CHILD PEDESTRIAN WAS NOT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENT: HIGH COURT DECISION
In A (a minor) by her litigation friend FA -v- Akram [2021] EWHC 2467 (QB), 2021 WL 04111024 HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court judge) rejected an argument that a nine year old child had been contributory negligent. It…
SECTION 33 CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: TRIAL JUDGE WAS CORRECT TO EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION
In Blackpool Football Club Ltd v DSN [2021] EWCA Civ 1352 the Court of Appeal considered, and upheld, a decision on Section 33 where the discretion was exercised in favour of the claimant. This was in the context, however, of…
PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT AFTER EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL SETTLEMENT NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE DEFENDANT HAS GOT WHAT IT SIGNED UP TO…
In Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd [2021] EWHC 2418 (QB) Master Dagnall rejected an argument that personal injury proceedings, brought after employment proceedings had been settled, were an abuse of process. The settlement agreement had specifically stated that it…
CLAIMANT WHO FAILED TO USE THE PORTAL WAS UNREASONABLE AND HAS TO FACE THE MUSIC: FIXED COSTS APPLY
I am grateful to Gemma Blackburn from DWF Law for bringing my attention to the judgment of Costs Judge Haworth in Harford v Music Store Professional UK/DV247 Ltd [2021] EWHC B17 (Costs). “I am satisfied that in this case…
JUDGE ENTITLED TO FIND A CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISHONEST: IT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO SOLICITOR RATHER THAN THE “HAPLESS CLIENT”
In Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd (t/a Rainbow) [2021] EWHC 2318 (QB) Mrs Justice Stacey refused the defendant’s appeal in a case where the trial judge had found the claimant not to be fundamentally dishonest. The claimant…
LIMITATION, THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: THE SINS OF THE LAWYER CANNOT NECESSARILY BE PASSED ONTO THE CLIENT
The judgment of Richard Hermer QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Wilkins v University Hospital North Midlands NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 2164 (QB) deals with several important elements of limitation in the context of clinical negligence. Firstly the…
DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY THE COSTS OF DISPUTES OVER WHO SHOULD BE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND
In HR v Aneurin Bevan University Local Health Board [2021] EWHC 2195 (Admin) Mrs Justice Foster rejected an argument that the defendant should be liable to pay the costs incurred when there was a dispute in relation to the identity…
DEALING WITH THE COUNTER-SCHEDULE AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th JULY 2021
This webinar looks at the legal principles and arguments that can be used to reduce claims for personal injury damages. It is being held on the 16th July 2021 (and available as an on-demand recording to the 16th January 2022). …
INTERIM PAYMENTS, ACCOMMODATION AND THE “EELES” CRITERIA: HIGH COURT ORDERS AND INTERIM PAYMENT OF £500,000
In AL v Collingwood Insurance & Ors [2021] EWHC 1761 (QB) Mr Justice Robin Knowles allowed a claimant’s application for a further interim payment of £500,000 to secure accommodation for a brain injured child. The case contains an important discussion…
WEBINAR ON PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: 8th JULY 2021
On the 8th July 2021 I am presenting a webinar on Periodical Payments and Provisional Damages. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR This webinar looks at the law, practice and procedure relating to provisional damages and periodical payments…
WEBINAR ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: ACCOMMODATION AND APPLIANCE CLAIMS: 30th JUNE 2021
On the 30th June 2021 I am presenting a webinar on accommodation and appliance claims. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR Claims for accommodation and appliances are a major part of many serious claims. Here we look at the…
CARE CLAIMS IN PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 25th JUNE 2021
On the 25th June 2021 I am presenting a webinar on Care Claims in personal injury actions. Booking details are available here. This webinar looks at claims for care, the law underpinning care and assistance claims, looking at practical…
DEDUCTION OF LEGAL FEES FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: SOLICITORS SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL
The decision of Mr Justice Lavender in SGI Legal LLP v Karatysz [2021] EWHC 1608 (QB) is part of the long, and continuing, battle relating to the deduction of legal fees by solicitors from claimant’s damages. In this case the…
LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: WEBINAR 18th JUNE 2021
