Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Crown Office Chambers

Crown Office Chambers

In the first of two articles, Suzanne Chalmers and Jack Macaulay explore the current law relating to claimants’ illegality and dishonesty

A ‘petard’ was a small bomb, used in the 16th century to blow up gates and walls. ‘Hoisted’ also bears a historical meaning – to be blown up. So, if you are hoisted by your own petard you are blown up by your own bomb; injured by the device that you sought to use to injure others. This expression is thus apposite to describe the consequences which may follow from a claimant’s illegal or dishonest conduct. There are two related issues to consider: what happens where the claimant’s illegal or criminal conduct forms part of the underlying facts which give rise to the claim, and the effect of the claimant’s criminal conduct or dishonesty when advancing claims.

Christopher Kennedy QC considers the principles behind the notion of ‘full compensation’ in cases involving serious personal injury and how they have been applied

The phrase ‘restitutio in integrum’ means restoration to its original condition. It encapsulates the principle of how damages should be assessed, as articulated over 130 years ago by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880),

Peter Houghton considers the consequences of implementing The Jackson Report’s recommendation

Unlike the assessment of damages for loss of future earnings, which has been bedevilled by the publication of Ogden 6 and 7, the task of valuing general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA damages) – a staple for all personal injury practitioners – has continued undisturbed since Heil v Rankin [2000]. In Simmons v Castle [2012], the Court of Appeal announced an important change to the exercise, of which all PI lawyers should be aware. From 1 April 2013 onwards the proper level of PSLA damages will be 10% higher than previously.

Simon Brown considers the liability of ATE insurers to a successful defendant

Can ATE and other legal expenses insurers be ordered to pay the costs of successful defendants?