This site uses cookies.

19 October 2006 Summary


Industry News
Summary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
Summary of Recent Cases - Costs
Summary of Recent Cases - Civil Procedure
PI Practitioner



Personal Injury Articles

Stress at work: Are the practical propositions set out in Hatton v. Sutherland still useful? - Andrew Buchan, Cloisters
The practical propositions set out in the case of Hatton v. Sutherland [2002] ICR 613 have been used as the principal guidance for the liability of employers in stress at work cases since 2002. This article examines how matters, both legal and practical, have developed since Hatton and argues that they have now been superseded.

Work-Related Upper Limb Disorders: Establishing Liability - Duncan McNair, Equity House
These claims fall into one of the more unusual categories of P.I. work. Because such an injury (catchily known as a WRULD) is normally a result of a series of movements repeated over a very long time, a variety of complications exist in proving a claim. The purpose of this article is to take the reader through the issues which frequently arise in such cases.

Patients, Litigation and CPR Part 21 - William Hoskins, 1 Temple Gardens
CPR Part 21 provides the procedural mechanism by which a litigation friend can be appointed by court order in appropriate cases. Those cases are proceedings involving children or patients...

Periodical payments: AEI or RPI? Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd [2006] EWCA 1103 - Eliot Woolf, Outer Temple Chambers & Christopher Wilson-Smith QC, Outer Temple Chambers
An early attempt by the Defendant to strike out a claim relying on the Average Earnings Index as opposed to the Retail Prices Index as the basis for varying the sums payable under a periodical payments order failed. The substantive arguments have yet to be aired but guidance needs to be given as a matter of urgency.

Setting Aside Judgments - Ben Leech, 12 King’s Bench Walk
It is a surprising feature of the Civil Procedure Rules that there is still considerable doubt surrounding the powers available to judges to set judgments aside (other than by way of an appeal), unless the judgment was obtained in default. Ongoing debate about the scope of rule 3.1(7) – the power to vary or revoke an order – is one example...

Update on low speed impacts: Casey v Cartwright - Tim Kevan, 1 Temple Gardens & Duncan McNair, Equity House
Following on from Armstrong v First York and then Kearsley v Klarfield, we now have a third Court of Appeal case in the area of low speed impact cases and whilst in some ways it provides useful, it also adds even more room for arguments at the interlocutory stages.

Maximising and Minimising Damages - William Latimer-Sayer, Cloisters
This article continues the series considering some of the arguments which may be deployed to maximise or minimise commonly occurring heads of loss.

Clinical Negligence Articles

Limitation cases since Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council - Cara Guthrie, Outer Temple Chambers
The purpose of this article is to remind readers of the limitation difficulties which claimants face as a consequence of the decision in Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council (2005) 1 AC 76, particularly in modest value claims.

Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch

Sobering Thoughts About Motor Vehicles - Mr J Mackinnon, Cheltenham & Gloucester Nuffield Hospital
Over 30 million people have died in traffic crashes since the very first pedestrian death in 1898...

Critical Appraisal - Patrick Nee, Whiston Hospital
The process of critical appraisal of published material allows the practitioner to determine the validity of a study and to make a judgment as to its applicability to real world situations. Many studies of this type have been criticized in terms of small sample size, unrepresentative crash conditions, incomplete or inaccurate quotation, selection bias and inadequate follow-up.