Mon06262017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Paul Jones examines a case where a successful defendant paid costs due to delayed disclosure

One of the most frequently raised issues in relation to costs is the conduct of the parties. This is not surprising given that both CPR 44.2 (court’s discretion as to costs) and CPR 44.4 (factors to be taken into account in deciding the amount of costs) expressly confirm that conduct is one of the issues the court must consider when making any costs order or assessment. Commonly, however, arguments over conduct descend into accusation and counter accusation between the parties which ultimately results in the court concluding that it was six of one and half a dozen of the other and declining to make any specific order on the issue. However, there are occasions where conduct can have a significant effect on the outcome of a costs dispute and the recent case of Chapman v Tameside Hospital NHS Trust [2016] provides a good illustration of this and a cautionary tale.

Steven Conway explains the recent decision in Katie Cruz v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2016] and why it hopefully signals the dawn of a new age for workplace claims

With the passing of s69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA), limitation will soon expire for most pre-Act cases, removing strict liability for breach of statutory duty.

Asbestosis; asbestos exposure; liability; actionable damage

The Court of Appeal decided that a defendant was liable to compensate a claimant for a 2.3% contribution to his asbestosis in Carder v The University of Exeter [2016].

Selena Plowden discusses the legal frameworks and likely objections to the release of documents by an NHS trust

This article addresses difficulties encountered by claimants when seeking disclosure of documents created by a defendant NHS trust during investigations into an adverse incident. Paragraph 3.2 of the revised Pre Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes specifically provides that:

In the first of this two part article Robert Weir QC provides an invaluable reference compiling the most significant cases involving liability decisions in the last year

Determining legal liability for an accident can be complicated but the cases in this article reveal some of the circumstances in which liability may be established.

Laura Elfield examines the decisions in cases outside the primary limitation period

In asbestos claims, the time lag between exposure and the onset of symptoms is typically between 15 and 40 years. So while the normal rules as to limitation in personal injury claims apply, such claims do have an almost uniquely long tail. By the time a cause of action accrues, workplaces may have been demolished; businesses shut down; witnesses may have died; and documentary evidence may have been lost.

Philip Mead outlines how the court decided which country’s law was applicable to an accident overseas

In Rai v Ministry of Defence (2016), the court had to determine whether the Rome II reg 864/2007 applied and to identify what was the proper law of the tort (Alberta law being the law of the place of the accident, or English law). The claimant was a serving Ghurkha who, as part of adventurous training, was sent to Canada. In Canada he received training provided by a Canadian company (Lazy H Trail Limited) contracted to provide services, under a contract governed by Alberta law, for the benefit of the British Army. The circumstances of the accident were that the claimant was kicked by a horse on the first day of training, as he attempted to clean the horse’s hoof, thereby suffering a head injury. The claimant brought a claim for breach of a non-delegable duty of care in negligence against the Ministry of Defence.

Paul Jones explores a case concerning whether a costs order applied to an appeal

It is now over three years since the bulk of the Jackson reforms were introduced on 1 April 2013 and many of the key elements are still giving rise to fundamental issues of application. The recent case of Parker v Butler [2016], for example, examines a fundamental issues regarding the application of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) – whether it applies to appeals or not?