Rule committee “sympathetic” with PIBA complaints about solicitors using unregistered barristers in court – Litigation Futures

‘The government has been asked to look at changing the Civil Procedure Rules to prevent solicitors from employing unregistered barristers as agents to represent clients in court.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Rule committee “sympathetic” with PIBA complaints about solicitors using unregistered barristers in court – Litigation Futures

Court rules on QOCS protection in appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 31st, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘Costs protection will apply to first appeals in personal injury proceedings, the High Court has ruled in a judgment intended to clear up an area of confusion.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 30th May 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on Court rules on QOCS protection in appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

Jackson: fixed costs grid is “starting point for debate” – Litigation Futures

Posted May 24th, 2016 in civil justice, costs, judges, negligence, news, personal injuries, speeches by sally

‘Lord Justice Jackson has sought to calm fears raised by the “grid of fixed costs” he proposed in January this year for all civil claims worth up to £250,000.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 24th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Jackson: fixed costs grid is “starting point for debate” – Litigation Futures

If you’re going to go down a steep slope, make sure you do it on your bottom! – Zenith PI Blog

‘In a decision handed down last week in English Heritage v Taylor [2016] EWCA Civ 448 the Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision of a finding of breach of duty under section 2 of the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 and a finding of 50% contributory negligence against the claimant. The issues centred around what was an obvious danger.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on If you’re going to go down a steep slope, make sure you do it on your bottom! – Zenith PI Blog

Senior judges oppose singling out clin neg for fixed costs as consultation nears – Litigation Futures

‘The senior judiciary agrees with Lord Justice Jackson that fixed recoverable costs should not be introduced in clinical negligence cases in isolation, but as part of their extension across the entire fast-track and ‘lower’ end of the multi-track, it has emerged.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 23rd May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Senior judges oppose singling out clin neg for fixed costs as consultation nears – Litigation Futures

High Court rejects defendant’s bid to withdraw admission of liability – Litigation Futures

‘A defendant cannot withdraw an admission of liability because the value of a claim has increased, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court rejects defendant’s bid to withdraw admission of liability – Litigation Futures

Over the Border – Zenith PI Blog

‘In the recent cases of Cook v Virgin Media Ltd and McNeil v Tesco Plc [2016] 1WLR 1672, the Court of Appeal had to consider two cases raising a virtually identical issue. Each case related to a Scottish claimant claiming for personal injuries sustained in Scotland against Defendants who had registered offices in England and Wales. Mr Cook claimed that he suffered personal injury in a tripping accident in East Kilbride as a result of the negligence of Virgin Media. Virgin Media admitted liability. The claim was brought through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. In their defence Virgin Media said that the claim would be more appropriately dealt with in Scotland. In the second case Mr McNeil had suffered injuries in a Tesco store in Glasgow. He too claimed putting a claim through the Northampton Money Claims Centre. Tesco denied liability and said that the claim should have been brought in Scotland. Both these cases were shunted to Carlisle County Court. (It is perhaps a pity that the old Berwick-upon-Tweed County Court has long closed its doors, since it might have been an ideal venue.)’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 17th May 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Over the Border – Zenith PI Blog

NHSLA ordered to pay indemnity costs for surveillance video “ambush” – Litigation Futures

‘The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) has been ordered by the High Court to pay indemnity costs after sending a last-minute surveillance video to the claimant’s lawyers which resulted in a trial being vacated.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on NHSLA ordered to pay indemnity costs for surveillance video “ambush” – Litigation Futures

Government working on fixed costs extension, says Faulks, as clinical negligence debate hots up – Litigation Futures

Posted May 6th, 2016 in costs, negligence, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘The government is investigating the extension of fixed recoverable costs across all civil litigation, including how to deal with differences between different types of litigation, civil justice minister Lord Faulks said yesterday.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 5th may 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Government working on fixed costs extension, says Faulks, as clinical negligence debate hots up – Litigation Futures

APIL 2016: no retreat on personal injury reform, says justice minister – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 5th, 2016 in consultations, damages, insurance, news, personal injuries, small claims by tracey

‘Justice minister Lord Faulks today indicated that there will be no retreat on far-reaching and controversial plans to reform the personal injury sector.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 4th May 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on APIL 2016: no retreat on personal injury reform, says justice minister – Law Society’s Gazette

High Court: no “windfall” in allowing barrister to claim fast-track trial advocacy fee – Litigation Futures

‘Allowing a claimant’s barrister to recover a trial advocacy fee in a fast-track personal injury case, settled on the morning of the hearing, “hardly amounts to a windfall”, a High Court judge has said.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 3rd May 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on High Court: no “windfall” in allowing barrister to claim fast-track trial advocacy fee – Litigation Futures

Compensation for health and safety breaches depends on actual harm, Court of Appeal confirms – OUT-LAW.com

‘Employees must be able to prove that they have suffered actual harm as a result of breaches of health and safety law by an employer in order to claim compensation, the Court of Appeal has confirmed.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 29th April 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off on Compensation for health and safety breaches depends on actual harm, Court of Appeal confirms – OUT-LAW.com

Credit Hire – Defendant Entitled To Summary Judgment When Claimant Could Not Establish Need – Zenith PI Blog

‘HHJ Armstrong refused the Claimant’s application for permission to appeal the decision of District Judge Read that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the Claimant could not establish need in relation to a vehicle he had hired.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 27th April 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Comments Off on Credit Hire – Defendant Entitled To Summary Judgment When Claimant Could Not Establish Need – Zenith PI Blog

Claim against MIB does not have protection of QOCS, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘A claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) by the victim of an accident in France does not have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), the High Court has ruled.