On the 18th June 2021 I am presenting a webinar on loss of earnings claims. The material includes a client questionnaire in relation to loss of earnings and income. Booking details are available here. TOPICS COVERED BY THE…
AWARDS FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: NO GREATER AMOUNT IF YOU ARE RICH: A BLAST FROM THE PAST (64 YEARS TO BE PRECISE)
Often this blog covers judgments on the day they were made. Today, however, we are going back 64 years to 1957 looking at the case of Dunhill -v- Lumby reported on the 1st February 1957 in the Times. WHY THIS…
MORE ON MULTIPLE INJURIES, THE TARIFF AND TEST CASES
Official Injuries Claims have issued a release explaining the approach to test cases and multiple injuries. This explains the collaborative approach being adopted to find test cases in claims where the injuries fall inside and outside the tariff scheme. “neither…
MULTIPLE INJURIES AND THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2018: CROSS-SECTOR WORKING GROUP WORKING ON IT
An earlier post dealt with the issues relating to multiple injuries in personal injury cases where a claimant suffered multiple injuries and some of those injuries are subject to the statutory tariff scheme whilst others are not. This is clearly…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A CLAIM FOR SEXUAL ABUSE: DISCRETION EXERCISED WHEN PROCEEDINGS ISSUED 15 YEARS OUTSIDE THE LIMITATION PERIOD
In AB v Chethams School of Music [2021] EWHC 1419 (QB) Mr Justice Fordham provides a comprehensive review of the principles the court considers when hearing an application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, particularly in the context…
DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING: WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2021
A post yesterday highlighted the uncertainties and complexities in relation to awards for pain and suffering where a claimant suffered multiple injuries some inside and some outside the statutory tariff scheme. This highlights the need for lawyers to understand precisely…
HOW MUCH IS AN ARM AND A NECK? THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING IN MULTIPLE INJURY CASES AFTER THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2018
The “whiplash” element of Civil Liability Act 2018 comes into force on the 31st May 2021. This introduces fixed tariff sums for damages for pain and suffering in certain road traffic claims where there has been a “whiplash” injury. A…
CLAIMANT WAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN A DEFENDANT EXPLORE “PERIPHERAL” MATTERS WHEN MAKING ASSERTIONS OF DISHONESTY?
In Long v Elegant Resorts Ltd [2021] EWHC 1330 (QB)HHJ Pearce (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered, and rejected, an argument that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest. In fact the claimant beat his own Part 36…
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN “MODERN SLAVERY” CASES: EXEMPLARY AND OTHER DAMAGES CONSIDERED
In Balogh & Ors v Hick Lane Bedding Ltd [2021] EWHC 1140 (QB) Master Davison assessed damages for three claimants who were the victims of “modern slavery”. The judgment contains a helpful encapsulation of the principles involved together with three…
A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: SOCIAL MEDIA, SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE AND INACCURATE STATEMENTS LEAD TO CLAIMANT LOSING £44,890
I am grateful to Aled Morris from Horwich Farrely for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Beard in Anderson -v- Porch (14th January 2021), a copy of which is available here OT APPROVED HORWICH, F38YJ633, ANDERSON, PORCH,…
A SCHEME SETTING UP COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS IS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE
There are many procedural issues considered in the judgment of TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2021] EWHC 1179 (QB). Here I want to look at one – whether the trial judge should be informed of the…
DOES A CLAIM FOR A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC LIABILITY CLAIMS? A JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE
I am grateful to solicitor Gareth Edwards from Mooneerams, solicitors, for providing me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Vernon, sitting at Cardiff 17th March 2021, in the case of X (a Minor) -v- MPL Home & Senza…
INTERIM PAYMENTS AND THE TWO STAGE TEST IN EELES: THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
In PAL (A Child) v Davison & Ors [2021] EWHC 1108 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip considered an interim payment in the case of a seriously injured child and awarded a further interim payment of £2 million in order that suitable…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IN PURSUING A LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIM: “IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER PSYCHIC POWERS EXIST”
I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Backhouse in Amdur -v- Krylov (13/04/21) a copy of which is available here E14YJ570 Amdur v Krylov final 13.4.21 (1). The judge…
