Search Results for
In a truly Phyrrhic victory for the Defendant, the Supreme Court has just handed down a judgment overruling Ul-Haq v Shah and Widlake v BAA. In Fairclough Homes v Summers  UKSC 26 the Supreme Court held that it is open to a judge to strike out a fraudulently exaggerated claim on grounds of abuse
When John Major launched the ill-fated “Back-to-Basics” campaign in 1993 he sought to recall an image of Britain: warm beer, old maids bicycling to church and long shadows on the cricket ground. With the greatest respect to Sir John I would suggest he missed various other specifically British images, one of which is the noble
Readers who have the unfortunate daily penance of commuting in London may like me find some form of diversion in picking up a copy of the Evening Standard newspaper. If you had yesterday, you may have seen an article pointing out the wide disparity in the life expectancy of London men, depending on which area
The case of R (on the application of Sharing) v Preston County Court [EWHC 515] is perhaps a surprising one to comment on in a personal injury blog. It concerns wrongful eviction, rent arrears and judicial review. However it is of wider interest because the claimant, whose claim for damages was dismissed by the district
CASE REPORT: – Scott v Symons (2012) CA (Civ Div) 19/06/2012 At first instance, a motorcyclist was held responsible for a road traffic accident by riding his motorcycle onto the wrong side of the road. The motorcyclist himself had been injured by a car and gave the sole oral testimony at the trial.
The discount for loss of a chance is not confined to future losses. It also applies to the hypothetical past. Many injured claimants had plans to start work or resume work only for such plans to be delayed or obliterated by an injury. Defendants shouldn’t assume that claimants who were unemployed at the time of
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison  EWCA Civ 421 Mr Dennison was a solicitor in a firm specialising in personal injury claims. He also had an interest in a company providing medical reports for use in litigation. He used his position in the firm to instruct the company to prepare medical reports for his clients.
Motorists have never been able to rely solely upon a stated speed limit as justification to drive at a certain speed. This has recently been restated, having only lately been at the heart of another judgment of the High Court in Rehman v The Estate of George Brady & Anor  EWHC78 (QB).
Mr O’Brien and his nephew Mr Joyce must be amongst the most incompetent thieves around. They stole a ladder from the front garden of a house and put it into the back of the van but could not close the door. Mr O’Brien drove the van off to make a speedy getaway whilst Mr Joyce
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Ghaith v Indesit (2012) EWCA 642 underscores quite how onerous the statutory obligations imposed upon employers by the six-pack of EC Regulations can be. The rather unedifying context was stock-taking of spare parts for white goods (washing machines drums etc) for the Defendant company. The claimant, a service engineer,