PIBULJ
Whipped! - Paul Stanton
19/08/13. Everyone is no doubt aware of the ongoing litigation involving Andrew Mitchell MP, the former Government Chief Whip. He is currently bringing a libel case against The Sun newspaper for it's allegations that Mr Mitchell had sworn at (and generally abused) a Downing Street police officer-front page "news" at the time! A CMC was listed, and an order made that a costs budget should be filed at least 7 days before the hearing. Unfortunately, the Claimant's solicitors-Atkins Thomson-apparently failed to comply with the requirement to file a costs budget, and the Court made an order that the Claimant's (recoverable) costs would...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/bobaliciouslondon/4599407969/
Johnson v Unisys Revisited: Monk v Cann Hall Primary School and Essex County Council [2013] EWCA Civ 826 - Frances McClenaghan, 1 Chancery Lane
17/08/13. Mrs Monk was made redundant from her position as an administrative assistant at the First Respondent’s primary school, with effect from 31st August 2008. On 10th July, however, she was required to clear her desk before being publicly escorted from the premises. She brought a claim for psychiatric injuries. Her claim was struck out on the basis that it fell within the Johnson exclusion area. Since the House of Lords decision in Johnson v Unisys Ltd ([2001] UKHL 13) an employee may not recover damages at common law for loss caused by the fact or the manner of dismissal.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/cri1810
PI Practitioner, August 2013
16/08/13. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Simply fill in your email address at the top right of this website.
Vicarious LiabilityLister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 AC 215
If a tort arises from circumstances connected with the tortfeasor's employment then the doctrine of vicarious liability may arise. The court should consider...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Editorial: Striking Out Claims and the Right to a Fair Hearing - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
15/08/13. The initial indications, many of which have drawn comment in this journal, are that the Courts are using the new emphasis on proportionality together with the narrower approach to relief from sanctions in CPR 3.9 to impose significant sanctions including strike out for breaches of the procedural rules and Court orders. Finding little assistance from the amended Civil Procedure Rules, Claimants may turn to the European Convention on Human Rights in search of some protection.
Article 6(1) provides that in the “determination of his civil rights” everyone is entitled to a “fair and public hearing.” Plainly this suggests a right of access to the courts to determine civil claims, which could potentially be infringed by an overly zealous approach to striking claims out.
However, the European Court of Human Rights concluded in Ashingdane v United Kingdom (28 May 1985) that the right of access to the courts is not absolute and that States may impose such regulations as accord with the needs and resources of the community and individuals. Such limitations will not be compatible with Article 6(1) unless they pursue a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. In a different context, these findings were summarised with apparent approval by the Supreme Court in Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26.
The amended Rules were enacted so as to protect the needs and resources of the community as a whole. Therefore it may well be accepted that they pursue a legitimate aim. In appropriate cases, however, there is scope for Claimants to fortify their position by arguing that striking out a claim is a disproportionate interference with their right of access to the Court. Where a fair hearing remains possible and the breach is relatively minor, such arguments are likely to carry particular weight.
Aidan Ellis
Temple Garden Chambers
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Ramberg
The Mesothelioma Bill: Does It Go Far Enough? - Ruth Johnson, Blake Lapthorn
14/08/13. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the lungs caused, it is thought, exclusively from exposure to asbestos. It begins in the mesothelium which is the membrane that lines and protects the lungs, the heart and the abdominal cavity. There are three main types of mesothelioma:
Image ©iStockphoto.com/hroe
More Articles...
- No Smoke Without Fire: Fire Service Liability - Andrew Roy, 12 King's Bench Walk
- Legionnaires’ Disease, Is There a Claim? - Kirsty Clifton, Ascot Lawyers
- What Exactly Are Defective Thought Processes? - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
- Jackson in Action: the 1st April Reforms Begin to Take Effect - Shirley Denyer, Shirley Denyer LLP & Knowledge Services Consultant for FOIL
![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)
