This site uses cookies.

22 August 2006 - PI Practitioner

DAMAGES FOR ACCIDENTS ABROAD: APPLICABILITY OF ENGLISH LAW
Harding v. Wealands [2006] UKHL 32
An English court dealing with a personal injury claim arising from a road traffic accident in New South Wales should apply English law to the assessment of damages.

Section 14 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 sets out that matters of procedure are governed by the forum in which the case is heard. An assessment of damages was a matter of procedure under Section 14, and was therefore to be carried out according to the law of the forum.

A New South Wales statute limiting the amount of damages recoverable did not relate to the actionability of the losses suffered by the claimant, but rather to the remedies the court was to provide. It was therefore a procedural restriction, and was therefore inapplicable by the English courts.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BLAMIRE AWARD AND A SMITH V MANCHESTER AWARD
Ronan v. J Sainsbury PLC 6th July 2006, CA
An award pursuant to Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority (1993) PIQR 1 was appropriate where future lost earnings could not be quantified by a multiplier/multiplicand approach: where there were too many uncertainties to do so, it was appropriate to award a lump sum. A Smith v. Manchester award should be made where the claimant had a future loss contingent on him losing his job and then suffering a handicap on the labour market. Such a loss could be quantified.

EXPERT WITNESSES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Toth v. Jarman [2006] EWCA Civ 1028
An expert witness is not necessarily disqualified from giving evidence because he is in a conflict of interest. The question is whether his evidence is independent of the parties and the pressure of litigation. However, if an expert is in a position of conflict, the court is likely to refuse permission to rely on his evidence.

If such a conflict arises, the party calling the expert must draw it to the other side’s attention as soon as possible. This should ordinarily be on service of the expert’s report, as the CV should disclose any potential conflict. However, if the conflict only arises later, the party should disclose it at the first practicable date.

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.