Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

9 St John Street Buildings (Chambers of Charles Garside QC)

9 St John Street Buildings (Chambers of Charles Garside QC)

Brian McCluggage argues for a greater focus on trial preparation in motor fraud cases

This short article developed out of a presentation at the 2017 Personal Injury Bar Association conference at Oxford. There are no esoteric questions of law raised within. The focus is rather upon evidential and tactical techniques for getting a case best prepared for trial through ensuring that the litigator is ‘trial-minded’. The context of the article is motor cases in which fraud is alleged. Motor fraud cases comprised a substantial part of my practice over a period of about 15 years to 2013. Over the 200 or so trials conducted in this line of work, it was extraordinary to see the same mistakes and poor practices applied time and time again. While my experience is rooted in acting for insurers, much of the analysis below is of as much if not more relevance to claimant representatives.

Taylor v Bell indicates that the court has unfettered discretion to vary periodic payments under the Inheritance Act 1975. Richard Selwyn Sharpe discusses

Taylor v Bell [2015] is the first reported decision on an application to vary a consent order for periodical payments under s6 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The application was contested by the executors for the estate, who succeeded in a damage limitation exercise reducing the applicants’ claim for increased periodical payments from over £90,000 to £21,500.