News Category 2
Simson v London Borough of Islington [2013] EWHC 2527 (QB) - Daniel Tobin, 12 King's Bench Walk
03/03/14. On 19th April 2009 the Claimant tripped over a defect in the carriageway of Hargrave Road, in Archway, North London. The Defendant was the highway authority for Hargrave Road, which was a residential street with residents' parking bays on both sides. There were also a number of shops nearby. The Claimant said that she fell as a result of a defect on the kerbside part of the carriageway. As a result of her fall, the Claimant suffered an injury to her right foot and ankle, which required hospital treatment.
The Claimant commenced proceedings against the Defendant, alleging that her accident was caused by the Defendant's failure to repair and maintain the highway in accordance with its statutory duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 ('the 1980 Act'). The Defendant denied breach of duty and, in the alternative, sought to rely upon its statutory defence under Section 58 of the 1980 Act; namely, that it had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the claim related was not dangerous.
The trial was heard by Recorder Bowley, QC, at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. The first issue that he was required to determine was whether the Claimant had proven the mechanism of the accident and that the alleged defective spot was causative of her fall? The Claimant was challenged as to a number of aspects of her evidence. The Defendant relied on various inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Claimant's evidence, submitting that this should drive the Court to concluding that the Claimant had not...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/new_and_used_tires/6842127640/
Presenting Evidence of Executive Functions Deficit in Court: Why Is Behaviour So Important? - Dr Nicolas Priestley & Dr David Manchester
01/03/14. The executive functions are a range of higher order cognitive abilities that play a fundamental role in successful adaptive living. After brain injury even mild impairments in these abilities can cause significant deficits in personal, social and occupational realms. In this article we consider three issues relevant to the presentation of evidence to the court regarding executive functioning; firstly, the importance of comprehensive assessment that includes both neuropsychology tests as well as behavioural observations; secondly, the potential contribution of more ecologically valid tests that assess behaviour in the real world; and finally real world behaviours that it can be helpful to consider in relation to a claimant’s effort.
Background
In a recent article in the Journal of Personal Injury Law we discussed along with our legal colleague Rachel Aram how the expert neuropsychologist may assist the court when presenting evidence of executive functions deficit after brain injury. We noted that personal injury lawyers are required to make projections over many years as to their client’s likely functioning. When doing so they must establish...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan
Case Report: (A) (A Child by her mother and Litigation Friend) v Guy's & St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Antonia Jones, Stewarts Law
26/02/14. The Claimant was born on 29 January 1996. In March of 2011 she brought proceedings alleging that she had sustained brain damage during her mother’s labour as a consequence of breaches of duty on the part of the Defendant. In essence she alleged that she had suffered from chronic partial hypoxia, probably due to cord compression, during labour; that from 20.00 hours the hypoxia worsened; and that there was a failure to recognise the deteriorating CTG trace and to heed the thick meconium and reduced foetal movements the mother reported a few days before labour commenced. There was thus a failure to deliver before she sustained...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/nikkormat42
Post-Mitchell: Relief from Sanctions in Practice - Rhiannon Lewis, 1 Chancery Lane
23/02/14. As practitioners continue to the grapple with the realities of the post-Mitchell climate, several reported decisions are beginning to demonstrate how the courts are applying the “new more robust approach” to applications for relief from sanctions.
In Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [2013] EWCA Civ 1624, the defendant applied for relief from sanctions in order to allow then to rely on witness evidence served out of time. Permission had been allowed by the lower court, despite the defendant having a history of delays. In support of their application, the defendant had relied on a combination of reasons for the default, such as professional pressures, the holiday period, bad weather and operational commitments of the officers. The Court of Appeal held that relief from sanctions should not have been granted. Allowing the application led to an adjournment of the trial, thereby failing to promote the efficient conduct of litigation and having a negative effect on other court users. Further, such reasons as offered by the defendant were...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish
Quinn Insurance Limited v (1) Mrs Nazan Alintas (2) Ms Yesim Yurtsever - Tim Sharpe, Temple Garden Chambers
21/02/14. A brought proceedings in the County Court in which she alleged that Q’s insured driver had caused a road traffic accident. A and Y claimed that Y was an independent witness to the accident who did not know A. Q served evidence that A and Y knew each other. Q also alleged that A had failed to disclose previous road traffic accidents. A discontinued her claim. Q then sought permission to bring committal applications against both Defendants in relation to allegedly false statements of truth.
As the proceedings were in the County Court, CPR 81.18(3) applied. This states that “a committal application in relation to a false statement of truth or disclosure statement in connection with proceedings in a county court may be made only...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/firebrandphotography
![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)
