News Category 2
Recent Cases on Fatal Accidents Considered - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
08/08/14. Here we review recent cases relating to fatal accidents. (1) Accidents abroad and the scope of the Fatal Accidents Act; (2) Cohabitation, human rights and the Fatal Accidents Act; (3) Valuing a dependency claim; (4) Damages for loss of consortium.
THE SCOPE OF THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT : COX –V- ERGO VERSICHERUNG AG
The decision in Cox –v- Ergo Versicherung AG [2014] UKSC 22 is an important one in relation to fatal accident claims where the accident happened abroad. The case was considered twice by the Court of Appeal. Firstly here; secondly here.
THE FACTS
The appellant’s husband was killed in a road traffic accident in Germany. She brought a claim against the German driver in England. The central issue was whether...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/gareth1953/6316198474/
Allocation and Admissions - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
05/08/14. Where a defendant admits a part of a claim, how does the admission affect the allocation of the claim? This was the question considered in Akhtar v Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872. The defendant filed a Defence admitting hire, recovery and storage charges in the sum of £2,496. The claimant’s claim was pleaded at more than £5,000 but less than £10,000. However, if the sum of £2,496 was subtracted from the pleaded claim, it fell below £5,000 and therefore was below the then current limit for the fast track.
Following Allocation Questionnaires the district judge allocated the claim to the Small Claims Track. The claimant applied to have the claim reallocated to the Fast Track but the judge refused the application but entered judgment against the defendant for...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
Damages Guidance in Brain Injury Cases - Nigel Cooksley QC & Rosalie Snocken, Old Square Chambers
04/08/14. This article is designed to give some guidance to Claimant lawyers on issues and matters to consider regarding quantum in cases involving serious brain injury, particularly looking at the gathering of evidence ready for preparation of the schedule.
Do Not “Make Do”
If possible do not “make do” before any quantum hearing or settlement meeting. It is much easier to convince the Defendant insurers or the Court that money for various care, equipment, accommodation, therapies etc is needed in the future if it has already been used that way in the past. Having an established care and therapy package in place significantly increases the likelihood of obtaining an award or settlement to fund such a set-up in the future. This is particularly so where there may be questions about whether the care package will work in reality: it is obviously much harder for the Defendant to run such an argument if the care package contended for is already successfully in place. Act upon expert or professional advice and the Court is unlikely to consider it unreasonable such that they do not award the full past care costs.
Therefore, in our opinion, as early as possible you should be aiming to obtain an interim payment, engage a case manager and put into effect the care package which it is contended that the Claimant needs. This applies even in a case where there may be a reduction in the Claimant’s damages due to a split in liability, though the potential for doing so may of course depend upon...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan
Drug Dealer’s Injury Damages Bonanza - Ivor Collett, 1 Chancery Lane
01/08/14. In a result which the judge acknowledged had scope to cause some serious head-scratching among ordinary members of the public, a drug-dealer has recently succeeded in a damages claim against the UK government because domestic legislation denied him the ability to obtain compensation from a motor insurer after he suffered injuries in a road traffic accident.
The claimant had previously failed at the Court of Appeal when he sued the motor insurer of his friend and fellow dealer who had crashed the car the car in which they were travelling. The claimant had been found to have a block of cannabis the size of a small football under his jacket when freed from the wreckage of the car and the finding was that at the time of the accident both men were...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/buggolo/2097137765/
Legislating for "Statutory Common Sense" and Personal Injury Litigation? - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane
26/07/14. A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might—
(a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or
(b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.
Please excuse the cumbersome language. This is section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 – a statutory provision which is rather underused by
Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish
More Articles...
- Partial Admissions and Tactics for Allocation - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
- Sweet Relief: To Mitchell or Not to Mitchell, That Is the Question - Andrew Sugarman & Gareth Price, Parklane Plowden Chambers
- The Future Of Slipping & Tripping Litigation - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
- Dunhill v Burgin: Litigation Capacity - Sam Chandler, Pupil at Five Stone Buildings
![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)
