Case Commentaries
FRANK BAKER v TATE & LYLE PLC (2012)
In circumstances where the claimant had been exposed to asbestos when sent to work in the defendant's sugar factory by his employers, the court held that the defendant owed a duty as occupier not to expose the claimant to asbestos under the Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 reg.1 and the Factories Act 1961 s.29(1).
Read full commentary
AC v. Devon CC [2013] EWCA Civ 418
The eagerly awaited decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of AC v Devon (reported as Devon CC v. TR) was handed down on 30th April 2013.
On 28th November 2006 a serious road traffic accident occurred on a winding and hilly country road leading from the A30 Honiton by-pass up into the Blackdown Hills in Devon. AC was a passenger in a Land Rover being driven by TR. Whilst overtaking a slower moving vehicle TR lost control of his Land Rover, resulting in it crossing the road and crashing into a ditch and trees on the nearside of the road.
Read full commentary
Laurie Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193
SUMMARY
The Claimant, who had been living with her partner for c. six months when he was fatally injured, was unable to make a claim for dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (as amended) (“the FAA”) since she did not meet the requirement under s.1(3)(b) of the FAA of having cohabited with her partner for at least two years at the date of his death. But for this two-year requirement, she would have qualified as a dependant under the FAA and had a dependency claim for c. £400,000.
The Claimant sought a declaration under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that s. 1(3)(b) of the FAA was incompatible with her rights under Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
Her claim was dismissed at first instance and she appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls giving the leading judgement held that the two-year requirement under s.1(3)(b) of the FAA was a proportionate way of pursuing the legitimate aim of confining the right to recover damages for loss of dependency to those who had “relationships of some degree of permanence and dependence with the deceased”. There was therefore no incompatibility between s.1(3)(b) of the FAA and the Claimant’s rights under Articles 14 and 8 of the ECHR.
Read full commentary
Thames Water Utilities Limited v. Transport for London [2013] EWHC 187 (Admin)
This interesting case examines the traffic management obligations of statutory undertakers and their contractors performing works under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 ('the 1991 Act'). It also clarifies the powers of prosecution of the relevant local authority under the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 ('the 2007 Regulations').
Read full commentary
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, dec’d and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25 (Toulson LJ, Beatson LJ, Longmore LJ)
Nigel Lewers was instructed as junior counsel on behalf of the insurers, NIG, in this claim arising out of extensive fire damage to the Milton Keynes recycling centre. The Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to proof of causation where there are multiple possible causes.
Introduction
Where there are a number of possible causes of an event there is no rule of law to the effect that the probable cause is the one which is the least unlikely. In order for the burden of proof to be discharged the court must be satisfied, on rational and objective grounds, that the suggested explanation is probably true. The elimination of more implausible explanations may help the court to reach such a conclusion, but the exercise is first and alone one of fact; there is no rule of law that the court is obliged to find the remaining cause the probable one.
Read full commentary
Paramasivan v Wicks
Nigel Lewers wins Court of Appeal case on behalf of defendant in road traffic accident - 23 January 2013
Summary
Nigel Lewers has won an appeal against a decision that a driver was 50 per cent liable for a road traffic accident in which the 13 year-old claimant had run in front of his vehicle while he was driving at 25 miles per hour. The trial judge's view that the driver should have been travelling at only 15 mph was unrealistic and a counsel of perfection. The appropriate liability for the driver was 25 per cent.
Read full commentary
Case of Eweida and Others –v- The United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) handed down its decision in the case of Eweida & Others –v- The United Kingdom on 15 January 2013. Some have called this a ‘landmark’ decision for manifestation of religious beliefs; making it more difficult for employers to unreasonably restrict or prohibit openly showing your religious beliefs at work. But if one were to look behind the PR and publicity, it will become clear that, in fact, the decision actually gives employers a greater degree of control in some respects than may originally have been appreciated.
Read full commentary
Drabble v Hughes [2013] EWHC 77 QB
Marcus Dignum successfully defends dentist in oral cancer case.
Facts
The Claimant (D) sought damages from the Defendant (H) for an alleged failure to urgently refer her to hospital for oncological investigations as a result of changes in the appearance of a white patch in her mouth.
