News Category 2
Dishonest Claimants: Utilising the Tort of Deceit - Judy Dawson, Park Square Barristers
08/07/16. In criminal law it is generally clear; if you cheat or lie or steal or defraud then you get punished. If you try but fail then you still get punished; English criminal law on attempts is clear and there is not much discount on sentence for having been incompetent.
In civil law we practice in a far less morally certain world. In 2009 the Court of Appeal in Shah v Ul-Haqdecided that somebody who supported a fraudulent bogus passenger claim was...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/tap10
The EU Divided, but Not as We Know It - Jack Harding, 1 Chancery Lane
07/07/16. The events of past weeks have brought into sharp focus the seemingly different attitudes held by a majority of the UK population compared to other EU member states. The result, whilst at present uncertain, may well be a full uncoupling of the UK legal system from European law. It is interesting to note, therefore, that even though EU law has for many years moved towards a harmonisation of legal principles across the legal systems of its constitutent members, significant differences have remained. This is ably demonstrated by the recent high court decision in Committeri v Club Medieterranee SA (2016) EWHC 1510.
Mr Committeri was on a team building exercise in France which was organised by his (London-based) employer, BNP Paribas. The activity involved climbing an ice-wall. Whilst he was being belayed he slipped and fell. Although he was caught by the rope he struck his foot during the fall, sustaining injury. The activity was organised by the Defendant tour operator, based in France, with whom BNP had entered a contract for the provision of travel, accommodation and the activity for its employees. The contract contained a ‘Law and jurisdiction clause’ which provided that the booking conditions would be governed by English law...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/61533954@N00/3318548951/
Legal Mind Case and Commentary No.7: Regulating Expert Evidence - Dr Hugh Koch & Dr Richard Cosway
05/07/16. Case: Kennedy v. Cordia LLP [Scotland]. This case centres on a Supreme Court judgement in relation to an accident involving a home carer in Glasgow who visited an elderly lady who was terminally ill. The carer, in the process of carrying out her duties for her employer Cordia, slipped on the public footpath approaching the house and fell, injuring her wrist. The case was initially heard in front of a Lord Ordinary who held Cordia liable. In these proceedings, evidence was heard provided by an expert witness (or “skilled witness” in Scotland), under objection from the defence, in the area of Health and Safety which proved pivotal in finding for the claimant.
The case was appealed by Cordia at the Extra Division of the Court of Session. The appeal was upheld and a judgement was provided which highlighted difficulties around the evidence provided by the expert witness. Two areas of difficulty were highlighted in relation to the expert evidence. Firstly, that the expert had given his opinion on matters of law reserved for the court and, secondly, that the area of Health and Safety practices of employers was not a “recognised body of science or experience” on which opinions could be based and “subjected to forensic evaluation.”
At a further appeal by Kennedy, The Supreme Court disagreed with the decision by the Extra Division and upheld the original judgement. The judges found that, in the initial judgement, the Lord Ordinary was correct in using the expert evidence to assist the court in the area of health and safety with both expert fact and opinion evidence.
In paragraph 44 (page 14) of the judgement, the Supreme Court judges address the use of Expert or Skilled witnesses and set out four considerations governing the admissibility of skilled evidence...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/nspimages
When an Unsafe Structure Does Not Trigger the Landlord’s Duty to Repair - Colm Nugent, Hardwick
02/07/16. The reach of the Defective Premises Act and what ‘defective’ means within the context of the Act, was the subject of detailed consideration in the QBD recently, in Dodd v Raebarn Estates [2016].
Raebarn were the freeholders of a mixed use property in London. The upper floors had been demised to a developer who had installed a staircase as part of the refurbishment. Mr Dodd – a visitor - fell down the stairs and tragically died of his injuries some time later. His Estate brought a Fatal Accident claim against the freeholder, Raebarn, and a range of other entities. The claim was valued in excess of £1m.
The claim was brought on the basis of the OLA 1957, the DPA 1972 and common law negligence. The OLA claim was premised on an apparent anomaly in the demise to the developer, by which Raeburn sold the part of the building above first floor joist level. Accordingly, said the Claimant, Raebarn retained ownership of the lower part of the stairs where the accident happened...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/marcoventuriniautieri
Mr A v Mr Chana - Emma Melia & Miray Wahba, Spencers Solicitors
30/06/16. Birmingham County Court. Case Number: A49YP577. Accident Date: 3rd November 2011. Settlement Date: 27th April 2016. TOTAL GROSS SETTLEMENT £750,000.00
Background
The Claimant, male aged 49 at the date of the accident was involved in a serious road traffic accident.
The Claimant sustained soft tissue injuries to his lumbar spine and significant head injuries as a result of the accident. The Claimant went on to suffer post-traumatic epilepsy.
Liability
The Claimant was driving his van when suddenly without warning the Defendant pulled out in front of the Claimant's van and a collision occurred. The said accident was caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/GNK82
More Articles...
- Trial Advocacy Fees Recoverable Even if the Matter Settles on the Day of Trial - Francesca O'Neil, 1 Chancery Lane
- Keep It Simple, Sheriff: Simple Procedure in the Sheriff Court - Peter Demick & Ben Bestgen, Brodies LLP
- Impact of 'Brexit' on Personal Injury Claims - Flora Wood, Ashfords
- Trial by Ambush? - Ella Davis, 1 Chancery Lane
![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)
