News Category 3
Summary of Recent Cases, August 2018
15/08/18. 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
James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40
B, a suspect, brought a claim that he had been injured during arrest by Met Officers against the Commissioner as vicariously liable for the actions of the officers. The Commissioner settled the claim during trial with an admission of liability and an apology. The officers were later acquitted of criminal charges and brought proceedings against the Commissioner for breach of contract, negligence and misfeasance in public office, seeking damages for reputational, economic and psychiatric damage. The Commissioner applied for the claims to be struck out, which was successful in the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the officers' appeal on the issue of whether the Commissioner owed a duty of care to them to safeguard their economic and reputational interests. The Commissioner appealed against that finding.
The Supreme Court held as follows. Officers were...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Pauline Carter v Kingswood Learning and Leisure Group Limited - Angus Piper, 1 Chancery Lane
26/07/18. Foskett J gave judgment on the 27th June 2018 on the claim of Pauline Carter v Kingswood Learning and Leisure Group Limited [2018] EWHC 1616 (QB), having heard evidence and submissions over 4 days earlier in the month. The trial was in respect of liability only, on a personal injury claim which was potentially worth a substantial sum as the Claimant had sadly suffered a stroke following a Vertebral Artery Dissection (VAD) which had left her with severe ongoing disabilities. The Claimant contended that she had sustained the VAD whilst engaging in an abseiling experience with the Defendant, on a purpose-built abseiling tower.
The abseiling experts agreed that the Claimant (who was a school teacher on a school trip) was being given a taste or experience of abseiling, rather than actually being taught to abseil. The experts agreed that with a chest harness and a taut safety rope, participants were effectively lowered down by an instructor and the whole process was extremely safe for them.
The tower had an initial very steep (63 degree) slope for the first couple of metres, following which the drop to the ground became vertical. The Claimant alleged that her upper body had been caused to suddenly “flop backwards”, thereby jerking her neck, at the point of transition to the vertical drop because of instructor inattention / lack of support on the safety rope, for which the Defendant was responsible. It was common ground between the abseil experts that the Defendant’s system was a safe one if properly implemented.
There would need to be slackness in the safety rope to permit the Claimant’s upper body to flop backwards in the manner that she contended had occurred. By the end of the trial it was accepted that with the safety system that was in place, there was only one mechanism by which the accident could have occurred as contended for by the Claimant. Namely, a scenario whereby the Claimant was holding herself stationary on her abseil rope, thus supporting her body weight on that rope, whilst simultaneously pulling her safety rope down towards her chest, thereby creating a degree of slack rope between her chest harness and her hand on the safety rope...
Image: public domain
Barrister-Direct’s RESOLVE service provides potential income boost to firms planning to close or abandon winnable files
24/07/18. Barrister-led law firm Barrister-Direct has launched a new service to provide law firms, credit hire agencies, medical agencies and ATE agencies with a complimentary second look service on files they are planning to close or abandon.
Barrister-Direct’s RESOLVE service evaluates the claim’s prospects and, where possible, takes the matter on and progresses it until resolution. If the claim is successful, firms recover their costs and any disbursements received and owing to them.
Barrister-Direct co-founder Andrew McKie says personal injury firms are routinely abandoning winnable cases as they exit the market. In a recent audit of a personal injury firm’s caseload, Barrister-Direct discovered that 52% of the cases the firm was planning to close were potentially winnable. Reasons for closure ranged from prospects to resources to procedural or factual complexity.
Explained Andrew:
“It is common knowledge that many law firms have found themselves unable to cope with the changes to the personal injury marketplace and are overly reliant and exposed to the RTA model, which will become defunct in April 2019.
“To make matters worse, the CMC business model is no longer fit for purpose. It is over reliant on simply supplying a lead to a law firm and then slipping into the background. Unfortunately, this means that some claims which are complex and difficult often end up with PI firms that lack experience in that area or do not have the litigation funding or ATE cover to fund these claims to Trial. Our model allows those clients access to an experienced PI Trial lawyer, even if that is not where the claim was directed in the first instance.”
