This category can only be viewed by members.
Can a court award some but not all of the Part 36 consequences under CPR r36.17(4)? Harriet Wakeman discusses ‘On behalf of the defendant it was argued that the court had to approach the question of whether it was “unjust” to make the order separately in relation to each one of the four consequences, and …
Continue reading "Part 36: Pick and choose"
This post is only available to members.
Paul Jones reviews where the line is drawn between tactical and valid offers to settle ‘It was the defendant’s position that the claimant’s offer did not contain a genuine element of concession as it still included a claim for costs which negated any concession in relation to damages.’ The 78th update to the CPR in …
Continue reading "Costs: Part 36 genuine offers"
This post is only available to members.
Kieran Coleman advises on the prospects of success, prejudice and the administration of justice ‘In considering the matter afresh, the court noted there was no specific evidence from the claimant as to the prejudice he would suffer as a result of the withdrawal.’ Practitioners will be aware of the matters a court is to have …
Continue reading "Pre-action admissions: Applications to withdraw"
This post is only available to members.
Jonathan Holsgrove provides practical advice on how to achieve the courts’ approval ‘Some courts may require further information to be filed before a hearing or for documents to be bought to the hearing, such as the CFO320 or applications relating to change of name. Make sure any such directions have been complied with.’ When I …
Continue reading "Infant approval hearings: Seven top tips"
This post is only available to members.
Life expectancy evidence; Ogden tables; medical experts ‘Most expert doctors are by nature not shy of giving an opinion if asked – but dig below the surface and most if not all will say that they will have to consult the statistics.’ In the case of Dodds v Arif [2019] Master Davison reviewed the principles …
Continue reading "Case report: Dodds v Arif [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB)"
This post is only available to members.
Pankaj Madan examines the importance and types of rehabilitation available after brain injuries ‘Recovery from brain injury is not necessarily a linear and steadily improving process.’ In this article I will examine the issues surrounding rehabilitation in catastrophic brain injury claims and how it can be sensibly and cost-effectively managed. I will look at the …
Continue reading "Brain injury claims: Rehabilitation after catastrophic and severe brain injury"
This post is only available to members.
Thomas Herbert summarises the case law and considers the burden of proof required ‘Where the evidence demonstrates that the spillage had only been present for a short time, the defendant will likely escape liability.’ The law in slipping cases is, in theory, settled and straightforward. One question that often arises in practice, however, is whether …
Continue reading "Reasonable care: Slipping claims and evidential burdens"
This post is only available to members.
Nick McDonnell outlines the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the recoverability of block-rated ATE premiums in low-value clinical negligence cases ‘The Court of Appeal, in exploring the law and practice of such a premium’s proportionality, sought also, for the first time, to provide general guidance on the post-April proportionality test on costs.’ The 17 July …
Continue reading "ATE insurance: Recoverable premiums and proportionality"
This post is only available to members.
In the face of insurers’ objections to the new discount rate, Bill Braithwaite QC explores its basic principles ‘In my opinion, when you analyse the approach by the Government Actuary and the Lord Chancellor, you can see that they have carried out an impartial and fair process, trying to do justice when faced with starkly …
Continue reading "Advocate’s advice: Nothing to complain about"
This post is only available to members.
John Schmitt provides a case update on life expectancy evidence in personal injury claims ‘Master Davison considered that bespoke life expectancy evidence from an expert in that field should be confined to cases where the relevant clinical experts cannot offer an opinion at all or state that they require specific input from a life expectancy …
Continue reading "Evidence: Call in the specialists?"
This post is only available to members.
