News Category 3
Editorial: Credit Hire Mock Trial - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
30/04/19. On 8 May 2019, I will be participating in a credit hire mock trial in Manchester. I would like to thank the organiser, the Credit Hire Organisation, for allowing me the opportunity to indulge my judicial fantasies. More importantly, this is a valuable event because it will allow us the opportunity to demonstrate how credit hire arguments play out in the Court room.
In credit hire litigation, the relatively low value of the majority of cases combined with the geographic spread of cases means that the file handlers rarely get the opportunity to come to Court and see how cases are actually presented and determined. But understanding the practical dynamics in the court room is an important component of evaluating the risk in any individual case.
In relation to impecuniosity, for instance, it may appear to the Defendant that it has identified some unexplained transactions in the Claimant’s accounts or a potential source of funds. However, in the court room, once the Claimant is challenged on that, he or she may turn out to have a clear explanation in relation to the specific transactions. He or she may give compelling oral evidence about their financial hardships more generally. On other occasions, the Judge may simply be concerned about the extent to which it is realistic to expect the Claimant to recall the detail of transactions by the time of trial.
Alternatively, in relation to enforceability, whilst the difficulty for a Defendant in establishing that a credit hire agreement is actually unenforceable is well known, the Claimant should not overlook how unattractive the arrangement may appear to a trial Judge – particularly if the Claimant says in evidence that he thought it was a courtesy car. Although the Defendant may be unable to succeed on enforceability, the impression that the Court forms of the overall background may affect the Court’s approach to other issues such as period or rate.
On many occasions, the simple truth is that an argument that appears strong on paper does not survive contact with the witnesses or the Court. Assessing the risk and making appropriate settlement offers requires an understanding not only of the law but also of how the legal arguments are likely to play out in Court. That is what we will hope to illustrate in the mock trial next month.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagemonkey
Mr S v Evans: Road traffic accident (bicycle) leg broken in 3 places - Karen Cawood, Spencers Solicitors
19/04/19. In January 2016, the claimant (age 68 at the time of the accident) was cycling around a roundabout when the defendant collided with the cyclist and knocked him into the road. Emergency services were called to the accident location where the claimant received medical attention and was further admitted to hospital. As a result of the accident the claimant spent 11 days in hospital.
Liability admitted: 28th July 2016
Quantum
The claimant suffered 3 breaks in his left leg and required a 44cm metal rod placing in his leg for support. The injuries are well healed with ongoing pain in the left leg. It is suggested that the claimant gets the metal rod removed from his leg and the pain will improve, if he does not, the pain will continue. Crutches were used for 10 weeks after the incident occurred. Claimant commenced driving again in April of the same year. Given the Claimant’s age he had no loss of earnings. In addition, he did not wish to have further surgery.
The claim was settled in August 2018 by way of acceptance of the defendants Part 36 offer in the sum of £17,500
Karen Cawood of Spencers Solicitors represented the claimant.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/olaser
Summary of Recent Cases, April 2019
15/04/19. Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month. 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.
Summary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
R&S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16
The Supreme Court decided that a policy of motor insurance did not cover damage caused to a third party's premises, arising from a fire which the insured had caused whilst repairing his car on those premises. The significance of the case lies in the Supreme Court's approach to construing the policy in light of s.145(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ('the RTA 1988').
The facts were that the appellant insurer had provided H with a policy of motor insurance. Clause 1a of the policy booklet provided...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
AI and Robots, in personal injury claims? - Tim Wallis, Trust Mediation
11/04/19. News that a ‘robot mediator’ has been used to settle a dispute in the court system, for what is believed to be the first time, was reported in Legal Futures recently [1] Is this for real? Will
lawyers and insurers use robots to settle routine personal injury claims?
My answer is simple. Yes.
Sitting by my Cumbrian fireside on a recent evening winter evening I hooked up by video link to Aucklan, logged in to Smartsettle and participated in a simulated online negotiation about a pi claim as part of a live presentation at an International Online Dispute Resolution.
I played the role of claimant’s solicitor negotiating with an insurance claims handler in a pi motor claim where liability was in dispute. We made bids, with succinct reasons, using the online visual blind bidding process and settled the claim in a little over half an hour. After a Q and A session with the audience in New Zealand I made up the fire and poured myself a dram. All easy.
So, when I hear that technology will never be up to dealing with negotiation, I smile. It’s the people that need to catch up, not the IT.
Smartsettle (I call it an online system, others call it a robot) enables negotiators in a money claim to make two different kinds of bid: one that the other side can see (an open bid) and one that they cannot (a blind bid). The system sees all the bids. Settlement can be reached by the open bids coinciding, by the blind bids coinciding or overlapping, or by the blind bids reaching a point where they are less than £X apart.
The system can be programmed with rules (or algorithms) so that it performs in a certain way. For example, when bids are only £X apart, instead of slitting the difference the party that has opened the bidding closest to the final settlement figure can be rewarded by the difference being split in her favour.
