PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE: A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE
Many cases rest on the credibility of witnesses. A detailed examination can be found in the judgment of HH Judge Saggerson (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Hibberd-Little v Carlton [2018] EWHC 1787 (QB). There are issues here in relation…
PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN
Yesterday I looked at Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB) and the comments from the judge in relation to the joint statement of experts. The case also contains interesting observations in relation to proving damages. These are observations on matters…
A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIM DISMISSED – SOCIAL MEDIA AND FACEBOOK PLAY A PART…
In Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671 (QB) HHJ Coe (sitting as a judge of the High Court) found a claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. It is another example of how the courts can look at social media to come…
INSURANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDSTERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 the Court of Appeal held that an insurance company was entitled to exemplary damages against parties who had attempted to defraud it. “the present case…
PROVING THINGS 110: ASSESSING DAMAGES: “BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES”: PROVING AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
In Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm) [2018] EWCA Civ 1299 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that the claimant had not established causation for damages in a professional negligence action. When assessing damages the court should begin…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
In Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) the defendant was successful in appealing on the grounds that the trial judge should have made more robust findings from the lack of credibility on the part of the claimants. There…
PROVING THINGS 101:A RECAP – THE FIRST 100 POSTS : WHEN BASIC MATTERS ARE JUST NOT PROVEN
When I started this series I never anticipated it would run to 100 posts. Up until last week I had planned to stop after 100. However the Leeds Legal Walk served, inadvertently, as a feedback session for this blog. Since…
PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…
Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. The post provides a link to the judgment itself. The judgment is another example of a…
SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 4th JULY 2018: YOU WON’T HAVE FAR TO TRAVEL
Following on from the recent post on drafting schedules and Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) I am presenting a webinar on schedules of damages on the 4th July 2018, looking at these issues in more detail,…
PROVING THINGS 89: AN APPROACH THAT IS JUST DANGEROUS: ABDICATION OF THE LAWYER’S ROLE TO AN EXPERT
This is the third post today on Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB). The case demonstrates an approach to a claim for damages that is simply dangerous: asserting a claim for damages where there is no adequate evidence…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE
If there is anything that suffers from being taken for granted it is the basic schedule and counter-schedule. This is demonstrated in the judgment available today in Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip. The appeal…
DEFENDANT FAILS TO OBTAIN FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED: A BADLY THOUGHT OUT AND POORLY DRAFTED SCHEDULE
In Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip refused the defendant’s appeal in a case where it was argued that the trial judge should have made a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The claimant had not…
PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
The case of Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210 is one that needs to be read with great care. A defendant who made a voluntary interim payment after making a Part 36 offer. The effect of this was…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: INACCURATE STATEMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS DISHONEST: NO “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE”
One of the many complex issues that Mrs Justice Cockerill considered in Razumas v Ministry of Justice [2018] EWHC 215 (QB) today was the question of fundamental dishonesty. The claimant gave a misleading account of medical treatment. He was found to…
PART 36: THE UNCERTAIN PROGNOSIS AND THE CLAIMANT’S CONUNDRUM: FIVE POINTS TO THINK ABOUT
The earlier post on the Court of Appeal decision in Briggs -v- CEF Holdings Ltd [2017] EWCA 2363 (Civ) gives rise to a conundrum that claimants (and sometimes defendants) have to address. How do you advise a client when a Part 36…
PROVING THINGS: IF YOU LIKE THE BLOGS – THEN WATCH THE MOVIE…
The Webinar I did last week called “Proving things: if you don’t prove it, then you don’t get it” is now available for purchase online. TOPICS COVERED Topics covered include: “If you don’t prove it you don’t get it” Witness…
ACCEPT A PART 36 OFFER LATE AND PAY THE CONSEQUENCES: LITIGATION CAN BE A HARSH WORLD
I have been waiting for a while to see the transcript of the Court of Appeal decision in Briggs -v- CEF Holdings Ltd [2017] EWCA 2363 (Civ), some people have even written enquiring whether I have covered it. It is a…
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…
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 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…
SOME FEEDBACK – WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM
Feedback from readers is rare. I received a letter today which the author has given be permission to reproduce. Just a quick note of thanks. I’m an LIP, having been involved in litigation as defendant for the last 3…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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 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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.