News Category 3
Injured Aeroplane Passengers and the Montreal Convention - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
18/11/14. With a number of claims management companies promoting the possibility of claiming in negligence against airlines for injuries sustained inflight, it is worth sketching out some of the boundaries limiting claims for such injuries as laid down by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 (“the Montreal Convention”). In so doing, I do not intend to offer advice on the merits of specific cases – much turns on the individual circumstances and so in difficult cases specific advice is likely to be required. Nor does space permit me to discuss the circumstances in which the Montreal Convention applies. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to flag up some of the common issues which arise in cases to which the Convention applies.
A passenger’s right of action against the airline for injury is defined by Article 17(1) of the Convention, which provides that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Elerium
McDaniel & Co v Clarke (QBD Mr Justice Hickinbottom, 15th October 2014) - Rupert Cohen, Hardwicke
16/11/14. The judgment of Mr Justice Hickinbottom provided a salutary reminder to solicitors of the need to ensure that in their initial discussion with a potential client they advise and explore with the client other sources of funding litigation.
The pertinent facts of the case are as follows. In June 2007 Ms Clarke had an accident at the premises of Eversheds LLP. Subsequently, some 2 ½ years later, she consulted McDaniels & Co, a firm that she had used in copyright work, about initiating a personal injury claim. McDaniels duly issued the claim but, crucially, failed to advise her of the potential for free legal representation in the event that she were a member of a trade union. McDaniels managed the claim for the best part of year before Ms Clarke terminated their retainer and moved to personal injury specialists Nicholson Davis Solicitors...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/peepo
Coventry and the Incompatability of Jackson/LASPO - Steven Akerman, Brian Barr Solicitors
15/11/14. There were many fears permeating the legal profession in the run up to the implementation of the Jackson reforms. Hence, the race to sign up as many clients under the old regime – with recoverable success fees and ATE premiums - before J-day. After all, there was no doubt that there would be a downward pressure on costs, but at the very least, firms could live off the proceeds of the old regime while figuring out how to survive under the new one.
I do not think that even the most pessimistic of lawyers thought that recoverable success fees and ATE premiums were in jeopardy. After all, they were to be consigned to the dustbin of history in good time. What would be the point of questioning the validity at this late stage? Then the decision in Coventry came along. The Supreme Court (SC) thought otherwise and by doing so turned all those pessimists into optimists...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Ramberg
Part 36 and PI Claims: Truth and Myths Part II - John-Paul Swoboda, 12 King's Bench Walk
Part 36 was brought into existence to encourage settlement between the parties. However it can sometimes feel that as opposed to encouraging settlement Part 36 has imported an additional layer of complexity into proceedings. This is the 2nd part of this article consider some essential truths about part 36 and some myths about part 36.
v. Myths - the Costs consequences of part 36 offers
-
The costs consequences of a part 36 offer depend upon whether it was accepted or beaten at trial. However in practice, and indeed sometimes at trial, there is a conflation or these two quite different scenarios.
-
In Jolly v Harsco Infrastructure Services Ltd [2012] EWHC 3086 (QB) the Claimant sought to conflate the rules for accepting an offer and beating an offer at trial where the Defendant had accepted the...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/antb
Oral Applications for Relief from Sanctions - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
11/11/14. Despite the best intentions of the Court of Appeal, the repercussions of Mitchell, Denton and the redrafting of CPR 3.9 continue to dominate recent High Court decisions. One interesting recent skirmish revolved around the procedural requirements for an application for relief from sanctions.
In Cutler v Barnet LBC (unreported, 3 November 2014, Supperstone J), the appellant, whose disclosure had been incomplete, made an oral application for relief from sanctions. At first instance, this was refused on the basis that no written application had been made and there was no jurisdiction to consider an oral application. On Appeal, it was held that this was wrong - no written application was required. CPR 3.9(2) requires that...
Image cc David Dixon
More Articles...
- Fast Paced Change in Catastrophic Brain Injury Litigation - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers
- Is a "Disposal Hearing" a "Final Hearing" - Paul Stanton
- Disability in the Labour Market: Another Example Where the Actuarial Tables Could Not Be Used - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
- Changes to PD 21 of the CPR From 1st October 2014 - Thomas Crockett, 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)