Upon settlement being reached the system whizzes off a contractually binding settlement agreement to both parties.
One of the advantages of this system is that enables a party to secretly test out whether settlement may be possible at or near a particular figure without having to disclose that he would be prepared to go that far.
The neutral site allows negotiators to stay in control of a Visual Blind Bidding2 process that is designed to identify and reward good negotiating behaviour and quickly produce fair and efficient outcomes.
Tim Wallis, Mediator and solicitor with Trust Mediation and other mediation providers, and a member of FOIL’s ADR Sector Focus Team
[1]https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/robot-mediator-settles-first-ever-court-case
Image ©iStockphoto.com/prizela_ning
FREE BOOK CHAPTER from 'An Introduction to Beauty Negligence Claims – A Practical Guide for the Personal Injury Practitioner' by Greg Almond
This book is intended to assist the personal injury practitioner when considering new enquiries and when handling beauty claims – it is an entry level guide and will be especially useful for practitioners who have not undertaken this work before and are looking to expand their service offering.
Part One of the book describes common beauty treatments with a brief explanation as to how they should be performed by a competent practitioner. Key practice notes are provided. This section also addresses the common problems and how to help your client pursue a claim for compensation while avoiding the common pitfalls.
Part Two is intended to be a practical guide for practitioners and includes a sample client questionnaire and risk assessment checklist. It also considers patch tests, claims involving children, disclosure and public liability insurance issues. There is also a chapter discussing cosmetic surgery claims.
This guide will assist as a useful resource to personal injury practitioners when dealing with beauty negligence claims.
CHAPTER ONE
TYPES OF BEAUTY TREATMENTS AND RISKS
The most common beauty treatments are as follows:
HAIR REMOVAL
WAXING
Bikini waxing, including Brazilian wax is the removal of hair growth in sensitive parts of the lower body.
Risks: The areas of skin that are treated are highly sensitive on the body and susceptible to damage. Hot wax used during these treatments can cause injuries such as burns, cuts or infections if poorly applied, or handled incorrectly.
LASER HAIR REMOVAL
Uses a powerful laser or 'intense pulsed light' (IPL) to remove unwanted hair. This light source heats and destroys hair follicles in the skin, which disrupts hair growth. Common areas to treat are the face, legs, arms, underarms and bikini line.
Risks: Crusting or blistering of the skin, scarring, excessive swelling, bruising, burns, or a rare condition called ‘livedo reticularis’, where skin becomes mottled.
SKIN
SUNBEDS
Sunbed tanning and the application of fake tan provides a healthy glow andsunbeds offer an excellent source of vitamin D.
Risks: Some people suffer an allergic reaction to fake tan. Over-exposure to UV rays can cause burns, or damage to the eyes such as conjunctivitis and cataracts. The overuse of sunbeds can also cause skin cancer.
CHEMICAL PEELS
A procedure that involves liquid being brushed onto the face to remove dead skin cells and stimulate the growth of new cells.
Risks: Potentially permanent darkening or lightening of the skin, infection or cold sores.
DERMA ROLLER
The skin is penetrated by microneedles attached to a roller to try and improve complexion.
Risks: Derma rollers that are not properly sterilised may transmit bacteria and diseases between clients, causing infections. Allergic reactions to either the anaesthetic used on the skin, or the roller’s microneedles are another possibility and a patch test should be carried out. Poor technique may cause skin damage or permanent scarring.
MICRODERMABRASION
Using a vacuum, fine crystals are blasted to remove dead skin cells from the face, eradicating minor blemishes or lines.
Risks: If the application device is not handled by a qualified technician the microcrystals may penetrate the skin and break capillaries.Hyperpigmentation, where the skin has patches of lighter or dark might also occur. It is also possible for the crystals to enter the eyes, or if inhaled can have an impact on breathing.
DERMAL FILLERS
Dermal fillers are injections to get rid of wrinkles or creases in the skin.
Risks: Infection, swelling, itching, the filler can move, the formation of lumps (requiring surgery or medication), and in the worst cases a blood vessel can get blocked, leading to tissue death, blindness, or a pulmonary embolism.
BOTOX
Botulinum toxin injections are treatments that can also be used to help relax facial muscles, reducing the appearance of lines and wrinkles.
Risks: Flu-like symptoms, bruising, temporary droopiness of the face, breathing problems or blurred vision.
TATTOOS
A tattoo is a permanent inking of the skin using needles.
Risks: Allergic reaction or infection. Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV if the equipment is not properly sterilised. Future MRI exams may also be affected, due to the pigments altering the quality of the image.
MORE INFORMATION / PURCHASE THE BOOK ONLINE
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Robert Daly
More Articles...
- Summary of Recent Cases, March 2019
- Infant Pedestrians: Can You Blame the Parents? - Edward Cleary, DWF
- Guilty Plea for Healthcare Provider’s Breach of Health and Safety Law - Alison McAteer, Brodies
- £23m settlement for brain injured child: the cost of medical negligence - Ben Gent, Express Solicitors
![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)