Read full commentary
Case Report: Harries v Stevenson [2012] EWHC 3447
1. In Harries v Stevenson, a Claimant tried and failed to escape from the arguably unjust effects that the 2.5% discount rate creates in the current economic climate. The case provides guidance on preliminary issue hearings and confirms that the approach of the Court of Appeal in Warriner v Warriner [2002] 1 WLR 1703 and Cooke v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 251 to Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 remains good law despite the amendment of the Damages Act by the Courts Act 2003. Warriner v Warriner, the first case to consider section 1(2), and Cooke v United Bristol Healthcare both involved an application by C to call expert evidence as to the appropriate discount rate. The Court of Appeal held in both that it was not appropriate to take account of a different discount rate or to call this evidence. Dyson LJ in Warriner set the test to be applied by the Court when considering Section 1(2).
Read full commentary
Dr Taha Aldeen v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust , Exeter CC (24th October 2012).
In a consultant’s claim against his hospital trust for damages for stress at work arising from the circumstances of his suspension from duty, the court had to consider not only whether the Trust had breached the duty of care owed to him in tort, but also the position in contract; specifically, whether the provisions of the Trust’s own disciplinary and capability procedures were properly incorporated as express terms into the claimant’s contract of employment, or, alternatively, subject to an over-arching implied term that the Trust, as employer, would act in good faith; and whether, on the latter analysis, there had been a failure to adhere to the procedure, which could amount to strong evidence of a material breach.
Read full commentary
Limitation in Personal Injury Cases - Knowing when the Section 33 exception to Limitation will apply
Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides courts with the discretionary power in personal injury cases to exclude the normal time limit of three years from the date of the accident, or from the Claimant’s date of knowledge, in which to bring a claim. Section 33 requires the court to balance the prejudice to the Claimant and Defendant against all circumstances and a checklist of factors before deciding whether to apply or exclude the three year time limit.
Read full commentary
Bringing Proceedings in Time - Andrew Roy, 12 King's Bench Walk
Introduction
It is a truth almost universally acknowledge amongst personal injury practitioners that to avoid a potential limitation defence proceedings must be brought with the relevant period (in most cases 3 years from the date of the accrual of the cause of action or date of knowledge, whichever is later).
This has always been a slightly tricky area, but strong anecdotal evidence suggests that it is causing increasing angst as court resources become more stretched and bulk issue centres and the like become more frequent. The days of being able to walk up to the counter of the local court and have the claim form issued there and then are long gone in most areas.
This (relatively) short and (hopefully) practical article deals with the mechanics of bringing proceedings in time from a given starting date (questions of date of knowledge under s14 Limitation Act 1980 are to beyond its scope). There are two elements to this:
(1) What must be done to bring proceedings.
(2) When it must be done by.
Whilst this article is written more with claimant practitioners in mind (they being the ones charged with bringing proceedings), by parity of reasoning the points made will apply equally to defendant practitioners to enable them to identify when they are likely to be on good grounds contending that a claim is time barred.
Read full commentary
THE DUTY OF FIDELITY AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES – THEIR INCIDENCE AND LIMITS?
1. The relationship between employer and employee does not generally give rise to fiduciary obligations, but the modern employment setting poses a number of challenges to that assumption. Take for example the non-statutory director – a senior manager, not a board director but who enjoys significant responsibility and accountability - is he/she subject to the obligations of loyalty and good faith imposed on a fiduciary, or merely the implied contractual duty of fidelity (to which all employees are subject)?
Read full commentary
Hussain –v- Hussain and Aviva UK Insurance Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1367
The Claimant’s claim for damages was dismissed at first instance. The Defendant’s insurers, Aviva, had defended on the basis that the claim was fraudulent. Aviva put the Claimant to proof that the collision had occurred at all and alleged that any accident so proved was a staged collision, arranged between the Claimant and the First Defendant. In reaching a conclusion as to whether the Claimant was party to the fraud, the trial judge felt that the incident would only “make economic sense if the two are in concert”. On the balance of probabilities, he concluded that it was established that the Claimant was party to the attempted fraud. The Claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had “gone too far” in using the fact that the Claimant had not reported the matter to his GP until 10 days after the accident as providing “a sufficient basis for holding that the Claimant’s evidence was not credible in all material respects for justifying the drawing of an inference that he had been knowingly party to an attempted fraud by way of a staged collision”. The matters identified by the trial Judge “… were not sufficiently cogent to justify an inference of fraudulent complicity on the part of the claimant in a staged collision”. The appeal was allowed.
