This category can only be viewed by members.
Paul Jones looks at a recent case that highlights the difficulties that arise when the court rules and practice directions are at odds ‘The Master concluded that the Practice Direction does no more than set out procedural requirements for provisional assessment and does not have any effect on the jurisdiction to conduct that assessment.’ One …
Continue reading "Costs: Provisional assessment problems"
This post is only available to members.
Julian Matthews examines some of the interesting legal issues arising in claims by parents for their own psychiatric conditions secondary to injuries to their children ‘The starting point for any legal analysis is that although it is foreseeable that a person who has witnessed an accident in which a loved one is killed or severely …
Continue reading "Pathological grief disorders: Parental psychiatric injuries"
This post is only available to members.
Thomas Herbert summarises the case law and considers the burden of proof required ‘Where the evidence demonstrates that the spillage had only been present for a short time, the defendant will likely escape liability.’ The law in slipping cases is, in theory, settled and straightforward. One question that often arises in practice, however, is whether …
Continue reading "Reasonable care: Slipping claims and evidential burdens"
This post is only available to members.
Nick McDonnell outlines the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the recoverability of block-rated ATE premiums in low-value clinical negligence cases ‘The Court of Appeal, in exploring the law and practice of such a premium’s proportionality, sought also, for the first time, to provide general guidance on the post-April proportionality test on costs.’ The 17 July …
Continue reading "ATE insurance: Recoverable premiums and proportionality"
This post is only available to members.
Pankaj Madan explores how a party’s capacity affects brain injury litigation ‘If a person is able to understand an explanation of the information relevant to a decision by the use of simple language, visual aids or other means, then they are not to be regarded as unable to understand the information because those adjustments have …
Continue reading "Catastrophic brain injury claims: Assessing mental capacity"
This post is only available to members.
Helena Drage considers what issues of mitigation arise when a claimant refuses a recommended course of treatment ‘When considering whether a claimant has acted reasonably or unreasonably in refusing treatment, the risk profile of the recommended intervention is likely to be balanced against what the medical evidence demonstrates to be the likely benefit conferred by …
Continue reading "Refusing medical treatment: Evidencing unreasonableness"
This post is only available to members.
Andrew Hogan examines the complex issues that occur with solicitor/client success fees ‘Given the way that a success fee is traditionally calculated by reference to a percentage uplift derived from the risks of the individual case, if a solicitor proposes to charge a success fee on a different basis it is incumbent upon the solicitor …
Continue reading "Conditional fee agreements: Solicitor-own client costs disputes"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones reviews a case which illustrates that commencing notification of a claim correctly has a bearing on the costs recovered ‘Regarding the claimant’s submission that the claim was never intended to be a Portal claim, the Master held that the claimant had, in fact, made it a Portal claim by submitting a claims notification …
Continue reading "Costs: How it all started"
This post is only available to members.
Noise-induced hearing loss, loss of earnings, Smith v Manchester awards ‘There was no evidence that the medical advice was taken into account by the claimant’s superiors, and no steps were taken to reduce his exposure to noise.’ In Inglis v Ministry of Defence [2019], a former Royal Marine was awarded £545,766 for noise-induced hearing loss …
Continue reading "Case report: Inglis v Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1153 (QB)"
This post is only available to members.
Harry Sheehan analyses the recent Supreme Court decision of Vedanta ‘A parent company may not only be directly liable for harm caused as a result of flawed policies or systems it has designed, but also by a failure properly to implement and enforce policies or systems it has designed even when they are not flawed.’ …
Continue reading "Negligence: Developments in parent company liability"
This post is only available to members.
