Search Results for

It is frequent occurrence in road traffic claims for defendant insurers to raise allegations of fundamental dishonesty during the course of litigation, or, indeed, at trial. This is often in response to claimants suggesting that they suffered multiple injuries, despite being involved in a low-velocity impact where minimal vehicle damage was sustained. However, allegations of fundamental

Hussain (I) & Begum (II) v Aviva Insurance Limited The rule that costs follow the event is very rarely displaced, except in favour of claimants in fast track claims who are protected by the operation of QOCS. However, in some circumstances, where the Claimant (or the Claimant’s solicitors) have prepared a claim so badly that

Figures just released by the Food Standards Agency show that there are estimated to be about 2.4 million cases of food poisoning a year in the UK; more than twice as many as the estimated figure in 2009. This does not mean that cases of food poisoning have increased; rather, it is a reflection of more

Coronavirus: The Facts for the Travel Industry

Matthew Ford, Head of Travel at BLM and Sarah Prager, Senior Travel Barrister at 1 Chancery Lane, talk through the latest on Coronavirus, providing clarity for those working in the travel industry in what can be described as a fast moving and rather uncertain landscape. With daily reports being issued about the increasing spread of

Defendant’s costs paid by Claimant’s expert

In the clinical negligence case of Thimmaya v Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust v Jamil (Manchester County Court 30 January 2020), HHJ Evans ordered that the Claimant’s expert should pay part of the Defendant’s costs. It had become apparent in cross examination of the expert that he was “wholly unable to articulate the test to be applied

By Francesca O’Neill This article should act as a warning to Claimants – miss out, or mess up, a procedural step – and your whole claim may be liable to be struck out. Although very severe, judges can be persuaded that strike out is the appropriate sanction, even where it may seem contrary to the

Edward Faulks QC was the Keynote Speaker at the Association of British Insurers’ Civil Justice Reform event on 29th January. With over 100 delegates in attendance, he spoke on the reforms to civil justice and the Civil Liability Act. With the passing of the Civil Liability Act, the announcement of the new Personal Injury Discount

In AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (comm) Mr Justice Bryan gave further consideration to the treatment of cryptocurrencies as property for the purposes of English Law, determining that they are capable of being subject to an interim proprietary injunction. Cryptocurrencies are becoming a more common feature of commercial life and impact on associated

Personal injury analysis: issues relating to memory and witness evidence continue to trouble the courts. The problems are particularly acute when witnesses are giving evidence many years after the events took place. The judgment in Sanderson (by her litigation friend) v Guy’s and Thomas’ NHS Foundation provides a good example of the difficulties that can

In 1973, reflecting on “scattered pictures” and “misty water-coloured memories”, Barbra Streisand asked “Can it be that it was all so simple then”? The answer from Mrs. Justice Lambert in 2020 is no. Issues relating to memory and witness evidence continue to trouble the courts. The problems are particularly acute when witnesses are giving evidence many years after the

Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars