News Category 2
Truth, Lies, Exaggeration and the Judicial Crucible: A Reminder of Judicial Independence in Assessing Expert Evidence - Liam Ryan, 7 Bedford Row
01/11/17. Published on the 12th October 2017, the case of Fletcher v Keatley [2017] EWCA Civ 1540 reaffirms in my opinion three broad points and areas of concern for practitioners who deal with personal injury litigation involving psychiatric injuries where the evidence before a Court demonstrates inconsistency.
Firstly, the well documented and discussed difficulties that are inherent when assessing and quantifying a psychiatric injury that cannot by its very nature be objectively verified. Secondly the need and right for parties to be able to interrogate, and call their own expert evidence on the extent of such an injury and the inevitable evidential conflicts created by the disparity of opinion which will require litigation to resolve. Thirdly, the ever-present danger of dishonest Claimants who seek to exploit the fact that a psychiatric injury cannot be independently and objectively verified, and exaggerate or fabricate their symptoms for commercial gain, damaging and tarnishing hundreds of other genuine Claimants through guilt by association...
Image cc David Dixon
Court of Session Offers Useful Guidance in the Assessment of Damages for Fatal Claims - Lauren Baillie, Brodies
30/10/17. In Manson v Henry Robb Ltd [2017] CSOH 126, a recent judgement from the Court of Session, Lord Clarke rejected the use of a tariff system to determine damages in fatal claims under Section 4(3) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011. Instead he carefully considered issues such as life expectancy, family relationships and the duration of the deceased’s suffering to determine the appropriate level of award.
In this case, the deceased died of mesothelioma ten months after diagnosis. He was 81 when he died and was survived by his widow aged 79 and his two sons aged 55 and 59. The deceased’s life expectancy, in the absence of having developed mesothelioma, was 5.8 years. The family was unusually close; the two sons had never left home and before their father’s death, had spent much of their time with their parents...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/alfiofer
Expert Evidence and Experts' Duties in Clinical Negligence Cases - Kirsten Wall, Leigh Day
19/10/17. As increasing numbers of clinical negligence cases are reaching trial, so are the number of medical experts being called on to give evidence. More and more judgments are flagging up the flaws in their evidence and for all litigators creating an ever growing list of issues to make sure your experts get right.
The recent case of Palmer v Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2460 (QB) combines a number of these issues. Firstly, the need to make concessions earlier rather than later. In this case, the Defendant admitted breach of duty on day two of the trial. The Judge’s view was that the Midwifery expert should have made the admission of breach of duty, “before it was forced by concessions in cross examination”.
Secondly, the problem with an expert’s medical report, probably prepared a year or so before trial and when trial seemed both distant and unlikely, containing errors or being incomplete arose again...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/mediaphotos
PI Practitioner, October 2017
16/10/17. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.
Review of the Discount Rate and Changes Going Forward
Personal injury practitioners acting for both Claimants and Defendants have spent a great deal of 2017 keeping a keen eye on the Discount Rate, following its dramatic fall from 2.5% to -0.75% in February 2017...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Approval of Success Fee Deduction From Damages for a Protected Party - Richard Lowery, Express Solicitors
11/10/17. The Claimant was injured when the Defendant turned right from a main road into the side street which the Claimant was crossing and collided with the Claimant. The Claimant sustained a substantial head injury.
At the outset of the claim, a Conditional Fee Agreement had been entered into by the Claimant’s Litigation Friend, which provided for a success fee limited to 25% of the Claimant’s “relevant damages”. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the parties which was approved at a Protected Party Approval Hearing on 27th May 2016.
Following approval, agreement was reached between the parties in relation to the Claimant’s recoverable costs.
An Application was subsequently made on behalf of the Litigation Friend for payment of the appropriate success fee out of the Claimant’s damages pursuant to CPR r.21.12, which was considered by His Honour Judge Platts on 17th February 2017...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
More Articles...
- Editorial: Understanding the Number of Dishonest Claims - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
- FREE BOOK CHAPTER: The Structure Of the Care Act 2014 (from 'Introduction to the Law of Community Care in England and Wales' by Alan Robinson)
- FREE BOOK SAMPLE: Primary Victims: Cases Involving Physical Injury (from 'A Practical Guide to Psychiatric Claims in Personal Injury' by Liam Ryan)
- Could This Case Be the End of Failure to Take Into Care Claims? - Malcolm Johnson, BL Claims
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
