News Category 3
Practice, Procedure and Fair Proceedings in the Coroner’s Court: Wilson -v- HM Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull - Gordon Exall, Barrister, Zenith Chambers & Hardwicke
01/12/15. In Wilson -v- HM Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull [2015] ewhc 2561 (Admin) l the Divisional Court rejected an application for judicial review of a Coroner’s narrative verdict. “Fairness in an inquest must be fashioned in an environment where there are no pleadings and in which those given leave to appear as interested persons do not have a case to put. The evidence at inquests often takes an unexpected turn and calls for a degree of flexibility in the procedure to be followed as a consequence. The rules of evidence applied in criminal and civil proceedings do not apply. Questions of fairness to those involved in inquest proceedings must be judged against all these essential features and also in the context that the statutory scheme prohibits a finding of criminal liability on the part of a named person, or of civil liability.”
THE CASE
The claimant was a consultant cardiothoracic surgeon. In the narrative verdict following the deaths of three patients the coroner stated:-
“An historic failure to accurately record post-operative data for all patients resulted in a missed opportunity to identify potential problems at an earlier stage which may have resulted in [the deceased’s] operation being dealt with by a different surgeon.”
THE APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
II. That part of the coroner’s conclusion flowed from evidence which had been admitted at the inquest in the teeth of opposition from the claimant. Mr Garnham QC, who appears before the court in these proceedings, but did not appear before the coroner, advanced three grounds in support of the contention that the sentence should be removed by quashing it from each of the narrative conclusions.
i) It was unfair to rely upon...
Image cc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coroners_Court_Entrance.jpg
Time to Motor on With Reform - Matthew Channon
26/11/15. Matthew Channon presents an analysis of the UK laws on motor insurance which seem to be non-compliant with European Law, and suggests some potential reforms.
There is very little doubt that there are a number of inconsistencies between UK law on Motor Insurance and the EU Motor Insurance Directives. A number of Articles have been published which have criticised the UK’s continuing non-compliance with European Law. The UK Secretary of State for Transport (SoS) has already been sued for its ‘serious’ non-compliance in Delaney v Secretary of State for Transport and is at serious risk of further action, unless SoS substantially reform this area of law. Moreover, victims of road traffic accidents are not getting the protection that they require and deserve. There are numerous areas within the RTA and Motor Insurers’ Bureaux (MIB) Agreements which need reform and numerous Articles would be needed to examine all potential reforms. Therefore, this Article will focus on two particular areas which should be at the heart of reforms. These are that the UK should make a fresh start by introducing a new and completely independent, “Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act” which makes provisions more accessible to injured victims and should also simplify the current legislative regime so as to remove much of the current complexity. This Article will examine the current structural issues with the Road Traffic Act and recommend a potential new way forward...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
Part 36 Offers: Whether Genuine Attempt to Settle - Andrew Cousins, DWF
23/11/15. MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich
High Court (Admin) 10 July 2015
When Part 36 was reformed in April, one of the amendments was aimed at addressing “cynical Part 36 offers”. The court always had to consider a number of factors when deciding whether it is unjust to award the additional benefits under Part 36 but a new factor was introduced in CPR 36.17(5)(e): whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the claim. Although this issue has arisen in some pre-April decisions, we now have what we believe to be the first the High Court decision to consider the new provision. Andrew Cousins reviews MVN v London Borough of Greenwich.
Background
The substantive issue in this case had been a dispute over the claimant’s age and whether or not the claimant was a child. After exchanging witness statements, the claimant made an offer which purported to be a Part 36 offer on terms that the defendant would accept the claimant’s case about his age and agree to pay costs.
At trial Picken J accepted the claimant’s evidence concerning his age. Following the judgment there was no issue that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson
Fixed Recoverable Costs Can Apply to Multi-Track Cases - Judy Dawson, Park Square Barristers
22/11/15. The new fixed recoverable costs regime has been widely trumpeted as being exclusive to the fast track, indeed many Defendant insurance practitioners have been wary of pleading fraud, in case it results in a move to the multi-track and therefore an increase in costs. An important appeal judgment by HHJ Grant on 15th October 2015 in Qader & Others v Esure Services Limited has partially removed that threat. A discussion of the law and the results of this case by Judy Dawson of the Park Square Barristers RTA Fraud Team.
Fixed Recoverable Costs
CPR 45.29A;
(1) Subject to paragraph (3), this section applies where a claim is started under—
(a) the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’); or
(b)the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’),
but no longer continues under...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/picha
Loss of Future Earnings and Disability - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
19/11/15. A claimant is “disabled” for the purposes of Tables A – D of the Ogden Tables when s/he has an illness or disability which has or is expected to last for a year or more (or a progressive illness); which “substantially limits” the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities; and which affects the kind or amount of paid work s/he can do.
In Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway [2013] ICR 591 Langstaff J explained that considering a “substantial adverse effect” required looking at what the claimant cannot do. Once s/he establishes an adverse effect that is “more than minor or trivial”, the test is met. This test was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 773.
This is a relatively low threshold for disability, and the spectrum of people falling within that definition is extremely wide. At one end of the scale are claimants like Mr Billett, who, though disabled, secured work as a lorry driver with virtually no hindrance. How should tables A – D be used in such a case?
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
More Articles...
- The Risks of a Fixed-Costs Regime for Clinical Negligence Cases - Catherine Dixon, Law Society Chief Executive
- Summary of Recent Cases, November 2015
- Gemma Purser v Robert Hibbs & Anor [2015] EWHC 1792 (QB) - Gary Knight, Harmans
- Fixed Costs in RTA, EL and PL Multi Track Claims - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
![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)