Read full commentary
Loizou v Gordon (Senior Courts Costs Office) 21 August 2012
Summary
In an assessment of costs payable to a successful party’s solicitors acting under a CFA in a case where Part 45 of the CPR also applied (fixed percentage increase in road traffic accident claims), the court held that the contested hearing had commenced even before evidence was heard or submissions made on the contested issue(s), thereby entitling the successful party’s solicitors to a 100 per cent success fee if the case settled, as it did, at that stage.
Read full commentary
The Vicarious Liability of non-employees
In JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938, the Court of appeal, by a majority of 2 - 1 (Ward and Davis LJJ in the majority, Tomlinson LJ dissenting), held that a diocese may bear vicarious liability for torts committed by a priest appointed by the bishop of the diocese. The court examined various indicators which may cumulatively indicate that a vicarious liability exists. Its decision goes to the very foundations of the policy and principle behind the doctrine of vicarious liability, and will have an impact on relationships far beyond the Church.
Read full commentary
CXX v DXX (2012)
[2012] EWHC 1535 (QB) - QBD (Spencer J) 01/06/2012 - CIVIL PROCEDURE
Counsel for the Claimant: Richard Davison.
Case comments
More often than not, criminal convictions feature in civil pleadings seeking to establish negligence in road traffic claims. The factual issues that led to the criminal conviction may or may not closely follow those relevant to allegations in common law negligence. Sometimes they might overlap very substantially. Either way, it is unusual for the criminal conviction to feature as a substantial challenge in the civil claim.
But what if the defendant does seek to challenge that conviction? And what if the claimant contends that the criminal conviction is so significantly relevant that it has to eclipse any defence in the subsequent civil proceedings? Can it be argued that defence is an abuse of process? Even if not, should it at least entitle the claimant to summary judgment?
These questions were addressed in this High Court appeal against a Master’s decision striking out paragraphs in a defence that contested convictions as pleaded by the claimant. The Master had also granted summary judgment.
The facts of the case were colourful. The defendant, a consultant physician, had been convicted of two counts of attempting to administer poison to the claimant, a medical secretary, with intent to procure a miscarriage. He had been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
Read full commentary
Scott v Symons (2012)
CA (Civ Div) - Lord Neuberger (MR), Moses LJ, Rimer LJ - 19.06.2012
A judge had been entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that a motorcyclist was responsible for the road traffic accident in which he was injured by riding his motorcycle onto the wrong side of the road.
Read full commentary
Committal for Contempt
The importance of contempt proceedings in PI actions cannot be ignored by both Claimant and Defendant practitioners. We have recently witnessed a number of cases that are shedding some light on the possible sentences the Court will impose on those found guilty of contempt, and upon the correct forum that any applications for such proceedings should be made.
Read full commentary
Coles v Hetherton [2012] EWHC 1599 (Comm)
This was the High Court determination of the RSA litigation, also colloquially known as the “BIC” litigation. The facts are these: the claimants are drivers insured by RSA and the defendants are the tortfeasors who caused damage to the claimants’ vehicles in road traffic accidents.
Read full commentary
AXN & Ors v Worboys [2012] EWHC 1730 (QB)
In the recent case of Worboys the High Court was asked to determine whether the Claimants, all victims of a sexual assault by the Defendant taxi driver, could recover damages from the Defendant’s insurer pursuant to s151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Read full commentary
Goldsmith v Patchcott [2012] EWCA Civ 183
1. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Goldsmith v Patchcott provides both Claimant and Defendant practitioners with further guidance on the application of the Animals Act 1971. In particular, it assists in applying the section 5(2) defence, defining the extent of that defence; additionally it reviews the history and application of section 2(2) of the Act.
Read full commentary
(1) NIGEL DAVID STANGROOM (2) EQUITY RED STAR LTD v VALERIE ANN BROWN (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER NOEL BROWN, DECEASED) (2012)
A judge had been wrong to find that a tractor driver had any liability for an accident in which a motorcyclist travelling at high speed collided with his tractor and trailer while he was pulling slowly out of a lay-by.
