Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Personal Injury Law Journal: June 2016

Julian Matthews highlights a case that demonstrates the courts’ approach to contribution to injury

The Judicial Board of the Privy Council’s contribution to the common law jurisprudence on causation of damage in the material contribution case Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board [2016] provides a welcome clarification of the law in this complex area. The recent decision in John v Central Manchester NHS Trust [2016] is a very helpful illustration of the application of the principles confirmed by that decision.

Insurers; vehicle loss; allegations of fraud; acknowledgement of service

Lord Justice Vos said in Gentry v Lee Miller [2016] (para 34):

PIC Limited

Reuben Glynn examines the precedents for contesting the assignment of a CFA

We have a new battle ground for the post-LASPO costs wars as paying parties are seeking to challenge the assignment of CFAs. There are any number of reasons why a CFA would need to be assigned. Two of the most popular would be a traditional solicitor firm transferring to an LLP, or an LLP transferring to a limited company; these are usually done for taxation or succession reasons. Other reasons include an individual solicitor moving firms, a firm going into liquidation or, more commonly, we have seen wholescale movements of significant personal injury and clinical negligence files from firm to firm. In the latter example large numbers of files are sold and moved (subject to the client’s consent) without the original conducting fee earner moving as well.

Alison Taylor explains methods for avoiding professional negligence claims and maximising quantum

A growth area of my work as a financial adviser is acting as an expert witness in professional negligence cases. Under-settling of claims, with solicitors advising clients to accept smaller sums for the sake of expediency, has been recognised for some time. Under-assessment of the value of a claim is equally an obstacle to justice for clients.

Paul Jones considers the costs implications of a dispute that was settled on the day of the trial, before the trial had taken place

One of the key features of the law of legal costs is that there are, in fact, very few actual core legal principles that define this area of law. It is, in theory, incredibly simple – the loser of litigation pays the winner but only to the extent that this is reasonable and, from this, the rest of costs law flows. What this means in practice, however, is that disputes between parties over legal costs can often be distilled down to arguments over a nuanced interpretation of a particular application of these core principles and it was precisely this type of argument that faced the court in the recent case of Bruno Manuel Dos Santos Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction [2016].

218 Strand

Jonathan Dingle assesses Employer’s Liability Claims (2016 edition)

In a former professional life, when serving in the Royal Navy, the author quickly learned that Royal Marines were among the finest individuals into whose hands you could trust your life. A privilege to command and lead, they were the right people to have at your side on an intoxicated night in Union Street, Plymouth.

Richard Allen summarises common grass roots costs issues and the importance of monitoring litigation resources

With the recent 83rd update of the CPR in April and the constant desire to hang on every word that is spoken by those ‘in the know’ regarding costs budgeting, J-codes, the new electronic bill of costs and of course the adoption of fixed costs, I thought I would address two grass roots issues that come up frequently when I am lecturing on costs.

Christopher Taylor outlines the approaches to getting court approval for infant damages

The rules surrounding children and protected parties is generally well known and set out in CPR 21 and 21PD. CPR 21.10 states: