The Building Safety Act 2022 – Remediation Contribution Orders and Cost Recovery – Falcon Chambers

‘One of the things that may be surprising about remediation orders and remediation contribution orders, both potentially expensive pieces of litigation that leaseholders may be forced to pursue, is that the FtT’s jurisdiction on costs is the “no costs” jurisdiction under rule 13 of its Rules. Costs (beyond payment of application fees) can only be awarded by the FtT if a party has behaved unreasonably, a high threshold, or for wasted costs (likewise). Although the Building Safety Act 2022 did not expressly say that the FtT was to have this no costs jurisdiction (rather than its costs jurisdictions for example in relation to its Land Registration or telecoms), amendments to the Rules from 1 November 2022 make express which jurisdictions can have real cost implications. The new Building Safety Act jurisdictions are not included.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, 18th September 2023

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Cancer and Contributory Negligence: Who is the Objectively Reasonable Patient? – QMLR

Posted August 3rd, 2023 in cancer, chambers articles, contribution, doctors, negligence, news by sally

‘When will a patient be partly at fault for not following up when their doctor negligently fails to arrange an appointment? That was the question asked of the High Court in Otu v Datta, a case concerning the death of the Claimant’s husband (“the Deceased”) from colon cancer with metastatic spread to the liver.’

Full Story

QMLR, 18th July 2023

Source: 1corqmlr.com

Montgomery and Material Contribution – QMLR

‘In January 2023, Mr Justice Ritchie handed down an important decision dealing with Montgomery and causation in birth injury claims.’

Full Story

QMLR, 18th July 2023

Source: 1corqmlr.com

Shah v Pensions Regulator: UT confirms Contribution Notice – Pensions Barrister

‘On Friday 28 July, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) published its decision in Shah v The Pensions Regulator [2023] UKUT 00183 (TCC), in which it upheld the issue by tPR’s Determinations Panel of a contribution notice under s.38 of the Pensions Act 2004.’

Full Story

Pensions Barrister, 31st July 2023

Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com

High-Value NIHL Claims: Application of the Ogden Tables – Ropewalk Chambers

‘A former Royal Marine was medically discharged at the age of 29 years with noise-induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) and tinnitus sustained after training exercises. Primary liability was admitted.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 28th March 2023

Source: ropewalk.co.uk

Causation and Divisible Injury, The ‘Rocks Of Uncertainty’: CNZ (a minor) v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Another [2023] EWHC 19 (KB) – 3PB

‘CNZ v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is a must-read for those practising in clinical negligence and especially for those practising in birth injury cases. However, the case also provides useful guidance on material contribution and apportionment. Ritchie J sketches out important parameters on the law on material contribution and extracts the important distinction between divisible injury and divisible
outcome. The terminology can be nebulous unless a distinction is drawn between these concepts (injury and outcome) which Ritchie J provided with welcomed clarity. The law on material contribution has migrated from industrial disease to clinical negligence litigation and the judgment provides important guidance when a Claimant suffers an injury from a combination of tortious and non-tortious causes.’

Full Story

3PB, March 2023

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

What if it is not just my fault? A whistle stop guide to making a contribution claim – Mills & Reeve

‘In principle, a claim can be made against one responsible party for all losses suffered, even when other parties were involved (e.g. a claim against solicitors when a barrister may have also provided advice) but what if a claim is made against you and you aren’t the only one to blame?’

Full Story

Mills & Reeve, 26th July 2022

Source: www.mills-reeve.com

Drunkenness no basis for avoiding contributory negligence, Court of Appeal rules – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted November 18th, 2021 in accidents, alcohol abuse, contribution, negligence, news, road traffic by tracey

‘The drunkenness of a passenger seeking damages for injuries sustained in a car crash “will not avoid a finding of contributory negligence” where the claimant should have appreciated that the driver was too drunk to drive safely, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 16th November 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Personal Injury Newsletter – Exchange Chambers

‘In the February 2021 edition of the personal injury newsletter:

Tactical Management: Taking charge for claimants
As a claimant-only advocate, Bill Braithwaite QC explains exactly why he believes that lawyers who represent severely injured claimants should understand the importance of having complete control over the recovery, rehabilitation and litigation process.

Child’s Play: Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97)
Will Waldron QC considers the case of Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97), amongst others, in relation to the often tricky question of whether to concede some finding of contributory negligence in a case involving a child.

Second bite of the cherry? Abuse of process post-Poku
In this article, Helen Rutherford covers abuse of process in credit hire cases following Isaac Osei-Wusu Poku v Abedin.

Another Hurdle for Nervous Shock Claims
In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, the House of Lords established 4 hurdles which a secondary victim must overcome in order to establish liability. Although a number of cases have tested the limits of these hurdles, an issue which has never previously been considered is whether a secondary victim must prove that his shock resulted from an appreciation that the primary victim is a loved one who had been or might have been involved in the incident. David Knifton QC considers this issue, with reference to the case of Young v Downey.’

Full Story

Exchange Chambers, February 2021

Source: lexlinks.exchangechambers.co.uk

Fixed Costs: The Impact of Contributory Negligence on Trial Advocacy Fees – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in civil procedure rules, contribution, costs, negligence, news, road traffic by sally

‘CPR 45.29C sets out the amount of fixed costs payable in Fast Track claims where a claim no longer continues under the RTA Protocol. Where a claim is disposed of at trial, costs of £2,655.00 are payable, alongside 20% of the damages agreed or awarded and the relevant trial advocacy fee. The protocol for EL/PL claims works in a similar way. It is trite that where the claim settles at Court on the day listed for trial, the advocacy fee is still payable.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 18th May 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Is Speeding a Defence? Motorbikes and Contributory Negligence – Zenith PI Blog

Posted September 2nd, 2019 in contribution, defences, motorcycles, news, personal injuries by sally

‘In the majority of road traffic based personal injury claims, speed is often raised as an allegation of negligence. Witness statements abound with comments that the other driver ‘must’ve been speeding’ and even, my personal favourite, that ‘they sounded like they were speeding’. To what extent though does the speed of the other driver absolve the negligent driver? The High Court has considered this question in a recent case involving a motorcyclist, a side road and bank holiday driving.’