SECTION 33 DISCRETION CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIM
In SKX v Manchester City Council [2021] EWHC 782 (QB) Mr Justice Cavanagh considered the exercise of the discretion under Section 33 in the context of a claim for sexual abuse. The context was somewhat unusual in that the judge…
PERSONAL INJURY COSTS 2021: WATCH THE “SAINT AND GREAVSIE” OF THE COSTS BAR
My colleagues Craig Ralph and Andrew Hogan have delivered a webinar “Personal Injury Costs 2021” which is now available on the Kings Chambers website. THE WEBINAR The webinar takes you through the hot topics relating to personal injury costs. …
LIMITATION AND EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS: CLAIMANT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE & ACTION ISSUED WITHIN TIME
In Balls v Reeve & Anor [2021] EWHC 751 (QB) David Pittaway QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) found that the claimant’s date of knowledge was not more than three years prior to issue. THE CASE…
WEBINAR SERIES ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: STARTING JUNE 2021
In June this year I am presenting a series of six webinars which deal with major aspects of a claim for damages for personal injury. This series goes through each major element of a claim for damages, looking at…
PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
I am grateful to Martin McKenna from Aegis solicitors for sending me a copy of the judgment of DDJ Morgan MBE in Johnson -v- National Platforms Ltd (a copy of which is available here Johnson v Nationwide Platforms Limited (Final))….
PROVING THINGS 194: PROVING CAUSATION IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE
The judgment of Mrs Justice Foster in Norfolk County Council v Durrant [2020] EWHC 3590 (QB) illustrates how it is essential for a claimant to prove causation in a case based on negligence. It also highlights the need to consider,…
THE MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS AN EMANATION OF THE STATE AND LIABLE TO MAKE PAYMENT TO A PASSENGER
In Colley v Shuker & Ors [2020] EWHC 3433 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman held that the MIB was directly liable to compensate an injured passenger in circumstances where the passenger knew that a driver was not insured. THE CASE The…
PROVING THINGS 192: WHEN A WITNESS GIVES EVIDENCE OF MATTERS THAT TOOK PLACE 50 YEARS AGO: HOW THE JUDGE WEIGHS THE EVIDENCE
In Pinnegar v Kellogg International Corporation & Anor [2020] EWHC 3431 (QB) HHJ Platts (sitting as a High Court judge) considered the weight to be given to evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years previously. It shows that…
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…
INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO AVOID EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY POLICY: A RESULT THAT IS “DEFECTIVE AND UNFAIR”
The judgment of Master Davison in Komives v Hick Lane Bedding Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 3288 (QB) highlights an area of law which, as the Master stated, is “defective an unfair”- an insurer was entitled to avoid an employer’s…
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,…
WHY AN EXPERT WITNESS MUST EXAMINE THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: WHY MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NORMALLY THE KEY
There are several short passages in the judgment of HHJ Baucher in Ali v The Home Office [2020] EW Misc 27 (CC) which emphasises the need for expert witnesses to consider the objective evidence before reporting. It also shows the…
PROVING THINGS 188: PROVING A WARNING WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE: PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CRICKET BALL LOSES CASE ON APPEAL
In Lewis v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3205 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart overturned a decision in favour of claimant who had been struck by a cricket ball whilst walking near a cricket pitch. “… the defendant was…
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…
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…
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…
WHEN A LITIGANT SEEKS TO DEFEND A CLAIM AT ALL COSTS: A HIGHWAY TO HELL: WHY, IN LITIGATION, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES
The judgment of HHJ Mithani QC in Colar v Highways England Company Ltd [2019] EW Misc 17 (CC) has recently arrived on BAILLI. It provides an illustration of the danger of defending a claim “at all costs”. The judge was…
THE SOLICITOR’S FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CLIENT TO EXPLAIN COSTS: FAILURE TO PLACE CAP ON SUCCESS FEE MEANT AGREEMENT WAS UNENFORCEABLE: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2755 (QB) Mr Justice Lavender allowed an appeal whereby a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a claimant were permitted to deduct 25% of the damages in addition to payment…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.