental dishonesty be heard as a preliminary issue and the action struck out. The judge held it was…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: LEARNING FROM RECENT CASES: WEBINAR 7th MARCH 2022
The “Proving Things” series on this blog often looks at cases relating to loss of income. Recent cases on this topic are explored in a webinar on the 7th March 2022: Claims for Loss of Earnings: Learning from Recent Cases,…
Children and liability: Law, practice and procedure: WEBINAR 22nd FEBRUARY 2022
This webinar looks at the law and practice relating to children as claimants and defendants. It also looks at those cases where allegations are made against those who had care of the children and vicarious liability for the acts of…
THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED
I am grateful to barrister Kriti Upadhyay for sending me copies of the judgment of Mrs Justice Foster in Greyson -v- Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB), a copy of which is available here Greyson v Fuller – HC Judgment 3-2-22…
CHANGES TO THE HIGHWAY CODE: WHERE TO FIND THEM AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO LAWYERS (APART FROM THE FACT THAT LAWYERS, WALK, DRIVE AND RIDE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE?)
The Highway Code is changing on the 29th January 2022. This has some relevance to lawyers. Here we look at the importance of the Highway Code, the significant changes, with links as to where to find the new rules and…
PROVING THINGS 223: PROVING A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM (£1,206,053 TO BE EXACT)
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) awarded a claimant £1,206,053) in loss of earnings. The judge found that the approach in Smith -v- Manchester was not an…
A CLAIMANT IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN THEY DON’T PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT ASKED FOR: JUDGMENT FOR £1,679,406 IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
In Palmer v Mantas & Anor [2022] EWHC 90 (QB) Anthony Metzer QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) rejected an argument that a claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. Judgment was entered for £1,679.406 instead of a finding of…
LIMITATION, SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: A FAIR TRIAL WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND CLAIMANTS’ ACTION DISMISSED
The previous post looked at the decision in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) in relation to the issue of vicarious liability. However it is important to note that the claimants did not succeed in…
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND SEXUAL ABUSE: THIS IS NOT A TEST OF INTUTION, BUT ONE THAT IS TIGHTLY CONTROLLED
The judgment of Mr Justice Johnson in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) makes for difficult reading. The judge pays tribute to the remarkable men who brought the action, all of whom had been…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: 10 MATTERS THAT WILL INCREASE THE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS
Here I want to look at some practical matters which can help a party seeking relief from sanctions. This is guidance on the most prudent steps to take but it should be made clear that there are no easy options….
WHEN A CLAIMANT RELIES ON EXPERT EVIDENCE TO PROVE LIABILITY: THE (NOT SO) SLIPPERY SLOPE TO FAILURE
I am grateful to barrister Frederick Simpson for sending me his note of a decision where the claimant relied heavily on expert evidence in order to establish their claim. There were weaknesses in the report which contributed to the claimant’s…
INSOLVENCY FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS: WEBINAR 16th DECEMBER 2021
On the 16th December 2021 I am presenting a webinar “Insolvency for Personal Injury Lawyers”. In addition to the issues relating to personal insolvency the webinar will look at the latest cases in relation to third party rights against insurers…
PROVING THINGS 220: ANOTHER CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY NOT ESTABLISHED
In Long v Elegant Resorts Ltd [2021] EWHC 1330 (QB) HHJ Pearce, sitting as a judge of the High Court, did not accept the defendant’s contention that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. The defendant was relying on a factor…
PROVING THINGS 219: FAILING TO PROVE ALLEGATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY
In Mathewson v Crump & Anor [2020] EWHC 3167 (QB) Dan Squires QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) did not accept the defendants’ submissions that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in pursuing a personal injury claim. THE…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE RECENT CASES AND THEIR PRACTICAL RELEVANCE: WEBINAR 9th DECEMBER 2021
On the 9th December 2021 I am giving a webinar on contributory negligence. This looks at recent cases where contributory negligence has been considered in the courts and the practical lessons that litigators can learn from this. Booking details available…
MODERN SLAVERY AND THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURER: COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT INSURERS ARE LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY “EMPLOYERS” IN MODERN SLAVERY CASE
In the decision today in Komives & Anor v Hick Lane Bedding Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 3139 (QB) Mrs Justice May refused the claimants’ appeal on the issue of whether an insurer was entitled to avoid an employer’s liability…
THE NEED FOR A CLAIMANT TO PROVE INJURY: WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
The earlier post on proving causation highlights the matters that claimants need to prove when bringing a claim for damages. One essential element is that a claimant needs to prove damages. One case that shows a clear illustration of this…
PROVING THINGS 218: THE NEED TO PROVE CAUSATION IN ADDITION TO BREACH OF DUTY
The Court of Appeal judgment in Cunningham v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1719 highlights the need to prove issues of causation in addition to breach of duty. THE CASE The claimant is a teacher who was attacked…
PROVING DAMAGES: WEBINAR 25th NOVEMBER 2021
At the moment there are 217 individual posts in the “Proving Things” series on this blog. Many, if not most, of the posts relate to a failure by a party to prove a crucial piece of their case at trial….
THE INTOXICATED PASSENGER AND ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1698 the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a claimant could be contributory negligent even when drunk. However it is important that the facts of this case are looked…
You must be logged in to post a comment.