Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 232
‘Damages for infringement of privacy rights should compensate not merely for distress but also, if appropriate, for a loss of privacy or autonomy arising out of the infringement as such, which might include, if appropriate, a sum to compensate for damage to dignity or standing so far as that was meaningful and not already compensated under the distress element.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Comments made by some of the UK’s top judges during a recent ruling appear to signal their reluctance to extend the so-called ‘Fairchild’ exception to the normal rules of causation to cover any more types of damage or injury, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th May 2015
Source: www.out-law.co.com
‘Anecdotal evidence suggests that Defendants in failed personal injury claims are increasingly making use of the Court’s wasted costs powers in an attempt to recover costs from Claimants’ legal representatives. Often this is in cases where the Defence is either explicitly or implicitly one of fraud. In such cases the terms of the ATE insurance (if indeed any is held by the Claimant) are often such that the policy does not pay out. Thus, Defendants are sometimes left in the position of holding a costs order against a ‘man of straw’. To circumvent this problem it seems some Defendants are making costs applications against legal representatives directly, using the wasted costs jurisdiction. The recent case of Kagalovsky v Balmore Invest Ltd [2015] EWHC 1337 (QB)[1] provides a salutary reminder of the difficulties a party faces when seeking to persuade a Court to make a wasted costs order.’
Zenith PI Blog, 20th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A litigant-in-person has lost his claim for psychiatric injury against the Stobart Group and associated companies over his failure to serve a medical report.’
Litigation Futures, 15th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A six-year-old boy with cerebral palsy is to receive a £10m care and rehabilitation package from Harrogate and district NHS foundation trust after it admitted failing to provide proper care during his birth that resulted in devastating neurological injuries.’
The Guardian, 14th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A marine left paralysed after diving into shallow waters in the Canary Islands is suing the military for £8m. Spencer Vaughan, 27, from Cwmbran in south Wales, broke his neck in the Gran Canaria incident while on an adventure training exercise in July 2009.’
BBC News, 12th May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The rule as to “fundamental” dishonesty has attracted a lot of attraction (and a lot of heated debate). However there has been very little examination of the details of the Act and the consequent procedural consequences. There are 10 key points which every personal injury litigator must be aware of.’
Zenith PI, 9th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Personal injury arises out of criminal acts as well as legal ones. The good news is this is not a bar to recovery.’
Zenith PI Blog, 8th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Lord Justice Jackson has dismissed a negligence claim against Veale Wasbrough, now national firm Veale Wasbrough Vizards, and the barrister it instructed to advise on a personal injury case.’
Full story
Litigation Futures, 11th May 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘April has seen a great deal of discussion on costs and budgeting. Here is a review of what else we have been writing about this month.’
Zenith PI, 6th May 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A pregnant woman left brain damaged after her heart was accidentally punctured during an NHS operation has won an £8m compensation pay-out.’
BBC News, 5th May 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Fylde Council in Lancashire, confirms it ends eight years of legal wrangle by settling claim involving man who fell when lavatory bowl collapsed.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd May 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Where a claimant’s injury had two separate causes, one of which was his own criminal conduct in a joint enterprise with another, amounting to turpitude for the purposes of the defence of ex turpi causa, and one of which was a third party’s negligence, the relationship between the claimant’s turpitude and his negligence claim against the third party was not such as to debar his claim against the defendant in reliance on the principle of ex turpi causa. The correct approach of the court in such cases was to give effect to both causes of the injury by allowing the claimant to claim in negligence against the third party but, if negligence was established, by reducing any recoverable damages in accordance with the principles of contributory negligence so as to reflect the claimant’s own fault and responsibility for the injury.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 comes into force on 13 April 2015.
Section 57, which introduces the presumption of dismissal in personal injury claims where the claimant has been found to be fundamentally dishonest in relation to a primary or related claim, comes into force on 13 April 20151. The explanatory notes to the Bill for this Act confirm that this provision is designed to extend the power identified in Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd2 beyond the very exceptional circumstances required there under for an abusive claim to be struck out at the end of trial. The reference to a ‘related claim’ makes it clear that the Shah v Ul-Haq3 style claimant, who dishonestly supports the fraudulent claim of another, will also stand to lose their own (honest) claim.’
39 Essex Chambers, April 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Following the introduction of costs budgeting as part of his wide-ranging package of civil justice reforms, Jackson LJ is now undertaking a review of the process.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 20th April 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘In a useful case the Upper Tribunal addresses one of the “mind the gap” differences between the Immigration Rules and the requirements of human rights law. There is a growing body of case law that recognises that the two bodies of law are not, contrary to the Home Office position, coterminous. The latest is R (on the application of Chen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) (Appendix FM – Chikwamba – temporary separation – proportionality) IJR [2015] UKUT 189 (IAC) on, you guessed it, the House of Lords case of Chikwamba and the proportionality of having to travel abroad in order to apply from abroad.’
Free Movement, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘This is the legal round up slot. There have been a number of interesting first instance cerebral palsy cases reported in 2014/15. The most interesting of which are Tippett v Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 917 (QB) and Baynham v Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] EWHC. I am going to focus on these two cases.’
Full story (PDF)
Cloisters, 9th April 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘It has long been the case that the multiplier in a fatal accident claim is assessed at the date of death rather than at the date of trial: Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556. This is unlike the position in personal injury claims with living claimants where the multiplier is assessed at the date of trial.’
Cloisters, 24th April 2015
Source: www.cloisters.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024