News Category 2
PI Practitioner, April 2014
16/04/14. 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.
Agreed Extensions of Time
There have now been further developments to last month's "practitioners section" which dealt with parties' ability to agree an extension of time for compliance with...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Rule 3.10: Looking Beyond 3.9 for Relief - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
15/04/14. The dreaded realisation that you have not complied with a rule or practice direction. Your life flashes past you and a cold sweat breaks out. Out comes rule 3.9 and the new criteria,Mitchell, a call to the insurers… Or perhaps r. 3.10 applies?
“Where there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction- (a) The error does not invalidate any step taken in proceedings unless the court so orders…”
There are some nuggets to be found in the recent case of Integral Petroleum v SCU-Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) in which the scope of r.3.10 was explored by Popplewell J.
In Integral the parties agreed an extension of time by e-mail for the service of the Particulars of Claim by 28 days to 6th June (in fact 28 days would have given until 10th June). The Particulars were served by e-mail at 18.41 on 10thJune meaning they were deemed served out of time. SCU challenged validity of service on the grounds that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/PashaIgnatov
More Reasons to Look at the Law: Practical Problems With Vicarious Liability - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
12/04/14. The issue when and how someone (usually an employer) is vicariously liable for acts of others has been considered in three recent cases. Three recent cases give different results.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR A PRISONER WORKING IN PRISON
Cox –v- Ministry of Justice [2014] EWCA Civ 132. The claimant provided catering services to HM Prison Swansea. Whilst working at the prison she was injured by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The key issue was whether the prison service were liable for the acts of the prisoner even though there was no typical employment relationship.
THE TEST FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the law of vicarious liability has moved beyond the confines of a contract of service and that “the test of vicarious liability involved a synthesis of two stages”.
(1) The first stage is to consider the relationship between the wrongdoer and the person or company alleged to be liable.
(2) The Second state is to consider the connection that links that relationship and the act or omission of the wrongdoer.
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
UKABIF: Doing Good Things for the Brain Injury World - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
12/04/14. We did a seminar, jointly with UKABIF, on Capacity Issues for people with acquired brain injuries. Although I say it who shouldn’t, it was one of the best seminars I've been to for a while. The delegates were genuinely interested in the topic, and obviously had a lot of experience between them, and our speakers were, I thought, excellent. Professor Barnes, UKABIF Chair, started the day with “What can lawyers, case managers and deputies do to help people with acquired brain injuries during litigation?”.
Sadly, and he did not say this, I suppose the answer is that we could do more than we currently do. He was followed by Emma Gaudern, a solicitor deputy, gave a very interesting talk on The Management of Decision Making – she included several of her own experiences as a deputy, demonstrating just...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan
Mental Capacity: Who Really Makes the Decisions? - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
11/04/14. I'm giving a talk in Leeds shortly, about who makes decisions in cases where, following severe brain injury, the claimant has lost mental capacity. Superficially, it’s easy to say that the court decides issues, but in reality there is much more to it than that.
For a start, someone has to raise the alarm. Families are always the starting point, but there are many other people who may be involved, and who may have an opinion about whether the injured person is capable of managing his or her affairs. For example, solicitor, barrister, neurologist, rehabilitation consultant, psychiatrist, psychologist, case manager, therapists, support workers, social services and possibly others.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/RapidEye
More Articles...
- Impecuniosity and Failure to Mitigate - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
- Book Review: Personal Injury Practice (Sixth Edition, Bloomsbury Professional) by Andrew Buchan, Jenny Kennedy and Eliot Woolf
- Wall v Mutuelle: The Court of Appeal Explores the Limits of Applicable Law - Frances McClenaghan, 1 Chancery Lane
- Independent Facilitators - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
![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)
