News Category 3
The Luxury of Attending Trial - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
26/01/15. At a number of costs and case management conferences recently, I have noticed District Judge’s refusing to budget for a solicitor to attend trial on the basis that having a solicitor attend trial is a “luxury”. I disagree. By its nature, cost budgeting only occurs on multi-track cases which are therefore elevated above the fast track either by their value or by some particular difficulty, such as an allegation of fraud. In such cases, it seems to me that a solicitor’s attendance at trial should not easily be dismissed as an unreasonable expense...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagemonkey
Advising on a Secondary Victim Claim? December 2014 Produced a Trio of New Cases Considered by Charles Bagot of Hardwicke
19/01/15. If you are struggling to pin down the relevant principles when advising in a secondary victim case this should be no surprise. As Lord Hoffmann observed: “It seems to me that in this area of the law, the search for principle was called off in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310. No one can pretend that the existing law, which your Lordships have to accept, is founded upon principle.” in White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 (the police officers’ claims arising out of the Hillsborough disaster).
In 2013, the Court of Appeal looked again at secondary victim claims and reiterated that the control mechanisms set out in Alcock should be applied by Judges to limit the ambit of permissible secondary victim claims unless Parliament intervenes to change the law: Lord Dyson MR in Taylor v. Novo (UK) Ltd. [2014] QB 150, [2013] EWCA Civ 194.
December 2014 produced a trio of decisions arising from a variety of tragic circumstances which illustrate the approach the Courts will take in the light of Taylor v. Novo. Firstly, Wild v Southend NHS; secondly, Brock v. Northampton NHS; and thirdly, Berisha v. Stone Superstore...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/nikkormat42
QOCS: Testing Boundaries - Jamie Carpenter, Hailsham Chambers
16/01/15. In a system of civil litigation in which the general rule is “loser pays”, qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) is one of the more radical of the Jackson reforms. Although the English legal system is used to restrictions on costs recovery in publicly funded litigation, QOCS goes far further in prohibiting costs recovery by successful Defendants in all personal injury and related claims in all but the most exceptional of circumstances and without reference to the Claimant’s means. It is unsurprising, therefore, that Defendants are keen to establish the limits of QOCS and in two recent cases they have succeeded in restricting its scope, specifically in relation to third party claims and appeals under the transitional provisions.
The Rules
The QOCS rules are contained in Section II of CPR Part 44 and are deceptively simple. CPR 44.13 and 44.14 establish the class of claims to which QOCS applies and the basic operation of the principle...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/olaser
Summary of Recent Cases, January 2015
15/01/15. 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
Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks & Ors [2014] EWHC 4190 (QB)
In an important judgment handed down on 11 December 2014, Jay J held that the Fairchild exception to causation in mesothelioma claims enunciated by the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32 applies equally to asbestos-induced lung cancer claims. Claims were brought under the...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
Personal Injury, Negligence and COP Lawyers Need to Understand Special Educational Needs (SEN) - Ed Duff, Boyes Turner
12/01/15. On 1 September 2014, the most significant change in special educational needs (SEN) law for 30 years took effect due to the Children and Families Act 2014. This has increased the scope of support for children and young people. It means that PI, Negligence and Court of Protection lawyers who work with children with learning difficulties will have to understand and work with SEN lawyers.
The law
A person is likely to have SEN if they have a greater difficulty in learning as compared to their peers. Examples range from dyslexia to cerebral palsy and acquired brain injuries. SEN, as with any disability or impairment, can be developed during a person’s life following...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/clubfoto
More Articles...
- A Prediction for 2015: Costs Budgeting is Doomed - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
- Extensions of Time to File Notices of Appeal and Relief From Sanctions - Ruwena Khan, Zenith Chambers
- Prosecution of PI Fraud - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane
- Rome II and the Law of the Tort - Matthew Chapman, 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)
