News Category 3
Quantum Report: Walker V Fensome (2016) - Annie Bates, Express Solicitors
23/01/17. The claimant, a 55 year old man, received £51,000 for a shoulder injury sustained in a road traffic accident in December 2012. His injuries improved however, he was left with an increased risk of re-rupture which rendered him at a disadvantage on the open labour market.
Total Damages: £51,000 Trail/Settlement date: 26th July 2016
Type of Award: Out of Court Court: Out of Court
Age at trial: 55 Age at injury: 51
Sex: Male
Road Traffic: On 29th December 2012, the claimant (C) was on a bus when the defendant (D) failed to stop at a junction causing the bus to hit the side of their vehicle launching C forward.
Liability admitted.
Injuries: C sustained bruising to the knee, whiplash, spinal strain and a capsule-ligamentous shoulder strain.
Total Injury duration: Permanent.
Effects: C underwent physiotherapy …….
C suffered persistent discomfort and subsequent sleep disruption, his shoulder movements remain restricted. C was given a different role at work with less strenuous duties, which his employer was able to accommodate at no financial loss to C, however, C is now at a disadvantage on the open labour market should he ever be required to move jobs due to the risk of re-rupture to his shoulder.
Out of Court Settlement: £51,000 total damages.
The case was settled on a global basis with no particular breakdown of damages, however, a contribution was obtained for damages regarding C’s potential disadvantage on the open labour market.
Catherine Lansley instructed by Express Solicitors Limited for the claimant.
This quantum report was provided courtesy of Annie Bates of Express Solicitors Limited, solicitors for the claimant.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/olaser
Court Confirms Part 36 Offers Reject Earlier Common Law Offers (but watch this space for the appeal) - Sarah Holland, Loney Stewart Holland LLP
20/01/17. In DB UK Bank Limited (t/a DB Mortgages) -v- Jacobs Solicitors [2016] EWHC 1614 (Ch) the High Court ruled that making a Part 36 offer has the effect of rejecting an earlier common law offer, meaning it is no longer capable of acceptance.
The Claimant, DB Mortgages, brought a professional negligence claim against the Defendant, Jacobs Solicitors. During the proceedings, the Defendant made a common law, without prejudice offer to pay a sum for damages plus reasonable legal costs, which it reiterated on two further occasions. The Claimant didn’t accept it and instead, around a month before trial, made a Part 36 offer. The Defendant didn’t accept that. Then, around a week before trial, perhaps with a case of cold feet, the Claimant made an about turn and sought to accept the Defendant’s original WP offer after all. Unfortunately for the Claimant, the Defendant was no longer prepared to settle on that basis and contended that the “acceptance” was ineffective because the Claimant’s Part 36 offer had rejected the original offer. The Claimant contended that the WP offer remained capable of acceptance, principally because the Part 36 regime should have no impact upon common law principles. The Court was asked to determine whether there had been a settlement...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/catenarymedia
Treat the Man Not the Scan - Angelina M Rigby, Geldards
20/01/17. The case of Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC 407 marks an important development in the law.
The Claimant was a General Practitioner who developed an intra-cranial infection at the age of 16 that required a left-sided craniotomy. He was left with mid, right-sided hemiparesis which required him to use his left hand (he had been right-handed) and caused him certain mobility difficulties. Nevertheless, he became a successful General Practitioner.
On 23rd December, 2007, he lost his footing when climbing the stairs to his flat and fell backwards. Two hours later, he was found by his neighbour (another Doctor) covered in vomit. An ambulance was called and the Claimant was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary (MRI) where he was admitted, triaged and a management plan was formulated which included CT scanning of the Claimant’s brain. The Claimant’s CT scan was then cancelled despite...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan
X v Kuoni Travel Limited [2016] EWHC 3090 (QB): Tour Operator Liability for Rape by Hotel Employee - William Audland QC, 12 King's Bench Walk
19/01/17. William Audland QC of 12 King’s Bench Walk and Gary Tweddle of MB Law represented the Defendant in this case where the Claimant, who was raped by an employee of a Sri Lankan Hotel, sued the Defendant tour operator that had organised the package holiday.
Comment
This important case considers the interaction between the statutory vicarious liability a tour operator has under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tour Regulations 1992 for the actions of its suppliers and the actual vicarious liability between an employee and an employer where the employer is a supplier of services. Readers will know the English law on vicarious liability has been in a state of flux (see Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets PLC [2016] UKSC 11). To get around difficulties with vicarious liability arguments at trial the claimant ran her case purely in contract but the judgment provides a marker that claims against a tour operator for a random assault by an employee of a supplier of services are difficult to win. Depending on the facts, it is difficult for claimants to establish that such an assault by the employee of a service provider formed part of, occurred or arose as a result of the contractual services: the judge rejected the claim on this basis and found there to be no breach in contract or Under Regulation 15. The case also provides a useful example (obiter) of a successful defence under Regulation 15(2)(c) of the Regulations: the assault was unforeseeable or and could not have been forestalled. The Claimant has renewed her application for permission to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
The Issues in the Case
Image ©iStockphoto.com/cb34inc
Summary of Recent Cases, January 2017
15/01/17. Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.
Summary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
Worral v Antoniadu [2016] EWCA Civ 1219
A consultant plastic surgeon appealed against a finding of negligence arising from the respondent's claim for an unsatisfactory breast augmentation operation. The respondent had alleged that she had undergone the operation in reliance on the...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
More Articles...
- Adjudication: Will It Ever Be Flavour of the Month? - John Bennett and Will Graham, DWF LLP
- Challenge by The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to a First Tier Tribunal Decision to Re-Open a Case Closed by the CICB In 1997 - E A Gumbel QC - 1 Crown Office Row
- Review Announced of Discount Rate for PI Damages - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
- Editorial: Looking Ahead to 2017 - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
![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)