Read full commentary
Cape PLC v Chandler[2012] EWCA Civ 525
Between April 1959 and February 1962 the Claimant was employed manufacturing Asbestolux by a company known as Cape Building Products Ltd (a subsidiary of Cape PLC). During the course of his work he was exposed to asbestos dust which was produced during the manufacture.
In 2007 the Claimant discovered that he had contracted asbestosis as a consequence of that exposure. His exposure had been caused by negligence and breach of statutory duty on the part of Cape Products. Unfortunately for the Claimant Cape Products had long since ceased to exist. Further, during the period of the Claimant's employment Cape Products had no policy of insurance which would indemnify it against claims for damages for asbestosis. However Cape Products’ parent Company, Cape PLC, was still trading.
The Claimant submitted that he had a cause of action against the Defendant (Cape PLC) on the basis that at all material times (i.e. during the period of his employment with the employer) the Defendant owed to him a duty of care and that the Defendant was in breach of that duty. In effect, the Claimant asserted that Cape Products and the Defendant were joint tortfeasors who were jointly and severally liable to pay him damages.
Read full commentary
DIONNE ARMSTRONG (BY HER MOTHER & LITIGATION FRIEND KAREN ARMSTRONG) v (1) KEEPMOAT HOMES LTD (2) NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (3) BLYTH VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL (2012)
QBD (Newcastle) (Simon Wood HHJ) 03/02/2012
NEGLIGENCE - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - PERSONAL INJURY
BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LIABILITIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT : NEGLIGENCE : OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY : LAWFUL VISITOR ON LOCAL AUTHORITY LAND : WHETHER DUTY OWED UNDER OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT 1957 : OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT 1957
A local authority was not liable either under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, or at common law, for injuries caused to a child who had crossed a dual carriageway by accessing it from local authority land through a gap in a fence.
Read full commentary
Maynard v. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council - [2011] EWCA Civ 1694
On 28th August 2006 the Claimant fell on a grass verge located outside her home in Platt Bridge, Wigan. She suffered very modest injuries to her foot. She eventually brought a claim for personal injuries and loss against the Defendant, alleging that her fall was caused by a breach of Section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Read full commentary
Motto –v- Trafigura
The Court of Appeal decision in Motto & Ors v Trafigura Ltd and Anor handed down on October 12 grabbed headlines for the figure of £104,707,772.72 as a bill of costs. Proportionality and the level of the success fee were two items for the Court to consider. One of the other items, less eye-catching in itself, has important implications for lawyers and legal businesses moving forward: it is described in the judgment as the “cost of funding.”
Read full commentary
Weight-Watchers UK Ltd v HMRC
The decision of the Supreme Court in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & ors [2011] IRLR 820 was widely heralded as bringing to an end the era in which the courts were prepared to judge the status of a workman according to the terms of a contract drafted by an army of lawyers and which had been crafted so as to deny him as many of the rights afforded by Parliament to all workmen as possible.
Read full commentary
London Borough of Brent –v- Finch (UKEAT/0418/11/ZT)
Ed Kemp appeared on behalf of the successful appellant
Facts
The Claimant was a long standing secretarial assistant at a special needs school. She was dismissed for misconduct for three reasons all concerned with financial mismanagement. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The Claimant did not allege that the reasons given to her for her dismissal were a pretext for dismissal on the grounds of dishonesty; neither did she suggest more generally that the reasons given were not the real reason for her dismissal. Nevertheless the Employment Tribunal sitting at Watford found that the reasons relied upon by the employer were not the real reasons for her dismissal and that the Claimant was in fact being accused of dishonesty. An allegation of dishonesty had never been put to the Claimant, and the extensive investigation by the Respondents into the Claimants misconduct had not considered dishonesty. The Employment Tribunal found the Claimant to be an honest witness, and that she had not dishonesty misappropriated any monies. It followed that they upheld her complaint of unfair dismissal.
Read full commentary
Committal for Contempt in PI Claims: The Correct Forum and Likely Sentences
The importance of contempt proceedings in PI actions cannot be ignored by both Claimant and Defendant practitioners. We have recently witnessed a number of cases that are shedding some light on the possible sentences the Court will impose on those found guilty of contempt, and upon the correct forum that any applications for such proceedings should be made.
