May 2019 #175 – Law Journals

Overstatement: Exaggeration not necessarily fundamental dishonesty

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.

The discount rate: Clarity at last?

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.

Costs: Give me one good reason

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.

Animals Act 1971: Endangering species

Jonathan Hand QC provides advice on the difficult issue of how to apply the provisions under the Animals Act ‘A keeper of an animal (among other things, a person who owns the animal or has it in their possession) can be held liable for damage which it has caused, even though this was not due …

Continue reading "Animals Act 1971: Endangering species"

This post is only available to members.

Catastrophic brain injury claims: Establishing liability – the legal principles

Pankaj Madan reviews the court’s approach to liability in cases involving collisions between pedestrians and vehicles ‘In Jackson the Supreme Court observed that there is no precise formulation and that contributory negligence is a somewhat “rough and ready” exercise.’ In my article in last month’s PILJ, ‘Establishing liability’, I wrote that catastrophic brain injuries bring …

Continue reading "Catastrophic brain injury claims: Establishing liability – the legal principles"

This post is only available to members.

Case report: R & S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16

Motor insurance; property damage; Road Traffic Act 1988; Motor Insurance Directives ‘The effect of the Supreme Court judgment is to curtail attempts by claimants to widen the circumstances in which the MIB and RTA insurers are obliged to satisfy claims.’ R & S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] was not a …

Continue reading "Case report: R & S Pilling (t/a Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16"

This post is only available to members.