AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 2: HOW DO YOU MISS THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD?
This series looks at avoiding negligence claims in litigation, personal injury litigation in particular. The easiest (and most common) method of a negligence claim is missing the limitation period. How does anyone miss a three year limitation period? The basic…
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: LAW, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE: PROVE IT OR LOSE IT: WEBINAR 10th SEPTEMBER 2019
I am giving a webinar on the 10th September 2019: “CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: LAW, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE: PROVE IT OR LOSE IT!” CONTENT The webinar will cover: The law as to loss of earnings How a claim for…
THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITOR IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: IDEAS TAKEN FROM THE SECRET BARRISTER
There was a tweet yesterday from someone (a non-lawyer) asserting that personal injury lawyers did not need to know the law. His purpose, I suspect, was to lead on to an argument that the work could be done by someone…
BREACH OF REGULATIONS IS IPSO FACTO NEGLIGENT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON s.69 OF THE ERRA
I am grateful to Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the judgment of HH Gore QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Tonkins -v- Tapp (7th December 2018). The judgment deals with the issue of the relevance…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 24: THE BANKRUPT CLAIMANT (PERSONAL INJURY LITIGANTS IN PARTICULAR)
I am writing this primarily because of a conversation I had with a law graduate who thought the term “bankruptcy” was a generic term to cover anyone who was hard up. The very basic point about what bankruptcy is, and…
NOT TELLING THE CLAIMANT THE AMOUNT OF HIS DAMAGES: JUDICIAL APPROVAL OBTAINED
In EXB v FDZ & Ors [2018] EWHC 3456 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett had to consider the approach of the court when it was felt to in the claimant’s best interests not to be told of the size of his award…
LIMITATION: COURT DOES NOT EXERCISE SECTION 33 IN CASE CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE: A CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE PUT ON THE SHELF
This is the second post of the day on Section 33. In Murray v Devenish & Ors (Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) [2018] EWHC 1895 (QB) the claimant was not successful. Mr Justice Nicol held that the claimant’s delay…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 8: MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION
This was a series in 2017. Looking at common “myths” or misconceptions in relation to limitation issues, particularly in personal injury cases. MYTHUSTING 1 The limitation period for a personal injury action based on breach of contract is…
“NOTHING SHORT OF A RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY CAN AMOUNT TO A PERSONAL INJURY”: SECTION 33 CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS SUFFERED “FEAR”
The judgment of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB) (24 May 2018) considers the question of what is an “injury” for the purpose of Section 33 of the Limitation Act…
BOOK REVIEW: AN INTRODUCTION TO PERSONAL INJURY LAW
I reviewed David Boyle’s book on expert evidence earlier in the year. He has presumably decided to forego all forms of social interaction and has now written a general introduction to Personal Injury. The book places some emphasis on the…
REVISITING COMPLIANCE WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER AFTER TRIAL: LIES ARE FOUND OUT AND ACTION DISMISSED
I am grateful to Jeff Turton of Weightmans for sending me a copy of the transcript in the case of Anward -v- Severn Trent Water Ltd (13th July 2015). Abid Anwar – Full Judgment It raises an interesting and important point…
LIMITATION AND THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: WHAT IS MEANT BY "SIGNIFICANT"?
In Summers -v- The City and County of Cardiff [2015] EWHC 3066 (QB) Mr Justice Hickinbottom considered what was meant by “significant” in s.14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. “The test for “significance” of injury is one of quantum alone,…
THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SECTION 33: A CASE THAT CLINICAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS PROBABLY NEED TO READ
In Rayner -v- Wolferstans & Medway NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 2957 (QB) Mr Justice Wilkie carried out a comprehensive review of the law relating to date of knowledge and Section 33 of the Limitation Action 1980. It also touches…
BANKRUPTCY AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGANT: 10 KEY POINTS
The post about Eatons -v- Mitchells & Butler PLC led to some interesting discussions and raises some important issues. The claimant had been made bankrupt after he was injured. His lawyers overlooked this, issued proceedings, succeeded in a trial on…
SETTING OFF INTEREST AGAINST AN INTERIM PAYMENT: A HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Manna -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 2279 (QB) is a veritable goldmine for anyone who writes about civil procedure or personal injury damages. One of the, many, issues…
DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SECTION 33 IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASES: A HIGH COURT DECISION
In A -v- The Trustees of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [2015] EWHC 1722 (QB) Mr Justice Globe considered the issue of the date of knowledge under s.14 of the Limitation Act 1980 and also stated that, had it…
COSTS AFTER VARIATION OF A PART 36 OFFER TO BE LESS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE RECIPIENT: BURRETT -v- MENCAP CONSIDERED
The decision of District Judge Ackroyd in Burreett -v- Mencap Ltd (14th May 2014) was reported on Lawtel earlier this week and is available on Bailli. It contains an important lesson to both defendants and claimants as to costs when…
SECTION 33 AND “LONG TAIL CLAIMS”: CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE AND RELEVANCE OF DELAY BETWEEN THE BREACH AND THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE
In Collins -v- Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 717 the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate legal test for the date of knowledge and exercise of the section 33 discretion when an…
LIMITATION: THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST: BACK TO THE FUTURE AT WORK
This is the second “essential checklist” compiled at a recent course held by Zenith Chambers. In this workshop practitioners (primarily solicitors), of all levels and type of experience, were asked to produce checklists for the “danger” areas of practice….
TEN MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR SHOULD KNOW.
There are a surprising number of “myths” that prevail in personal injury litigation. In particular in relation to limitation. Here, as part of the “avoiding negligence” series we look at 10 of these myths. Myth 1: In a breach of…
INTERIM PAYMENTS AND THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CLAIMANT: SOMEWHERE TO LIVE OR DOWN AT EELES?
Cases and principles relating to interim payments and accommodation in catastrophic injury cases are considered. Prior to the decision in Cobham Hire Services –v- Eeles [2009] EWCA Civ 204 it was a relatively simple matter to obtain a substantial interim…
You must be logged in to post a comment.