News Category 2
Court of Appeal Decides Part 36 Trumps Fixed Costs - Shirley Denyer, Shirley Denyer LLP & Knowledge Services Consultant for FOIL
16/03/16. Following a number of conflicting decisions across the country, the Court of Appeal has now settled the conflict between the rules on fixed costs and the rules under Part 36 which apply in circumstances where the claimant brings a claim under the RTA Portal process (to which fixed costs will apply) and then beats his or her own Part 36 offer. The Court of Appeal says that Part 36 will prevail (allowing for indemnity costs to be awarded). By analogy the same conclusion will apply to a claim started under the EL/PL Protocol.
In the appeals of Broadhurst v Tan and Taylor v Smith the circumstances were the same. Claims were started under the RTA Protocol for personal injuries incurred in road traffic accidents; the claimants made Part 36 offers to settle the claims which were rejected by the defendants; and the claimants subsequently obtained judgments for sums in excess of their Part 36 offers...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagestock
PI Practitioner, March 2016
16/03/16. 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.
Fixed Fee Medical Reports under the RTA Protocol
In a "soft tissue injury claim" to which the RTA Protocol applies, the only sums which can be recovered in respect of medical reports or medical records are the following:
- First report from an accredited medical expert started via the MedCo Portal: £180;
- Any further reports, where justified, from one of the following experts:
- Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
A Scottish Invasion via Europe?: Low Value PI Claims, Forum Non Conveniens and Owusu - Adam Clemens, 7BR
13/03/16. With the EU referendum imminent, and Scottish devolution having been recently decided – although that wee beastie may yet come round again – enter stage right a case that had it all. In conjoined cases in the Court of Appeal, Tesco and Virgin Media faced the argument that the application of European Law – Brussels Regulation 44/2011 – meant that English courts had no jurisdiction, based on forum non conveniens, to send Scottish cases, concerning all things Scottish, but issued in England, to be tried in Scotland. Put simply, European Law mandated that the court in the jurisdiction where where the claims were issued had no choice but to try them.
The proposition sounds counter-intuitive and plain wrong – and so it proved – but it throws up some interesting points and, perhaps surprisingly, there was no direct authority on point...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Updating the Package Travel Regime - Philip Mead, Old Square Chambers
12/03/16. Since the adoption of Directive 90/314/EEC over 25 years ago, the travel industry has been transformed both in terms of the availability of travel services and how consumers purchase those services. With these considerations in mind, the EU has updated the legislation governing package travel by the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) no 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC. The new Directive imposes an obligation on Member States to adopt and publish the necessary implementing laws by 1 January 2018, and to apply those measures from 1 July 2018 (Article 28). From 1 July 2018, Directive 90/314/EEC is repealed (Article 29). This article reviews the provisions of the new Directive which are likely to affect personal injury practitioners.
As the title of the new Directive indicates, the Directive regulates both package travel and linked travel arrangements. What are linked travel arrangements and to what extent are they relevant to personal injury practitioners? Article 3(5) defines a linked travel arrangement as being at least two different types of travel services purchased for the purpose of the same trip or holiday, not constituting a package, resulting in the conclusion of separate contracts with individual travel services providers, in certain defined circumstances. Article 19 of the new Directive imposes two obligations on services providers of linked travel arrangements: the duty to provide security against...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
What Is the Cost of Not Having an Expert Clinical Neuropsychologist Following a Mild Head Injury? - Dr Linda Monaci
09/03/16. The cost associated with specialist assessments needs to be proportional to the value of the claim. This in principle seems a sensible and fair concept; the difficulty is that brain injuries and their effects may not be as apparent as visible injuries, such as orthopaedic injuries. Paradoxically the same expert assessments that would be likely to increase the value of the claim, which would then allow for specialist assessments to take place, are not allowed in small and fast track claims. Experts are often instructed when a significant brain injury has been sustained, but what about those cases where any loss of consciousness is minimal and brain injury is not even mentioned to the injured party during their NHS treatment?
A road traffic accident or other traumatic event which involves a head injury may cause a brain injury, which can cause cognitive, emotional and physical symptoms. The severity of the brain injury is usually graded as mild, moderate or severe and this can help provide accurate information to the individual affected and their families, as well implement the correct rehabilitation intervention. To complicate matters there are also cases in which a very minor blow to the head can cause persistent cognitive and emotional symptoms, although arguably any brain injury is very unlikely...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/kali9
More Articles...
- Knauer v Ministry of Justice: Supreme Court overrules Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds - Christopher Sharp QC, St John’s Chambers
- The Employer's Duty: The Supreme Court States the Importance of Risk Assessments - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers & Hardwicke
- Editorial: Fixed Costs on the Multi-Track - Aidan Ellis, 1 Temple Gardens
- Craig Rollinson v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] EWHC 3330 (QB) - Daniel Tobin, 12 King's Bench Walk
![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)
