‘Ministers remain “determined” to implement the whiplash reforms next April, a top Ministry of Justice (MoJ) official confirmed yesterday, although it is still not certain when the rules governing the process will be published.’
Legal Futures, 24th November 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Claimant personal injury lawyers have turned to the Lord Chief Justice to support an urgent review of the government’s proposed tariff of damages for next April’s whiplash reforms.’
Legal Futures, 18th November 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The High Court appeal in Griffiths v TUI [2020] EWHC 2268 handed down in August 2020 has been much remarked on by personal injury lawyers, but the decision is also of interest for cases in the business and property courts, as it places a significant restriction on the role of the Court in cases of “unopposed” expert evidence.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 4th November 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Diriye v Bojaj [2020] EWCA Civ 1400, handed down on 4 November 2020, was a procedural appeal in a credit hire case. It raised a point about pleading allegations of impecuniosity in such cases alongside two points of wider application: whether the Royal Mail “Signed For 1st Class” service is covered by the description “First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day)” in CPR 6.26; and the proper approach to applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 5th November 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In Swift v Carpenter [2018] EWHC 2060 (QB) the claimant, aged 39, had suffered serious lower-limb injuries in a road traffic accident. Liability was agreed and in 2018 the quantum assessment came before Mrs Justice Lambert in the High Court, who made awards on various heads of claim. The final issue for consideration was a claim for special accommodation. It was agreed by the parties that the claimant required a new house, given her injuries, and that it was reasonable that she move. Lambert J set the extra cost of the proposed special accommodation at £900,000.’
Law Society's Gazette, 9th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal Swift v Carpenter, its recent decision that replaced the Roberts v Johnstone formula for calculating accommodation claims by injured people.’
Litigation Futures, 6th November 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘This test case challenged whether the previous approach, set out in Roberts v Johnstone, was correct and clarifies the correct approach to calculating accommodation claims.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 9th October 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘In Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2020] EWHC 2522 (QB) the High Court (Lavender J) has allowed an appeal against a Recorder’s decision to dismiss a general practitioner’s claim for wrongful arrest, on the basis that the officers involved lacked reasonable grounds for believing the arrest was necessary. It follows recent cases in articulating a higher bar for the police to show reasonable grounds for necessity to arrest than perhaps had been thought to apply. It also raises interesting arguments about whether any other defences, such as the “Lumba/Parker” issue or ex turpi causa (the defence of illegality) might be available where an arrest has been unlawful.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th October 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘In a long-awaited judgment, the Court of Appeal in Swift v Carpenter [2020] EWCA Civ 1295 has ruled on the quantum of the award for additional capital cost of new accommodation following an accident in an age of negative discount rate. How is it now calculated? When does the formula apply?’
Henderson Chambers, 12th October 2020
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘The latest case on solicitors deducting costs from damages in fixed costs cases is causing a stir, but Rob Marven QC and Ben Williams QC of 4 New Square argue that it is a decision on unusual facts, and that some key issues went unexplored.’
4 New Square, 22nd October 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The recent case of Hinson v Hare [2020] EWHC 2386 QB provides further clarification on the circumstances in which a court may allow one party permission to rely on a further expert report, when the conclusions reached by the single joint expert are not to their liking. Whilst the specific claim was for noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) the principles expounded can be applied generally.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The actions brought by survivors of the Grenfell disaster came to the High Court for the first time on Friday 2 October with judgment handed down on 14 October: De Costa & Ors v London Fire Commissioner & Ors [2020] EWHC 2718 (QB).’
Doughty Street Chambers, 15th October 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The collapse in new motor injury claims seen during lockdown continued in the following three months, despite more cars returning to the road.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Personal injury (PI) law firms that fail to spell out in their retainers the costs clients could be liable for beyond what is recovered from defendants face a wave of litigation following a landmark High Court ruling.’
Legal Futures, 19th October 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Lord chancellor Robert Buckland has revealed that the government is to commission an independent review of the Human Rights Act.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th October 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has upheld a decision not to allow a claimant in a noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) case to rely on a different expert because a joint expert produced an unfavourable report.’
Litigation Futures, 15th September
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The number of motor insurance claims notified to insurers in the second quarter of 2020 fell by nearly half, but their value leapt by 31%, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).’
Litigation Futures, 4th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2023