Read full commentary
Charnock and Ors v Rowan and Ors - December 2011
Facts
This was a personal injury claim brought by ten claimants arising out of a road traffic accident on 30 June 2007. They had been in a stationary bus which had been struck by the First Defendant. There were two limbs to the defence to the claim: firstly, that it was unlikely that all of the Claimants had suffered such similar injury from a very minor jolt and secondly that the Claimants’ accounts were so internally consistent that none were worthy of belief. HHJ Gore QC at first instance found that the expert opinion was such to allow the possibility that injury could occur at the speed in the index accident and that was not challenged on appeal. The point of the appeal was in respect of the second limb of the defence.
Much of the defence took the form at trial of cross examining the Claimants on what they had said to the examining doctor as compared to what they were telling the court. The medical reports containing those hearsay comments made at the time of examination were part of the agreed trial bundle. HHJ Gore QC in his judgment said that the defence been properly conducted, formal notice would have been given of the Defendants’ intention to rely on that hearsay. As such, those issues of inconsistency were only raised in cross examination and the Claimants had not had the opportunity to cross-examine the examining doctor. As such he said that he would take into account the fact that those issues had only been put in cross examination and were based on hearsay evidence that had been put in place without the proper formality. He said accordingly that the weight to be attached to those matters would be significantly undermined.
He then made a finding as to each and every Claimant, none of whose evidence he was persuaded was undermined by the inconsistency.
The Defendants appealed on the basis that there was no procedural defect in the presentation of their case and the judge was therefore wrong to attenuate the value of the evidence of inconsistency.
Read full commentary
Vasant Pattni v First Leicester Buses Limited & Darren Bent v Highways And Utilties Construction Limited & Allianz Insurance
In these conjoined appeals the Court of Appeal was asked again to consider the law and clarify it in relation to the proper approach to Credit Hire Claims specifically interest on hire charges and the appropriate approach to determining the basic hire rate (BHR) formerly known as “spot rate”. LJ Aiken's gave the decision of the court in both.
Read full commentary
Fernquest v City and County of Swansea
The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 2nd December 2011 in a case where at trial a local authority had been found to owe a duty to warn “park and ride” bus passengers that there was ice close to one of the bus stops. The decision was overturned, as the Court of Appeal considered that there was no justification for such a duty and it would add a considerable burden to those operating buses. Tim Petts from 12KBW represented Swansea Council on their successful appeal.
Read full commentary
Barts and the London NHS Trust v Verma
[2011] EWCA Civ 1129 Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Rix LJ, Rimer LJ, Elias LJ
Mr. Edward Kemp was Junior Counsel for the Respondent
12th October 2011
Read full commentary
Dawkins v Carnival PLC (T/AS P & 0 Cruises) [2011] EWCA Civ 1237
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Pills LJ, Moore-Bick LJ and Aikens LJ
Mr Andrew Roy for the Appellant.
11 October 2011
Read full commentary
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group [2011] EWCA Civ 669
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Master of the Rolls, Smith LJ and Elias LJ
9 March 2011
Read full commentary
Dimopoulos v Valakis [2011] ALL ER (D) 172 Oct
QBD – 20/10/2011
Bean J
Adam Chambers (instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon) for the Claimant.
Read full commentary
Brighton & Hove Bus & Coach Company Limited v S Brooks, M Tadrous & N Tadrous
Citation: [2011] EWHC 2504 (Admin) - In the High Court (QBD Division) heard by Richards LJ and HHJ Davies in July 2011, with judgment handed down on 14th October 2011
William Featherby QC of 12KBW for the Claimant.
Andrew Hogarth QC of 12KBW for the Defendants.
At a glance: A claim for contempt of court made against three defendants in relation to representations and statements made in support of a personal injury claim by a member of their family. The representations and statements were markedly contradicted by surveillance evidence of the injured family member.
Read full commentary
Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 860
Catherine Brown of 12 KBW was junior counsel for Plymouth City Council in their successful appeal on the issue of liability in a case under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
Read full commentary
Aktas v Adepta, Dixie v British Polythene Ltd, Court of Appeal, 22/10/2010
These conjoined appeals are in effect a sequel to Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27, [2007] 1 A.C. 307, wherein the House of Lords reversed its previous decision in Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd [1979] 1 W.L.R. 606.
Read full commentary
Motor Insurers’ Bureau v. Shikell and others (Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds).
