‘On 15th October 2014, the Court of Appeal had cause to review the manner in which a claimant might find a claim statute barred by reason of constructive knowledge.’
Zenith PI Blog, 5th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A charitable trust has launched an Appeal Court challenge over the compensation scheme for people who say they were abused by Jimmy Savile.’
BBC News, 4th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The government has moved to strengthen the proposed ban on personal injury firms offering inducements for claims.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Would an action against employers who were unidentifiable at the time of an initial claim against 8 other employers in 2003 succeed where it was argued that such proceedings were an abuse of process of the court, that there was cause of action estoppel and where the claim was statute barred and required an application under s 33 Limitation Act 1980?’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Court of Appeal found a significant cognitive deficit, and consequent lack of capacity, notwithstanding recent evidence of minimal cognitive dysfunction, resulting in damages of equivalent to £2.3 million on a full liability basis.’
Zenith PI Blog, 21st October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The DPA 1972 is an important, but often misunderstood, piece of legislation within personal injury.’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The assessment of loss for the future earning capacity of a person suffering residual disability through injury has always been unsatisfactory. The method for calculating multipliers, multiplicands and understanding the at times unfathomable awards of the head of damages known as Smith v Manchester has been cloaked in mathematical illogicality.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 20th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Compensation payouts to miners suffering from noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) are rising sharply, government figures have shown.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Lord Justice Jackson and many others have on numerous occasions made it abundantly clear that the primary focus of the investigation into Civil Litigation, the main conclusions in the Final Report and the reforms implemented on and after 1 April 2013 was to control legal costs. The aim of the Final Report was
“to carry out an independent review of the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation and to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate costs”’
Full story (PDF)
Byrom Street Chambers, 6th October 2014
Source: www.byromstreet.com
‘An English claimant injured in a crash in Germany has failed in a bid to have her compensation case heard in England and Wales.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 7th October 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Several years ago the notes to the Actuarial Tables set out a more “scientific” means of assessing damages for future loss of earnings. In essence this is done by using the difference between the multipliers in relation to disabled and non-disabled claimants. See the guidance at paragraph 45 of the explanatory notes. Here we look at two cases where the use of this approach has been considered. In Ward it was held not to be appropriate; in Billett it was greatly modified.’
Zenith PI Blog, 6th October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Government plans to deduct legal fees from the damages paid to people dying from asbestos exposure are unlawful, the High Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The latest stages of the government’s work on compensation claims take effect today (Wednesday 1 October 2014) with new measures around whiplash and PPI claims.’
Minsitry of Justice, 1st October 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Keynote speech by Lord Justice Jackson at the Costs Law And Practice Conference on 30th September 2014.’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 30th September 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Personal injury practitioners will be aware of the significance of a finding of fundamental dishonesty in the context of Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (“QoCs”) following the implementation of the Jackson reforms. In addition to this those words could soon take on a new significance in the context of a defendant’s liability to a claimant and consequent costs orders in personal injury claims.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th September 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Most personal injury practitioners will have had experience of dealing with a claim made by a passenger, injured as a result of falling whilst on a bus. Many such incidents result in relatively modest injuries. However, in some cases, particular those involving more elderly Claimants, quite significant and long-lasting injuries can be involved, and with associated ongoing claims for care and assistance. Given the multitude of CCTV cameras onboard such vehicles these days, Courts are often uncommonly well served in having before them good quality evidence of the occurrence and cause of the accident itself. Typically the cause is alleged to be the driver accelerating or braking more sharply than usual. In the latter case, the blame for emergency braking is often placed upon a third party vehicle; for example as a result of pulling out into the bus’ path.’
Zenith PI Blog, 17th September 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘ An Army cadet partly paralysed during a skydiving jump which killed a comrade is suing the Ministry of Defence for more than £300,000. Tim Herlihy, 24, of Stourbridge, was left with incomplete paraplegia after suffering injuries including six burst vertebrae during the accident in 2011 when he collided in mid air with another cadet.’
Daily Telegraph, 12th September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The qualified one-way costs shifting provisions under CPR 44.13 and 44.14 were not ultra vires the general discretion of the court on the ordering of costs under section 51(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and although applying to claims for damages for personal injuries brought by a claimant against a defendant, they did not apply to claims for an indemnity or contribution brought by such a defendant against a third party.’
WLR Daily, 31st July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘There is an important difference in the burden of proof between tripping accidents on highway and slipping accidents in shops.’
Zenith PI Blog,
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘Increasingly, nowadays, solicitors find themselves acting in personal injuries claims for people who may lack mental capacity. This may or may not be the result of the injuries that they have suffered. Unquestionably, the fact that persons may be at one stage fully capable of conducting litigation and at another stage not presents real difficulties for a solicitor. We have seen recently a settlement set aside because the Claimant, who did not have a Litigation Friend, but did not have capacity could not settle the claim. See the recent local case of Dunhill v Burgin in the Supreme Court, [2014] 1WLR 933. So solicitors face a potentially disastrous situation.’
Zenith PI Blog, 29th August 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024