This category can only be viewed by members.
Bethan Davies reports on a case which reaffirms that proving a measure to be unreasonable is an onerous duty on defendants ‘At first instance the judge should have asked whether the measure would have been “grossly disproportionate”, rather than merely asking on the balance whether the measure would have been proportionate.’ The first instance judgment …
Continue reading "Reasonable practicability: Too much to ask?"
This post is only available to members.
Ryan Bright highlights the implications of a recent Court of Appeal decision ‘The claimant had sought to overturn DJ James’s order by relying on his own failure to comply with the procedural requirements.’ If a personal injury claimant is protected by qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) in first instance proceedings, can that claimant also rely …
Continue reading "Costs orders: Does QOCS cover appeals?"
This post is only available to members.
James Bentley examines a case where fixed costs did not apply when a cyclist was injured due to a defective road ‘Someone who is injured as a result of driving into a defect in the road denotes an accident that “arises out of” the use of the vehicle. There was a clear nexus between the …
Continue reading "Pre-action protocols: Falling in between the portals"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones discusses when it is possible to exit from the Protocol ‘The Master had been speculating but this was based on the available evidence and it could not be said that this was wrong.’ Cases exiting the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the Protocol) are a frequent …
Continue reading "Costs: Let’s speculate about misconduct"
This post is only available to members.
Francesca O’Neill warns that failure to comply with procedural steps can have severe consequences ‘Not only did the judge in C v AXS accept that the decision in AEI was persuasive and strike the claim out, she was also persuaded to make a costs order on the indemnity basis – and order the claimant’s solicitors …
Continue reading "Sanctions: Persuading a judge to strike the claim out"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Sankey provides guidance on the appropriate test for breach of duty after negligence in diagnosis ‘The judge reached the right answer to the straightforward question “did the professional exercise reasonable care and skill?”, but had to use a route through Bolam and Bolitho to get there.’ The test of what amounts to breach of …
Continue reading "Pure diagnosis cases: The test of breach of duty"
This post is only available to members.
Limitation; credibility; prejudice ‘This is an important judgment in relation to evidential prejudice under s33(3)(b) Limitation Act 1980. Defendants in stale claims frequently submit that they have suffered prejudice due to the degradation or loss of critical evidence.’ Under s33 Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), the court may disapply the limitation period in a personal …
Continue reading "Case report: London Borough of Haringey v FZO [2020] EWCA Civ 180"
This post is only available to members.
Jamie Hill reviews the latest Judicial College Guidelines ‘Between May 2017 and June 2019 there has been a continued period of inflation. Accordingly, nearly all the brackets have been increased by a factor of circa 7% to take account of RPI over the same period.’ On 26 November 2019 the fifteen edition of the Judicial …
Continue reading "Practice: Read all about it"
This post is only available to members.
Christine Bunting and Tom Hall reflect on changes to the day-to-day running of deputyships and revisit the key reasons for ensuring that costs are carefully calculated ‘The OPG now requires professional deputies to estimate the amount of their activity within the course of a deputyship year, as well as the associated costs.’ In the July/August …
Continue reading "Deputyships: What’s passed, what’s current and what’s ahead?"
This post is only available to members.
Anthony Johnson reports that judges will not tolerate dishonesty ‘The judge concluded that, having exercised the discretion under CPR 81.13(3)(a) afresh, the public interest in the case clearly militated in favour of committal proceedings being brought.’ The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Zurich Insurance plc v Romaine [2019] is essential reading for any party …
Continue reading "Contempt of court: Committal where the die has already been cast"
This post is only available to members.