William Featherby QC has successfully completed the prosecution for contempt of court of two individuals who conspired to defraud the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of over £1.2m in a personal injury claim. Two men were sentenced to twelve months imprisonment each, and third man was fined £750 for signing a false witness statement without reading it.
Read full commentary
Churchill Insurance Company Limited v Benjamin Wilkinson (by his father and litigation friend Steven Wilkinson) [2010] EWCA Civ 556
Court of Appeal Master of the Rolls, Waller and Wall, LJJ. On Appeal from Manchester District Registry (QBD), Blair J. Stephen Worthington QC for the Appellant Defendant
Read full commentary
Martin Raymond Owens v Mark Noble [2010] EWCA Civ 224
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ, Smith LJ and Elias LJ Andrew Hogarth QC and Catherine Peck appeared for Martin Owens (the Appellant)
Read full commentary
Mc Donnell & Anr v David Walker (Executor of the Estate of Richard Walker, deceased) [2009] EWCA Civ 1257
Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On appeal from the decision of Deputy Circuit Judge Morgan in the Manchester County Court Frank Burton QC and Paul Russell appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendants. Judgment was given on 24 November 2007
Read full commentary
Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81
Court of Appeal Ward, Hallett and Hughes, LJJ On Appeal from Queen’s Bench Division, Cox J Frank Burton QC for the Respondent, Mr Stanton
Read full commentary
Greene Wood & McLean v. Templeton Insurance [2009] EWCA Civ 65 (CA)
Service out of jurisdiction – CPR r.6.20(5)(c); contract – implied terms
Read full commentary
Alexis v Newham London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 1323 (QB)
No liability for a local authority where a pupil laces a teacher's drink with board cleaner. For a full case commentary see below.
Read full commentary
Huntley v Simmonds [2009] EWHC 406 (QB)
Read full commentary
Toropdar v D [2009] EWHC 567 (QB)
Read full commentary
Beddoes and others v Vintners Defence Systems and others (2009) Newcastle CC, Unreported, HHJ Walton
Read full commentary
Watson v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
Read full commentary
Kirk V Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB)
Read full commentary
Perry & Perry v Harris (a minor) [2008] EWCA Civ 907
Read full commentary
Shortell v BICAL Construction Ltd
Read full commentary
Conner v Bradman - Application of Ogden 6th Edition
Read full commentary
Ley v. Devon County Council - Sounding the Retreat on Gulliksen?
Read full commentary
Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd; Topping v Benchtown Ltd; Grieves v F T Everard & Sons
Read full commentary
Nicola Adedeji v. Corporation of London
Read full commentary
Welsh v Stokes
Read full commentary
Conn v Sunderland City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1492
Read full commentary
Ellis v Bristol City Council – a slippery decision?
Read full commentary
Deadman v Bristol City Council 31st July 2007
Read full commentary
Michael Smale v (1) Steven Ball (2) Motor Insurers Bureau
Read full commentary
Robb v Salamis - Foreseeing the unforeseeable
The House of Lords considers PUWER. 12 February 2006
Read full commentary
Jennifer Arden v. Anthony Malcolm [2007] EWHC 404 (QB)
Read full commentary
Phillip Cattlin t/a Success First v Jodie Croxford Employment Appeal Tribunal, UKEAT/0231/06.
Read full commentary
Flora v Wakom, periodical payments and indexation: the story continues?
Further High Court decisions. 23 November 2006
Read full commentary
Thomas v The Home Office: Agreeing extensions of time for service of a claim form - how not to do it
A salutory Court of Appeal case. 8 November 2006
Read full commentary
Compensation for victims of uninsured or unidentifiable users of motor vehicles
Updated version of the PIBA document which gives a detailed account of the system for compensating victims of uninsured or unidentifiable drivers. Please click here to read the article.
Toth v Jarman - Experts and conflicts of interest
Further guidance on best practice from the Court of Appeal. 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Clark v Bowlt - The Animals Act claims another judicial victim
The Court of Appeal revisits these difficult provisions. 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Miller v Hales, QBE International Insurance and MIB - Policemen, employees, and getting into a car
This case offers an instructive analysis of difficult points within the Road Traffic Act 1988. 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd: Indexation of periodical payments - is the RPI the only method?
