PI Brief Update

19 April 2007 - PI Practitioner

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL TREATMENT -- SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Bishara v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust CA (Civ) 26/3/2007
The claimant’s case was that she had suffered a migraine on its premises when she was upset by an interview regarding her career. She claimed that the defendant had deliberately ignored her condition, and refused to summon an ambulance. The court at first instance granted the defendant summary judgment, on the basis that there was no real prospect for the claimant to show that there was a duty of care.

Reversed on appeal. The Court of Appeal said that the matter could only be determined on the evidence, not in the abstract, and the case had to proceed to trial.

PART 36 -- COSTS ORDERS ON LATE ACCEPTANCE
Matthews v. Metal Improvements Co Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 215
The defendant made a Part 36 payment into court; the claimant rejected it. Subsequently, a change in the claimant’s medical condition meant that the offer became more appealing, and the claimant sought to accept it out of time. The judge, on considering what costs order to make, ordered the defendant to pay all of the claimant’s costs. The defendant sought an order that the claimant pay its costs after the last date for acceptance of the payment.

The Court of Appeal found for the defendant. The judge at first instance did not have an unfettered discretion; she could only depart from the usual order if she found that it would be unjust to require the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs from the last date for acceptance. The purpose of Part 36 was to provide costs protection by putting the claimant on risk of having to pay the defendant’s costs, if the contingencies of litigation meant that the claimant failed to beat the payment.