This category can only be viewed by members.
Deirdre Goodwin examines the pitfalls in quantifying brain injury claims ‘Careful investigation is required of the claimant’s pre-accident employment, not only evidenced by payslips but – in respect of the future – the likely career trajectory.’ This is a time of rapid change: the discount rate, appropriate accommodation claims methodology, as well as significant advances …
Continue reading "Brain injury: Challenges for claimants"
This post is only available to members.
Anonymity orders; media; open justice ‘The judge held that, notwithstanding the exploration of intimate details of the claimant’s private and family life, the principle of open justice was not adequately satisfied by only publishing the name of the defendant.’ Martin Spencer J refused an anonymity order in a clinical negligence case in which the claimant …
Continue reading "Case report: Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB)"
This post is only available to members.
Christopher Sharp QC highlights the need for experts to be fully instructed ‘It was important that all experts and all legal advisers should understand what is and what is not permissible as regards the preparation of joint statements.’ A group of recent cases has revealed some worrying aspects of how experts, and their instructing lawyers, …
Continue reading "Experts: Part 35 and the joint statement"
This post is only available to members.
Has judicial benevolence been eradicated? Anthony Johnson explores the effect of two recent fraud judgments ‘In my view, the main thing that practitioners can take away from Richards and Molodi is probably that an atmosphere has now been created where defendants can be more confident in appealing factual determinations of fraud cases.’ Two of the …
Continue reading "Fraud: Molodi and Richards a year on"
This post is only available to members.
Antonia Ford considers when an illegal act will provide a defence of illegality ‘Where a claimant is engaged in an illegal act, the claim may be extinguished on the grounds of public policy under the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.’ When a person is involved in a non-fault road traffic accident, they …
Continue reading "Ex turpi causa: Credit hire, loss of use and illegality"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones outlines when a claim can escape the fixed costs regime ‘The key issue to be addressed was whether the Master had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the case should attract greater than fixed costs.’ The perennial argument in many current costs disputes is whether a case should attract fixed costs …
Continue reading "Costs: Truly exceptional"
This post is only available to members.
Ben Rodgers sets out the evidential basis of medical records at trial ‘In Shaw, the use of the wheelchair was not noted in the defendant’s record. This meant that the record was unreliable.’ Medical records are a crucial part of personal injury and clinical negligence litigation. If those notes happen to be scrutinised in a …
Continue reading "Documentary disclosure: Medical records in court"
This post is only available to members.
Bronia Hartley reports on the latest case involving allegations of fundamental dishonesty ‘It was the claimant’s case that he had suffered a significant injury as a result of the fall, that he continued to suffer debilitating pain and as a result was unlikely to find gainful employment.’ There have been a number of recent decisions …
Continue reading "Overstatement: Exaggeration not necessarily fundamental dishonesty"
This post is only available to members.
Nicholas Martin considers the recent developments on the personal injury discount rate, and the Lord Chancellor’s conundrum when setting the new rate under the Civil Liability Act 2018 ‘On the one hand, the law must try to ensure that personal injury claimants achieve a fair outcome and their needs are met, while on the other, …
Continue reading "The discount rate: Clarity at last?"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones explores when the court will depart from an approved costs budget ‘The judge held that the fact that the work actually done and claimed for by the claimant in relation to the expert and ADR/settlement phases was substantially less than had been envisaged in the budget was a good reason in itself to …
Continue reading "Costs: Give me one good reason"
This post is only available to members.