The Court of Appeal takes an early look at the new law. 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Shinedean v Alldown Demolition & AXA: Failing to co-operate with insurers within a reasonable period - does prejudice matter?
An important decision defining insurers' iability to indemnify in respect of claims of which they were not informed . 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Hughes v Carratu International plc: Enquiry agents and the wrong side of the law
A cautionary highlighting the limits of legitimate investigation. 6th September 2006
Read full commentary
Barker v Corus: Dividing the Indivisible
Consideration of the House of Lords judgment on the apportionment of mesothelioma claims post-Fairchild. 14 June 2006
Read full commentary
Crofton v NHSLA - The No Loss Defence for Care
A further instructive case on the controversial area of the effect of local authority care provision. 5th March 2006
Read full commentary
Denton Hall Legal Services & Ors v Fifield - Inconsistent Statements in Medical Records; False Alarm or Timely Reminder.
The judgment of Lord Justice Buxton in this case has thrown doubt upon the correctness of the manner in which medical records are currently used at trial.
Read full commentary
Corr v IBC Vehicles: Compensating for suicide in PI claims
The Court of Appeal considers this vexed and controversial issue. 8 May 2006
Read full commentary
Jennifer Brown v Ministry of Defence - Calculating your chances: the percentages game in assessing damages
The Court of Appeal provides important guidance to the assessment of loss of earnings. 16 May 2006
Read full commentary
R v HTM: Criminal liability for Accidents at Work
Discussion of the important Court of Appeal ruling issues of foreseeability and employee blame in Health & Safety Prosecutions. 23 May 2006
Read full commentary
Kearsley v Klarfeld - Low Impact Collisions; PI Controversy Du Jour
The Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to pleadings and procedure in these claims and set the stage for a cohort of test cases. 3rd Februray 2006
Read full commentary
Trespassers Will Be ... Disappointed - Maloney v Torfaen CBC, Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
Two important Court of Appeal decisions on occupiers' liability. 15th February 2006
Read full commentary
Aer Lingus v Gildacroft - Time Limits For Contribution Proceedings
In this extremely important case the Court of Appeal handed down definitive criteria for when a cause of action accrues under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. 24th January 2006
Read full commentary
Glass v Surrendran - Serve or Be Damned
In this salutory case the Court of Appeal confirmed and empahsised how little leeway claimants have when they fail to serve the claim form in time. 24th Januray 2006
Read full commentary
Sowerby v Charlton: Admit in Haste, Repent at Leisure
The Court of Appeal provides an important ruling on the issue of resiling from admissions. 21st January 2006
Read full commentary
Johnstone v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust - Stress Revisited - UPDATED
A case that usefully considers the entire spectrum of issues commonly arising in stress at work claims. 13th January 2006 This case commentary has been updated following the decision of the Court of Appeal on 22nd March 2006 to refuse the Claimant's application for permission to appeal.
Read full commentary
Viasystems (Tyneside) Limited v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Limited & Others - Double Indemnity
A landmark decision on vicarious liability. 20th December 2005
Read full commentary
Donaldson v Hays Distribution Services Limited - The Limits of Regulation
An important Scottish case on Health & Safety Regulation. 1st November 2005
Read full commentary
YM v Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust - Periodical Payments and NHS Foundation Trusts
An important high court case under the new regime. 28th October 2005
Read full commentary
McGlinn v Walter Contractors - Recovery of Pre-Action Costs
A helpful High Court decision on when costs can be recovered if a Claimant does not litigate in respect of his allegations. 4th October 2004
Read full commentary
James v Butler: Love thy neighbour - but let him do his own DIY
The Court of Appeal overturned a trial judges findings in this instructive case of household negligence. 28th September 2005
Read full commentary
Wright v Sullivan - He who pays the piper doesn’t call the tune
A set-back for insurers as the Court of Appeal rules that Defendants can have little input into a care regime that they pay for. 29th July 2005
Read full commentary
Aer Lingus plc v Gildacroft Ltd & Sentinal Lifts Ltd - Limitation in Contribution Proceedings
High Court decision on the very important point of when a cause of action accrues under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. 15th July 2005
Read full commentary
