This site uses cookies.

News Category 2

Rescued From an Error of Procedure - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane

15/07/14. Rule 3.10 rescues parties where “there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction”. Where it applies “the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the court so orders”. The question therefore is when an error is merely an error of procedure and when it is such an error that it is irremediable.

In Isaac Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 657 the Court of Appeal looked at this question in the context of failed service. Is service of the claim form by the court in disregard of a claimant’s notification that he wished to effect service himself (1) a nullity and (2) ‘an error of procedure’ within r. 3.10?

The problem in this case was that the claimant had notified the Court that his solicitors wished to serve the claim form. Rule 6.4(1) states that the Court will serve the claim form except where the claimant notifies the Court he wishes to serve it. It was argued that...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/alexskopje

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Litigation Tips & Tactics in Highways Slipping and Tripping, Occupiers and Defective Premises Claims - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom

12/07/14. One of the ways in which the claimant’s lawyer can deal effectively with highways slipping and tripping claims, occupiers’ claims and defective premises claims is not only in the quality of the evidence of the case and assessing the same together with the credibility of the witness but the litigation tactics one chooses to pursue in pursuing the claim on behalf of the claimant. Litigation tactics in such cases can be just as effective at settling the case, and will potentially help to achieve a positive outcome on cases which are less evidentially sound using the following methods to encourage settlement in relation to a case.

The following chapter deals with matters in highways slipping and tripping cases, occupiers’ liability cases and defective premises act claims and potential tactics one can use in dealing with such cases to progress the case.

Not all tactics will be of use in all cases, but the following sections are intended to give a brief synopsis of how, used appropriately, these tactics can be used against the defendant to encourage and progress cases especially when dealing with cases within a fixed costs regime...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/funky-data

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Referral Fee Ban Does Not Mean You Have to Become an ABS - Simon Gibson, SGI Legal

11/07/14. It’s clear it’s been a bumpy ride for some PI firms these past 18 months. Many have adapted well, those that haven’t have exited the market, or gone bust in defiance. Some legal and insurance firms have gone the extra mile and formed an Alternative Business Structure to ensure work can be passed between them without hindrance. But what if you don’t want to become an ABS? Well, so long as both sides are working hard to ensure choice of service provider remains with the client, agreements can be created that stay on the right side of LASPO, yet retain both the insurer and law firm’s independence...

Image cc flickr.com/photos/29638108@N06/5233521442/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Limitation; Calibrating Pre-Knowledge Prejudice - Andrew Roy, 12 Kings Bench Walk

04/07/14. Collins v (1) Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills (2) Stena Line Irish Sea Ferries Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 717. The time limit for bringing a claim for personal injury is three years from when the cause of action accrues (s11 Limitation Act 1980) or, if later, from when the claimant possessed relevant knowledge (s14 Limitation Act 1980). There remains however a discretion under s33 Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the time bar if it is equitable to do having regard to the prejudice to the claimant if barred from bringing the claim and the prejudice to the defendant in having to meet the late claim.

The key consideration under s33 will in most cases be the extent to which the lateness of the claim has caused the defendant forensic prejudice; Cain v Francis [2008] EWCA Civ 1451; [2009] Q.B. 754.

The issue the Court sought to clarify in this case is whether and to what extent a defendant can rely against a claimant for s33 uponprejudice which accrued before the claimant possessed the relevant knowledge so as to start time running. In other words, does the Court consider only the prejudice arising from culpable delay, or the prejudice arising from...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagez

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Highways Act Claims: The Law, Important Cases And Section 58 Defences - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom

26/06/14. Highways Act cases under the Highways Act 1980 are probably some of the most common tripping cases whether they involve accidents on the road or on the pavement. They are common types of claims for most claimant practitioners yet it may be argued probably some of the most misunderstood. This chapter will deal predominantly with Highways Act tripping claims due to defects in the road or pavements. The chapter will look at relevant case law and defeating section 58 defences brought by the local authority.

The Law

Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 sets out:-

A duty to maintain highways maintainable at the public expense.

  1. The authority who are at the time being the highway authority for a highway maintainable at the public expense are under a duty subject to subsection 2 and 4 to maintain the highway.

  1. In particular a highway authority are under a duty to ensure that...

Image cc flickr.com/photos/tranbc/6977576859/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.