Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Personal Injury Law Journal: October 2011

Bill Braithwaite QC advises that preparation is the key to successful applications

Since Cobham Hire Services Ltd v Eeles [2009] was decided in the Court of Appeal, it might have seemed that all would go quiet on the interim payment front. There have been two big applications reported this year, though, which makes me think that perhaps some suggestions may be helpful in relation to what approach is likely to succeed when seeking a large interim payment for accommodation.


Matthew Hoe highlights authorities that argue interest on costs is payable from quantification and not an order for costs

Interest on costs, so often swept up in global settlements, so often forgotten altogether, has now become the focus of contentious litigation heading for the Court of Appeal.

Anthony Gold

Sandra De Souza considers the issues that surveillance causes for claimants

With an increase in social networking over the years, personal injury claimants are under more scrutiny then ever. While it is true that misleading claimants should not be rewarded for their dishonesty, not all accusations of dishonesty have merit. One picture or one comment, taken out of context, can have a damaging affect on your client’s claim.

Geoff Clarke QC discusses the differing treatments of judgement by professionals at work and when they are driving home

The very well known Scottish case of Hunter v Hanley [1955] has been followed by so many Scots and English authorities and commented on without demur in many more that it is almost sacrilege to contemplate questioning its famous dictum (para 206):

Paul Jones focuses on the latest litigation arising from Part 36

When the CPR was introduced, one of its aims was to encourage parties to make efforts at early settlement and a key element of this was the Part 36 provisions. By providing incentives and penalties for making or rejecting offers, it is hoped that more cases would settle at an early stage. Unsurprisingly, such a key element of the CPR was bound to generate arguments over its application and the recent case of Thompson v Bruce [2011] once again treads the well-worn path of interpreting Part 36 CPR.

The decision of the High Court in MacIntyre v Ministry of Defence [2011] is reviewed by Matthew White

The claimant (C) was an officer serving in the army. He was on a training expedition in the Bavarian Alps when he was seriously injured by falling rocks. The court considered the duty and standard of care with regard to climbing accidents.

Andrew Hogan looks at recoverability of ATE premiums under the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims in RTAs

Cases are starting to reach the assessment process on the single point as to what after-the-event (ATE) premiums incurred for cases disposed of either at a stage three hearing or, more commonly, through settlement at stage one or stage two of the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims in RTAs are properly recoverable.