September 2022 Contents
 Welcome to the September 2022 issue of PI Brief Update Law Journal. Click the relevant links below to read the articles. CPD Note that there are no new monthly CPD quizzes since the SRA and the BSB have both updated their CPD schemes to eliminate this requirement. Reading PIBULJ articles can still help to meet your CPD needs. For further details see our CPD Information page.
|
|
| Personal Injury Articles | |
 Striking out claims in evolving areas of the law: HXA v Surrey CC [2022] EWCA Civ 1196 - Anisa Kassamali, Temple Garden Chambers The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which local authorities owe a duty of care to children to whom they provide child protection services. In so doing, it commented upon the proper exercise of a Court's power to strike out a claim pursuant to CPR 3.4... |
 State Immunity and Personal Injury in the High Court: Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2022] EWHC 2199 (QB) - Sebastian Bates, Temple Garden Chambers Under section 1(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978, '[a] State is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom except as provided in the following provisions'. In Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2022] EWHC 2199 (QB), the High Court considered the exception set out in section 5 of the Act, according to which '[a] State is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of (a) death or personal injury; or (b) damage to or loss of tangible property, caused by an act or omission in the United Kingdom'... |
 A school was not vicariously liable for abuse by a man on work experience placement against the Claimant student: MXX v A Secondary School [2022] EWHC 2207 (QB) - Grace Corby, Temple Garden Chambers The court rejected the Claimant's arguments that the Defendant school was vicariously liable for torts committed against her by an 18-year-old who she met while he was on work experience placement at her school. The Defendant is a co-educational secondary school, and the Claimant was a pupil who joined the school on 5 December 2013 aged 13. One of the Defendant's former pupils ('PXM') did a work experience placement at the Defendant's school. He was then 18 and hoping to qualify as a physical education teacher... |
 Parties Can Contract Out of the Fixed Costs Regime: A Reminder for Caution when Drafting Consent Orders: Doyle M&D Foundations & Building Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 927 - Grace Corby, Temple Garden Chambers A claim for damages for personal injuries had settled for £5,000 by a consent order ("the Order"). The Order provided that the Defendant would pay the Claimant "such costs to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed". Following the agreement, the Claimant had filed a bill of costs for detailed assessment on the standard basis. The Defendant disputed this approach, arguing that the case fell within the fixed recoverable costs regime under Section IIIA of CPR Part 45. At first instance the district judge ruled that the parties had contracted out of the fixed cost regime using the Order and assessed the costs at £14,467.44. The appeal concerned the interpretation of that provision, in particular, whether the fixed costs regime under CPR Part 45 applied... |
 Case Report: B v X - Helen Reynolds, Spencers Solicitors Instructions were received to act on behalf of the Claimant in connection with a claim for damages arising from an injury sustained whilst playing 'zorb' or 'bubble' football at an event organised and provided by the Defendant on 04 March 2017. The Claimant was aged 26 at the time of the incident. The Claimant was provided with an inflatable bubble or 'zorb' by the coach in charge of the event on the day in question; the Claimant felt that the ball was too small with his head at the top of the ball and complained to the coach. Despite these complaints no alternative ball was provided... |
 Browne Jacobson successful in fundamental dishonesty appeal ruling on behalf of the Medical Protection Society - Louise Jackson, Browne Jacobson In Simpson v Payne, the Defendant/Respondent (Defendant) was successful before Her Honour Mrs Justice Collins Rice in having the Claimant/Appellant's (Claimant) appeal against a previous finding of fundamental dishonesty dismissed resulting in a further enforceable costs order against the Claimant directly. The Claim was initially brought against the Defendant for the alleged negligent breast augmentation surgery by the Defendant in February and May 2013. The Claimant alleged that the surgery had... |
| Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch | |
 Legal Mind Case and Commentary No. 39: 'Keep the Joint Statement Concise and Logical' - [Koch HCH, Jansen F, Potts M and Browne G] This is the thirty-ninth in a series of Case reports and Commentaries from Professor Koch and colleagues. There is now a wealth of literature to document the merit and value of experts being directed by the Court to meet and prepare a joint statement to clarify issues of agreement and disagreement in particular personal injury cases (Koch, 2018; Eyre, 2021). The ground rules for the process of preparing a joint statement are straightforward and logical. Applied correctly, they result in a greater clarity and completeness of opinion than any one expert's report alone, and reflect one of the explicit advantages of the adversarial approach to resolving cases... |
|
![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)
