News Category 3
A Prediction for 2015: Costs Budgeting is Doomed - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
11/01/15. With the new year come predictions as to what will happen in 2015. Tom Standage of the Economist predicts that our smart phones will become smarter with the use of anticipatory or predictive intelligence - our phones may suggest we leave earlier for a dinner date if the traffic is bad or offer sending a message to other participants if we are late for meetings. Paul Lee of Deloittes predicts drones will be used more by business, Neil Murray of Mimecast unsurprisingly thinks that internet security will become an even greater issue and Simon Culmer thinks more customer service will be provided by video. These are some predictions from the technology of business pundits*. What of the law?
It may be folly to make any predictions as to changes to the law but I would nonetheless hazard a guess that costs budgeting will either be abolished or reformed in 2015. Some judges are open in their dislike of costs budgeting whilst others betray their views more subtly in...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/catenarymedia
Extensions of Time to File Notices of Appeal and Relief From Sanctions - Ruwena Khan, Zenith Chambers
08/01/15. R (on the application of DINJAN HYSAJ) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Fathollahipour v Aliabadibenisi: May v Robsinson [2014] EWCA Civ 1633. CPR r.3.9 rears its growling head again…but a more robust approach, nevertheless, should not be taken as encouragement to refuse reasonable extensions of time or to seek tactical advantage in every minor default.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that extensions of time to file notices of appeal under CPR r.3.1(2)(a) had to be determined using the principles governing applications for relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.9. Where a case involves questions of public law or litigants in person or parties who could not afford legal representation, there was no justification for a more lenient approach. In such circumstances, the merits of the substantive appeal would have little relevance in deciding whether to extend time...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sashkinw
Prosecution of PI Fraud - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane
07/01/15. Any regular reader will be aware that I have an interest in fraudulent personal injury claims, being involved as I am in numerous cases where a vast range of fraud is alleged by Defendant parties.
In recent years there appears to have been a change in culture of insurers, who are far more prepared to fight claims on the basis of that they are fraudulent. There have been many high-profile news articles suggesting that fraudulent road traffic accidents cost each motor insurance policy holder up to £100, but this is falling due to the rise in claims being run to trial alleging foul play: a pour encourager les autres approach?
Image ©iStockphoto.com/adisa
Rome II and the Law of the Tort - Matthew Chapman, 1 Chancery Lane
29/12/14. Those with an interest in the Rome II Regulation (there must be someone else out there) may already be familiar with the recent decision of Slade J in Winrow v Hemphill & Anor. [2014] EWHC 3164 (QB). This short piece focuses on one aspect of the judgment.
First, however, a quick recap.
The claim arose out of a road traffic accident in Germany in November 2009. The Claimant was a UK national, domiciled in England, who was living in Germany at the time of the accident (having moved there with her British Forces husband several years before the accident).
The Claimant returned to England around 18 months after the accident and continued to live in England at the time of trial. The First Defendant was also a UK national. She was also an Army wife and her husband served with the Army in Germany. The First Defendant, like the Claimant, later moved back to England. The Second Defendant insurer was registered in England/Wales. It was the insurer of the First Defendant at the time of the accident.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/mf-guddyx
It's All Down to Evidence - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
28/12/15. I know there’s an element of repetition about my blogs, but I think that’s because some points crop up again and again, and seem to me to be fundamentally important. Sometimes, when I read reports of cases which have been decided by the courts, I'm amazed that one side or the other seems to have had such poor evidence. In the world of personal injury litigation, I think it might be true to say that almost all cases are won or lost on the basis of the evidence. When litigators lose sight of that fact, they often come unstuck. So many of the “interesting” points of law which are decided by courts are being litigated because the evidence has not decided the issue. Of course, in order to obtain the evidence, one has to know what the issues, both factual and legal, are likely to be, and that often requires experience.
I had a consultation not long ago with two experts, discussing a common and straightforward point which frequently arises in catastrophic personal injury litigation, and I was left without the foggiest idea of what the right answer is. As there’s at least a million pounds riding on this issue, it would be nice if I felt that the experts had guided me to the solution. Luckily, we have time to put things right, but that might involve using different experts, with the obvious costs penalty. Balancing cost and benefit, though, it looks sensible.
If new experts can give a reliable indication of the rights and wrongs of the problem, we will know where we are, and we can negotiate accordingly.
Some people (including the Court of Appeal?) might call this “expert shopping”, using that phrase in a critical way. I would disagree fundamentally, provided that the litigator does not simply look for an expert who will toe the party line. If we all made it our business to find and use experts who were truly expert, many issues would vanish.
Bill Braithwaite QC
Head of Exchange Chambers
This article was first published at http://billbraithwaiteqc.com/blog/
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
More Articles...
- Editorial: Promptness and Applications to Set Aside Default Judgment - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
- Court of Appeal Upholds Finding of No Residual Earning Capacity - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
- Whiplash and Fraudulent Claims - Ian Miller, 1 Chancery Lane
- The Importance of Evidence of Local Standards When Bringing a Holiday Claim - Joe Smith, Bartletts Solicitors
![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)
