News Category 2
Damages for Pain and Suffering Prior to Death and Reduction of Life Expectancy: Important Court of Appeal Decision - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
24/09/14. The case of Kadir -v- Mistry [2014] EWCA Civ 1177 deals with two important questions in relation to pain and suffering prior to death. Firstly should there be an award for pain and suffering in circumstances where the deceased person would have had the same symptoms but at a later time; secondly whether the deceased person needs to be aware that they have a reduced life expectancy in order that damages for reduced expectancy can be awarded.
THE LAW
The Law Reform (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1934 allows the estate of a deceased person to bring an action for certain losses to the estate and for the pain and suffering that the deceased person has suffered prior to death.
THE FACTS OF KADIR
Image ©iStockphoto.com/dra_schwartz
Why Insurers Are Keen on Early Settlement Meetings! - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
20/09/14. I'm often unsure about whether we personal injury lawyers in catastrophic claims should strive for an early finalisation of the claim, or should we just let the litigation take its course, and have a settlement meeting when all the evidence has been prepared, and the case is approaching Court.
On the one hand, it’s safer and easier to gather all the evidence, and to see what the defence experts say, before having a settlement meeting. On the other, though, clients are often keen to get the case finished.
The trouble is that, if we do try to do what the client wants, and rush on to a meeting with the defence team, it puts great pressure on the claimant and his or her family. When they are faced with huge sums of ready money, it can be impossible for them to resist, despite the cautious advice of their lawyers.
That’s why insurers are so keen to have early settlement meetings!
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
From Eeles to Haynes: Interim Payments, Periodical Payments, and Accommodation Needs - Angus McCullough QC & Jessica Elliott, 1 Crown Office Row
19/09/14. A seriously injured claimant urgently requires alternative accommodation with adaptations for her disability, and space for necessary equipment, carers, and therapies. Liability has been admitted or compromised by the defendant, but any assessment of damages hearing will be many months hence. A suitable property has been identified that may be extended and adapted so as to meet the claimant’s needs. The claimant applies for an interim payment so that the property may be acquired and adaptation works undertaken. The defendant contends that the property identified is much bigger and more expensive than is reasonably required to meet the claimant’s needs and in any event is reluctant to make such a large payment on an interim basis.
Such situations, or similar, are familiar. The recent decision in Haynes v Kingston Hospital NHS Trust1 provides an opportunity to review the principles and pitfalls in making and resisting applications for substantial interim payments in personal injury cases in the 5 years since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd2. In Eeles the Court of Appeal indicated the approach to be adopted in cases where a periodical payments order (PPO) might be made as part of the final remedy.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sohl
PI Practitioner, September 2014
16/09/14. 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.
The "Coincidence of Location" Fallacy
In Gray v Botwright [2014] EWCA Civ 1201, the Court of Appeal revisited the "coincidence of location" fallacy argument previously coined in Whittle v Bennett [2006] EWCA Civ 1538.
Coincidence of location fallacy arises where...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Expert Support - Ian Gascoigne, Eversheds LLP
16/09/14. In October 2014 new guidance published by the Civil Justice Council (CJC) will replace the protocol for instructing expert witnesses in civil cases. The protocol is part of the practice direction to CPR 35, but this will be removed, leaving the guidance as a free-standing document. The guidance is the product of a CJC working party which first produced its first draft in 2012. Since then we have, of course, had the implementation of the Jackson reforms.
The guidance does not dramatically change the main requirements imposed on lawyers working with experts. But it does modify some of the aspects involved in instructing them. The two underlying themes are:
-
re-emphasising the need to promote the integrity of a party-appointed expert by ensuring he is independent of the party on whose behalf he is instructed;
-
attempting to create a level-playing field between...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
More Articles...
- Fatal Accident Dependency Claims: A Working Example: Death of a Wife & Mother as a Result of Mesothelioma - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
- It’s Not All Pounds and Pence - Richard Fraser, Frenkel Topping
- You May Delay, but Time Will Not. Benjamin Franklin - Sophie Beesley, Old Square Chambers
- The Ever-Ageing 13-Year-Old Compensation Discount Rate - Thomas Crockett, 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)