KU v Liverpool CC - Judicial Imposition of 2-Stage CFA Uplifts
The Court of Appeal decided that the Court's powers did not extend to imposing a two-stage uplift when the solicitor and client had not agreed one. 5th June 2005
Read full commentary
Hajigeorgiou v Vasiliou - Disclosure of Unwanted Expert Reports
The Court of Appeal revisits the vexed issue of privilege and expert shopping. 28th April 2005
Read full commentary
Dudarec v Andrews: Mitigation and the Requirement to Undergo Medical Treatment
A professional negligence case illustrating the thorny problem of the effect of refusal to undergo recommended surgery on quantum in a personal injuries action. 1st April 2004
Read full commentary
Maguire v Harlaand & Woolf - Liability for Indirect Asbestos Exposure
In this instructive case the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judges finding that it ws foreseeable that a wife was at risk from her husband's exposure to asbsestos. 4th March 2005
Read full commentary
Brown v Drake International - The Indemnity Maze
In this case the Court of Appeal restricted the scope of an indemnity between an employer and a sub-contractor in respect of a personal injuries claim, whilst simultaneously suggesting a broad approach to such clauses generally. 3rd February 2005
Read full commentary
Keeley v Pashen - Bad News For Motor Insurers
The Court of Appeal in this case interpreted a motor policy very strongly against the insurer. 5th January 2005
Read full commentary
Crouch v King - Defendants
The Court of Appeal considered what the effect should be when a defendant made an offer to settle that was not backed by a payment into Court. 25th November 2004
Read full commentary
Chester v Afshar - Liability for Failure to Warn of Medical Risks
A landmark House of Lords decision on clinical negligence. 27th Ocotober 2004
Read full commentary
Jackson v Marley Davenport - Privilege and the Expert Witness
The Court of Appeal in this case addressed whether an expert’s report previous to the one served was protected by legal professional privilege. 26th October 2004
Read full commentary
Blackham v Entrefose - Accrued Interest and Part 36 Payments
In this case the Court of Appeal gave important guidance as to how interest should figure in deciding whether a payment into court was bettered. 29th September 2004
Read full commentary
Richardson v Howie - No Aggravation: the Compensatory Nature of Damages for Assault
In this case the Court of Appeal held that damages in civil claims for assault and similar torts should, save in the most exceptional case, be purely compensatory with no additional award for aggravated damages. 7th September 2004
Read full commentary
Eagle v Chambers: The cost of investment advice - is it recoverable?
In Eagle v Chambers the Court of Appeal has given helpful clarification as to the recoverability of the fees of financial advisers, a matter that was previously the subject of conflicting first instance decisions. 9th August 2004
Read full commentary
Dunnachie, Eastwood and McCabe: Dismissal, injury and the death of Johnson
In these landmark cases the the House of Lords ruled out the possibility of the Employment Tribunals awarding damages for psychiatric injury or injury to feelings consequential to dismissal, but allowed civil claims to proceed where the psychiatric injury had been caused by events leading up to dismissal. 22nd July 2004
Read full commentary
Blake v Galloway: Liability for Horseplay
In Blake the Court of Appeal dealt with tricky issues of negligence, battery and consent in the contex of when childrens' games go wrong.
30th June 2004
Read full commentary
Stevens v Blaenau : The effect of previous complaints from tenants on a local authority's liability in negligence
In this case the Court of Appeal held that a tennant's complaint that her flat did not possess window locks did not impose on the local authority landlord a duty of care so as to render them liable for personal injuries when the tennant's child fell from a window. 24th June 2004
Read full commentary
Page v Plymouth Hospitals - Recovering Investment Costs
In this case Davies J held that the cost of future investment advice was not recoverable. 9th June 2004
Read full commentary
Smiths Dock v Edwards: Asbestos and Uplifts
In this case the Court allowed a 87% uplift in a mesothelioma claim. 3rd June 2004
Read full commentary
Hastroodi v Hancock: A tough approach towards the extension of time for service of claim forms under CPR 7.6
In Hastroodi the Court of Appeal made clear the drastic consequences of a failure to properly serve a claim form withing the required period. 2nd June 2004
Read full commentary
Perotti v Collyer Bristow - Restraining the Vexatious Litigant
In Perotti the Court of Appeal delivered a salutory decision illustrating the principles applicable to obtaining an order to restrain a vexatious litigant. 2nd June 2004
Read full commentary