Added Andrew:
“RESOLVE is designed to acknowledge that, in the current legal landscape, firms cannot afford to write off bad debt and cannot afford not to recover costs and disbursements.
“It provides a safety net and chance of recovery, as well as a lifeline for claims facing abandonment.”
Why RESOLVE?
-
Dedicated response team and free same day file collection service or electronic transfer.
-
Guaranteed view on prospects within 48 hours of receipt.
-
Nationwide sign up agents with clients signed up within 72 hours.
-
Monthly updates on transferred cases.
-
Lien on costs preserved with reasonable splits agreed on fixed costs fast track cases and assistance in recovering disbursements.
-
Litigation Funding in place and access to a panel of ATE insurers for all variety of claims.
What areas does RESOLVE help with?
All Fast and Multi-Track Claims, including:
-
Industrial Disease.
-
Travel Litigation.
-
Regulations, Athens and Montreal Convention, Skiing Accidents and sporting injuries.
-
Housing and Construction - Housing Disrepair and Cavity Wall Claims.
-
Clinical Negligence Claims.
-
Employer’s Liability Claims.
-
All types of Occupier’s and Public Liability Claims.
-
Road Traffic Accident Claims.
How does it work?
RESOLVE has a simple 5 stage process to resolution:
1. You email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. advising a file is ready. A courier will collect your file that day and a member of the team will acknowledge your file the same day.
2. Within 48 hours, you will receive a view on prospects in the matter. This will confirm whether your file has been accepted in to RESOLVE and the terms of such.
3. If accepted, the Claimant will be signed up to Barrister-Direct within 72 hours.
4. You will receive monthly updates on the progress of the file.
5. Upon conclusion, RESOLVE will forward any costs and disbursements received and owing to you and/or your firm within 21 days of receipt.
Contact details
To discuss RESOLVE, please contact Andrew McKie or Monica Savic-Jabrow:
Andrew: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 07739 964012
Monica: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 0161 706 6706 or 07983 866132
Alternatively, please visit the website at www.barrister-directclaims.com/resolve
Image ©iStockphoto.com/J-Elgaard
Summary of Recent Cases, July 2018
15/07/18. 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
Axa Insurance UK PLC v (1) Financial Claims Solutions Ltd (2) Mohammed Aurangzaib (3) Hakim Mohammed Abdul [2018] EWCA Civ 1330
The defendants in this claim had initially obtained default judgment against Axa in respect of road traffic accidents, including substantial sums for alleged credit hire charges. It came to Axa's attention that these claims were fraudulent, at which point Axa sought an injunction to prevent the default judgments from being enforced, and brought Part 20 proceedings for the tort of deceit and unlawful means conspiracy. Axa was successful in those proceedings, and sought exemplary damages against the Part 20 respondents. Whilst Axa was awarded compensatory damages, its claim for exemplary damages was rejected on the basis that the claim did not fall within one of the established categories for which such damages can be awarded, as laid down in...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
Nothing to fear: Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB) - Peter Wake, Weightmans LLP
12/07/18. In a useful decision on what does or does not constitute ‘personal injury’, the High Court has confirmed that fear alone is not a recognised personal injury and therefore it could not ground a claim in which the court had any discretion to extend the three-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980.
The claimants in this group action are part of the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation who are seeking damages for alleged abuses which they suffered during the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s. It is alleged that they were subjected to threats which caused them fear but no actual bodily harm. The claimants have argued that those threats forced them to remain in detention centres and villages and to carry out hard labour. Their claims have been brought in both negligence and trespass to the person.
The crux of this particular issue in the litigation was that if fear alone did in fact constitute personal injury then the limitation period in both causes of action would be three years, but, crucially, the court would have discretion to extend that limitation period under section 33 of the Limitation Act.
Giving the court’s judgment, Mr. Justice Stewart had no...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/graemes
More Articles...
- Metal on Metal hips and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Part One) - James Bell, Hodge Jones & Allen
- CC (widow and dependant of JC (deceased)) v TD [2018] EWHC 1240 (QB) - Paul Sankey, Enable Law
- Summary of Recent Cases, June 2018
- Admitting Primary Liability, Subject to Causation - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
![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)
