News Category 3
Editorial: On Unreasonableness and Opportunism – Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
22/08/14. One of the surprising aspects of Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, was the criticism which the Court of Appeal reserved for those who resist successful applications for relief from sanctions. According to Denton, unreasonableness and opportunism are inimical to cooperation and the avoidance of satellite litigation. Those who unreasonably oppose applications for relief must therefore be punished – not only by the costs of the application but by placing a marker in the Order that such conduct may be penalized in the assessment of costs at the end of the proceedings (see paragraphs 42 – 43).
Following the strident terms and robust language of the earlier decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 and its application particularly in the County Courts, it became very difficult to advise a client to consent to an application for relief from sanctions. In the post-Mitchell era, to consent might have...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/bobaliciouslondon/4599407969/
Walsall MBC v Millard - Matthew White, St John’s Chambers
20/08/14. The winter of 2009-2010 was harsh. Walsall (a highway authority) received many more complaints about the highways than usual. They abandoned their periodic system of inspection of highways and ‘went reactive’, only responding to complaints due to being deluged with problems as a result of the weather. The claimant tripped on a dangerous defect on 27/2/10. The location had been due for its 6-monthly inspection by 17/2/10, but it was not inspected because periodic inspections had been suspended. At first instance the Deputy District Judge had found that the Highway Authority themselves set the standard of what was reasonably required to keep the highway safe by inspecting every 6 months (which, incidentally, was what the national Code of Practice recommended), and could not justify departure from that on the basis of not having enough manpower/resources to continue such inspections through harsh weather because Wilkinson said that insufficient resources was no defence.
On appeal HHJ Gregory overturned that decision. He considered that there is a distinction between cases like Wilkinson v. City of York Council [2011] EWCA Civ 207 in which a...
Image © Garry Wright
Instructing an Accountant in PI Cases Post-Jackson - Richard Formby FCA MAE, Experienced Accountancy Expert Witness & Partner at Monahans, Chartered Accountants
19/08/14. Having provided quantum expert support in Personal Injury claims for over 25 years, it has been interesting to watch the recent development of the tough PI litigation environment.
I have observed over the past six months or so, a marked difference in attitude by courts and, particularly between judges, to applications for permission to use quantum expert evidence. This appears to be creating a very real practical difficulty for those advancing claims on behalf of claimants which require input from an accountant.
May I suggest that it’s now important to have a ‘Plan B’ in mind to enable complex, technical or just plain ‘tricky to calculate’ quantum topics to be quantified and advanced effectively and successfully .
I have in the past found that offering an...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/peepo
Bullying, Confused Perceptions and Stress Claims - Liam Ryan, Ely Place Chambers
18/08/14. In stress claims where there is evidence that an employer was on express notice of an employee’s stress related condition (e.g. such as by emails, letters, appraisals and minutes), the law is relatively clear. However, there was less clarity as to how the courts would deal with stress claims where the Claimant sought to recover for psychiatric injury. Light has since been thrown on the issue by the judgment in Daniel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2578 (QB) (handed down on 28 July 2014).
The facts
The facts of the claim were complex but can usefully be summarised as follows. The Claimant alleged that in the course of her employment with the Defendant she suffered occupational stress that developed into a psychiatric condition, causing her in turn to suffer serious and continuing mental illness. It was agreed by the parties that the Claimant had a pre-existing history of bipolar disorder with a very high rate of recurrence and that this condition was unknown to the Defendant.
The Claimant's employment required her to lead, manage and develop her employer’s research strategies in the field of cancer treatment within the NHS. Professor Gabra, the Claimant’s superior (the individual whom the Claimant pinpointed as the catalyst of her breakdown), headed the development of a broad programme of cancer research. The research did not just include approved NHS studies but also commercial studies too. Professor Gabra wanted research resources pooled together in a manner he phrased as “working without walls”. The Claimant fundamentally disagreed with the concept of this, primarily because she passionately believed that the use of NHS resources on private commercial trials was morally wrong...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/shapecharge
Grasping the Nettle: the Need for Employees to Make an Employer Aware of Stress - Liam Ryan, Ely Place Chambers
17/08/14.An issue which continues to be prevalent in stress cases is how to approach cases where an employee conceals his or her stress from an employer prior to a breakdown. The recent Judgment in Bailey v Devon Partnership NHS Trust [2014] WL 3387689 has raised a number of points regarding causation in these circumstances, as well as indicating an implied change in how a Court will approach the issue of breach of duty of care.
The facts
In Bailey the Claimant brought a claim for personal injury and consequential loss allegedly caused by occupational stress arising from her role as a Child and Adolescent Consultant Psychiatrist, a position which she had held since 2002.
Ms Bailey’s claim concerned two distinct periods of time. Firstly a 6 month period leading up to July 2008 where she suffered a breakdown and was admitted to hospital with heart problems and suffered from a severe depressive disorder. Ms Bailey argued that this had been caused by a significant...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/RapidEye
More Articles...
- Akhtar v Boland: Costs Game-Changer - Matthew Hoe, Jaggards & Taylor Rose Law
- Costs Management - Nicholas Lee, Managing Director of Paragon Costs Solutions
- Doctor! Doctor! Can I Have a Second Opinion? - Ruwena Khan, Zenith Chambers
- Mitchell Misunderstandings - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange 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)
