This category can only be viewed by members.
Liam Ryan reviews the recent decision of Fletcher v Keatley and how a court should, and can, approach a claim for psychiatric injury where a claimant has been found to have purposefully exaggerated their symptoms ‘A judge doesn’t need to be bound unequivocally to one party’s expert evidence (although it will always be persuasive) and …
Continue reading "Dishonesty: Truth, lies, exaggeration and the judicial crucible"
This post is only available to members.
In part one of a two-part consideration, Kirsty McKinlay and Amy Rollings examine damages recoverable from package holidays ‘Holiday claims are an exception to the general rule that in a contract claim, a claimant can be compensated for the “disappointment, the distress and the upset and frustration caused by the breach”.’ Recent stories of Ryanair …
Continue reading "Travel: Wish you weren’t here? Quantifying holiday claims"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones looks at the effect of fundamental dishonesty on QOCS ‘A claimant who brings an unsuccessful personal injury claim will only lose their protection against adverse costs if they have passed beyond dishonesty into the murkier realms of “fundamentally dishonest”.’ The American lawyer Clarence Darrow (most famous for his role in the Scopes Monkey …
Continue reading "Costs: The limits of dishonesty"
This post is only available to members.
Stephanie Prior reports on whether cohabitees are at a disadvantage claiming damages ‘The law remains unchanged. Cohabitees who have a tie of love and affection for each other, and live together for over two years at the time of their partner’s death, are precluded from being awarded bereavement damages.’ There is no remedy for dependants …
Continue reading "Fatal Accidents Act: Is it time for a change?"
This post is only available to members.
Paul McGrath highlights when defendants should consider obtaining an order and/or assessment of costs ‘The power to order a set-off was available against damages and costs and was “no different from and no more extensive than the set-off available to or against parties who are not legally aided”.’ Where the standard provisions of QOCS apply, …
Continue reading "QOCS And Set-Off: In the balance"
This post is only available to members.
Measure of damages for wrongful invasion of personal autonomy; compensation; cause of action; recusal; alleged bias ‘The claimant argued that there is emphasis on the right of the patient not to be subject to treatment “interfering with [their] bodily integrity” without their informed consent and emphasis on the proposition that due protection should be given …
Continue reading "Case Report: Shaw v Kovac & anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1028"
This post is only available to members.
In the first of two articles, Suzanne Chalmers and Jack Macaulay explore the current law relating to claimants’ illegality and dishonesty ‘The essential rationale of the doctrine of illegality was that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the …
Continue reading "Conduct: Hoisted by their own petard?"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones considers the potential conflict between fixed costs and Part 36 offers ‘Could the court, following late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in a fixed-costs case, make an order for the costs incurred in the late period to be paid in addition to the fixed costs?’ The system of fixed costs, which covers …
Continue reading "Costs: To fix or not to fix?"
This post is only available to members.
Rushmi Sethi examines clinical negligence claims concerning childbirth injury ‘The doctor’s obligation, other than in cases where it would damage the patient’s welfare, was to present the material risks and uncertainties of different treatments, and to allow patients to make decisions that would affect their health and well-being on proper information.’ Relatively few childbirth injury …
Continue reading "Childbirth Injury: Liability issues"
This post is only available to members.
Apportionment of liability; psychiatric injury; pre-existing illness ‘The tone of Underhill LJ’s judgment is that it will be difficult to convince a court that apportionment is not going to be possible.’ This case revisits the vexed question of divisibility of psychiatric (and other) injury. It is an employment case of wide importance and application. The …
Continue reading "Case Report: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188"
This post is only available to members.