Full story

Litigation Futures, 26th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Claim against MIB does not have protection of QOCS, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

No escape from dishonesty hearing for claimant who discontinued – Litigation Futures

Posted April 27th, 2016 in costs, fraud, news, personal injuries, proportionality by sally

‘A personal injury claimant cannot escape a fundamental dishonesty hearing by serving a notice of discontinuance, a circuit judge has held.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 27th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on No escape from dishonesty hearing for claimant who discontinued – Litigation Futures

Footballer found guilty of contempt of court – Attorney General’s Office

‘A semi-professional footballer who was caught tweeting about playing football 24 hours after making a dishonest insurance claim for whiplash today admitted contempt of court.’

Full press release

Attorney General’s Office, 15th April 2016

Source: www.gov.uk/ago

Comments Off on Footballer found guilty of contempt of court – Attorney General’s Office

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted April 20th, 2016 in costs, indemnities, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 365

‘The claimant succeeded in her claim against the defendant for medical negligence in the management of her birth, during which she suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury as a result of shoulder dystocia. The claimant had earlier made a CPR Pt 36 offer to settle liability on the basis that she received 65% of the damages that would accrue on a 100% basis, which had been rejected by the defendant. The judge upheld the first allegation under the claim, namely that the defendant had been negligent in not performing a caesarean section during the claimant’s delivery and held that as she had succeeded in establishing that her injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence, she was accordingly entitled to 100% of her claimed damages even though she had been unsuccessful in other specific allegations, including a freestanding second limb of the claim that the delivery itself was negligently managed. On the issue of costs, the claimant contended that because of the defendant’s refusal to accept the Part 36 offer of settlement which had been bettered by the claimant, the consequences of what was then CPR r 36.14(3) (now CPR r 36.17, as amended by The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 8) Rules (SI 2014/3299), reg 7, Sch 1) applied and as a result the court was unable to make an issues-based order, Part 36 comprising as it did an all or nothing self-contained regime; and that she should have all her costs on an indemnity basis from the expiry of the relevant period plus interest thereon at the enhanced “Part 36 rate” plus the enhancements specified in Part 36.14(3)(a) and (d). The defendant submitted that the normal cost consequences of CPR r 36.14(3) should be disapplied because, by reference to CPR r 36.14(4), in the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply them; that CPR Part 36 did not prevent the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order to reflect the fact that the claimant failed in respect of the second allegation, which was a discrete and independent allegation and that such an order was appropriate; and that therefore the claimant’s costs referable to the first allegation should be awarded with the CPR Part 36 enhancements but not those in respect of the unsuccessful second allegation. The judge held that (a) the engagement of the CPR Pt 36 cost consequences did not preclude the court from making an issues-based or proportionate costs order and the court had a discretion to make such an order, notwithstanding that the claimant was a successful claimant; and (b) that, in the circumstances of the case, it was just to make an issues-based proportionate costs order, under which the claimant would not recover her costs of the second allegation. He ordered that the claimant should recover her damages to be assessed with the 10% addition required by CPR r 36.14(3)(d), plus her costs, excluding those referable to the second allegation and that those costs, incurred after 22 October 2014, were to be assessed on an indemnity basis pursuant to CPR r 36.14(3)(d). The claimant appealed on the grounds that (a) on the true construction of Part 36, the discretion of the court under CPR r 36.14(3) was restricted to the enhancements to which a successful claimant was normally entitled in respect of damages, costs and interest, that the court did not have power under Part 36 to deprive a party of part of its costs on the basis that it had failed to establish part of its claim and that Part 36 excluded the normal discretion of the court to make an issues-based or proportionate costs order; (b) alternatively, that a successful claimant could only be deprived of her costs if it was shown that it would be unjust for her to recover all her costs; and (c) that the judge had erred in law in deciding that he could and should deprive the claimant of her costs attributable to the second allegation.’

WLR Daily, 14th April 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off on Webb (by her litigation friend) v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Down the Rabbit Hole of Genetic Testing – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The explosion of genetic testing in the last half century has produced unquantifiable benefits, allowing scientists to understand the constitution of genetic disorders and dramatically improve disease diagnosis, avoidance and treatment. Consider the near-eradication of Tay-Sachs, a fatal neurodegenerative disease, since the introduction of screening in the 1970s; the standardisation of newborn testing; and the introduction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for inherited cancer genes.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 19th April 2016

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off on Down the Rabbit Hole of Genetic Testing – UK Human Rights Blog

Court heaps landmark contempt sentence on whiplash cheat – Litigation Futures

‘A semi-professional footballer who brought a fake whiplash claim has suffered twice over after a four-month suspended sentence for contempt was heaped on an £11,000 costs order for bringing a fundamentally dishonest claim.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th April 2016

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off on Court heaps landmark contempt sentence on whiplash cheat – Litigation Futures

PI victim gets 100% costs – despite failing with one allegation – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that a claimant should be awarded full costs of bringing her case despite losing on one of the issues.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 15th April 2015

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off on PI victim gets 100% costs – despite failing with one allegation – Law Society’s Gazette