Full Story

Zenith PI Blog, 30th August 2019

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Defending Applications For Interim Payments – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted August 29th, 2019 in causation, contribution, negligence, news by sally

‘Interim payment applications are often the battleground for pre-trial skirmishes, the warm-up before the main event. Recent cases have identified some successful arguments made by defendants in disputed IP applications and particularly the evidence needed by a defendant if they wish to successfully challenge an application.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th August 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

‘With great power comes great responsibility’ – contributory negligence post-Montgomery – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted August 22nd, 2019 in birth, contribution, doctors, hospitals, medical treatment, negligence, news by sally

‘Regardless of whether one attributes this famous quote to Voltaire or Spider-Man, the sentiment is the same. Power and responsibility should be in equilibrium. More power than responsibility leads to decision-making with little concern for the consequences and more responsibility than power leads to excessive caution. This article argues that there is now a disequilibrium in the NHS, which is the root cause for defensive medical practice and the growing NHS litigation bill.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 21st August 2019

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Haider Abdullah v Credit Suisse – Blackstone Chambers

Posted December 8th, 2017 in banking, contribution, markets, negligence, news by sally

‘The Commercial Court (Andrew Baker J) has given judgment in favour of the Claimants in their action for damages against Credit Suisse under s.138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).’

Full Story

Blackstone Chambers, 27th November 2017

Source: www.blackstonechambers.com

No legal barriers to social investment, but pension schemes still not investing – Law Commission

Posted June 23rd, 2017 in contribution, Law Commission, news, pensions, press releases, reports by tracey

‘There are no legal or regulatory barriers to pension schemes making social investments, according to a new report by the Law Commission.’

Full Story

Law Commission, 23rd June 2017

Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk

Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others – WLR Daily

Posted October 31st, 2016 in civil procedure rules, contribution, fraud, freezing injunctions, law reports by sally

Kazakhstan Kagazy plc and others v Zhunus and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1036

‘The claimants were a group of companies. The first and second defendants had been, respectively, the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer of the first and second claimants. The third defendant had been the finance director of the second claimant. The claimants issued proceedings alleging, inter alia, that the defendants had dishonestly caused the claimant companies to enter into transactions in which large sums of money were paid to entities owned or controlled by the defendants and which had caused the claimants to incur substantial financial losses. All three defendants served defences denying fraud and dishonesty or that they had personally benefitted from the transactions. Subsequently, the first defendant reached a settlement of the claim against him with the claimants. The second and third defendants applied for permission pursuant to CPR r 20.6(2)(b) to bring a contribution claim against the first defendant, no such claim having been filed and served when they served their defence. The second defendant further sought a worldwide freezing order against the first defendant. The judge refused the applications, holding that (i) the claim for contribution was bound to fail because the draft contribution notice sought to be relied upon by the second and third defendants did not advance a case of actual fraud or wrongdoing by the first defendant and, following the their settlement agreement with the first defendant, no such case was being advanced by the claimants which the second and third defendants could adopt as an alternative to their primary position that they had acted honestly; and (ii) the court could only grant a freezing injunction once the applicant had an accrued cause of action, which, in the context of a claim for contribution, was once the contribution notice had been filed and served under CPR r 20.6(2).’

WLR Daily, 26th October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Out of time but not out of options: Court of Appeal clarify how to deal with limitation defences in contribution claims in WH Newson v IMI – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted August 25th, 2016 in appeals, contribution, news, time limits by sally

‘I don’t know if this has also been your experience, but for some reason the workings of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the Act) always seems to cause consternation.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 18th August 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

The Child in the Road Part 2 – Zenith PI Blog

‘Six months ago I discussed at some length the issues arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Jackson v Murray [2015] PIQR P249. More recently in Sabir v Osei-Kwabena [2016] PIQR Q56, the problem cropped up again, this time in the Court of Appeal.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 7th March 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted March 7th, 2016 in causation, contribution, damages, delay, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by tracey

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: [2016] EWHC 407 (QB)

‘The claimant suffered a head injury and was taken to a hospital managed by the defendant. A CT scan was performed some six hours after his admission and he was transferred to another hospital where he underwent surgery. He was left with cognitive and neuropsychological deficits. He claimed damages in negligence against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant’s negligent delay in undertaking the CT scan had resulted in a period of raised intra-cranial pressure which had caused or materially contributed to his brain damage. The defendant contended that only if the claimant could establish that damaging raised intra-cranial pressure caused by the defendant’s negligence had caused his brain injury that, applying the classic “but for” test of causation, he could recover as against the defendant, and that it was insufficient to establish “material contribution”.’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wrongful trading: A tale of Robin Hood directors – New Square Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in company directors, contribution, insolvency, news, winding up by sally

‘Applications for wrongful trading under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are notoriously difficult. In Brooks v Armstrong [2015] EWHC 2289 (Ch), Registrar Jones ordered the former directors of Robin Hood Centre plc (the “Directors”) (the “Company”) to make a contribution to the Company’s assets under s 214. But the relatively small award serves as a cautionary reminder of the risks of s 214 applications for liquidators and directors alike.’

Full story

New Square Chambers, 1st December 2015

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk