News Category 3
Public Nuisance and Other Miscellaneous Provisions: How They Can Assist With Highways Cases - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom

06/07/14. The following chapter is predominantly designed to deal with nuisance but will also look at other miscellaneous provisions in highways cases including highways cases involving snow and ice, a common scenario in relation to highways slipping and tripping claims.
This chapter will also look at common law negligence, and how that may be used for street furniture, tripping and slipping incidents on the highway.
This chapter is designed to give the reader an all-encompassing guide to the remaining elements of slipping and tripping cases and how the law may be applied to such cases where the claimant is not assisted under the section 41 of the Highways Act or under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and how the law may be used to bring a claim in such circumstances where the claim will not sit comfortably in relation to the Occupiers Act or the Highways Act 1980 and the duty under section 41 of the Act.
Street Furniture
Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 applies solely to the fabric of the highway. Therefore the question arises as to what cause of action is applicable in relation to street furniture or items on the highway.
The answer is to be found in the case of...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/terminator1
Jackson on Jackson - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane

05/07/14. “It was no part of my recommendations that parties should refrain from agreeing reasonable extensions of time, which neither imperil hearing dates nor otherwise disrupt the proceedings” said Jackson L.J. in Hallam Estates Limited v Teresa Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661.
In Hallam the claimants (paying parties) asked for an extension of time for filing their points of dispute in proceedings for detailed assessment of costs. The defendant had been late in filing her bill of costs. Jackson L.J. held that they had given sensible reasons for asking for the extension and, given her own delay, the defendant could hardly object to a modest extension. Pursuant to r. 3.8(3) the court’s approval was required for such an extension but this should have been no more than a formality. In fact the judge approved it on paper without a hearing and this approach was...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sashkinw
Can the Limitation Act Really Be Suspended? - Tim Hirst, Parklane Plowden Chambers

03/07/14. “Standstill agreements” have become quite common, perhaps as a result of the effectiveness of the pre-action protocols. The version I have seen simply comprises an agreement that, “time will be suspended”. Others refer to a “Time Stop” agreement. I assume that it was intended that the defendant would not raise any limitation defence relying on time running during the period of the agreement. Surely this is a nonsense? No-one can prevent time passing.
Even more significantly, however, it is not open to parties to negate law laid down by statute without persuading parliament to do so. It surely cannot be possible for parties to agree away statutory provisions which lay down simple and uncompromising rules such as that laid down by Section 2 Limitation Act 1980 which reads:-
“An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Counting the Costs of Improper Cost Management - Fraser Lindsay, 7 Harrington Street Chambers

01/07/14. In the brave new post Jackson/Mitchell world many will open their e-mails with trepidation in the fear that a new decision has been reached by the Higher Courts reemphasising the ‘comply or die’ ethos that appear to run through the heart of the Jackson’ reforms.
The Landscape as we knew it is no more. The winds of change have heralded the much touted and some may say much maligned Court of Appeal decisions of Mitchell and Durrant. It is correct of course that the decisions in both Mitchell and Durrant are far reaching and are not just limited to specific issues of relief from sanctions following non-adherence with court orders. The implications of the decisions for costs management and costs budgeting should be of significant concern to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/bluestocking
Editorial: Sentencing Dishonest Claimants - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers

23/06/14. In recent years, Insurers seem to be enjoying more success in defending claims, particularly arising out of road traffic accidents, which are fraudulent or exaggerated. Where a Claimant (or indeed a witness) is found to be dishonest, Defendants increasingly seek to have them committed for contempt of court. Moreover fraudulent claims may attract the attention of the police. As a result, it is often necessary to advise Claimants about the risks that they may be exposed to as a result of participating in a dishonest claim. It is therefore interesting to see whether there are any current trends in sentencing in these types of cases.
A party in a civil action may make an application to commit for contempt of court, where for example a false statement is made in a witness statement verified by a statement of truth. In the recent case of Mitsui Sumitomo v Khan [2014] EWHC 1054, having suffered modest injuries in a road traffic accident, the claimant with the aid of a litigation friend exaggerated his claim so that he sought more than £1,000,000 in damages (considering damages and costs, the Judge accepted that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/tap10
More Articles...
- Occupiers' Liability Special Considerations, Children and Independent Contractors - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
- Why Employment Lawyers Should Also Be Civil Lawyers and The Risk of Estopping Your Client - Richard Coulthard, Michael Lewin Solicitors
- The Future of Expert Evidence in Personal Injury Cases - Paul Phillips, Greenwoods Solicitors
- Private International Law and PI: Final Gasps of the 1995 Act? - Matthew Chapman, 1 Chancery Lane








