Search Results for

EL v Children’s Society [2012] EWHC 365 (QB) On 24th February 2012 the decision in EL v Children’s Society was handed down. Whilst it is a first instance decision, the judgment of Haddon Cave J is a useful and interesting read in regard to whether or not acts are carried out in the discharge of

“Beyond the Fringe” was a great show. Many of the sketches still resonate today. Some of my favourites feature the great Peter Cook musing on judges and miners in “Sitting on the Bench”. There were some brilliant reflections – “I would much prefer to be a judge than a coal miner because of the absence

  In Thompson & Anor v Middleton [2012] EWCA Civ 231, the unsuccessful Defendant in a road traffic personal injury case appealed on the grounds that the judge at first instance dealt inappropriately with a new line of argument from the Defendant’s medical expert pertaining to causation suggested at a quantum only hearing, after causation

As I expect many will agree, there has been a recent upsurge in the past 12 or so months in cases of alleged fraudulent accidents coming before the courts. Are these sorts of accidents becoming more common? Or are insurer’s simply getting tougher and more bullish in alleging fraud? I think the answer is possibly

‘Oracular and opaque’ are the words Jackson L.J. uses of the Animals Act in a judgment (Goldsmith v Patchcott [2012] EWCA Civ 183) which is impeccably logical and clear. The facts are the easy bit: ‘Red’ was a horse who reared and then bucked violently, throwing the claimant to the ground and then striking her

Mind the Gap!

At least you know where you are with the NHSLA. The same is true of the various medical defence organisations. Can the same be said for the new regime proposed under the Health and Social Care Bill (HSCB)? If there are gaps in the indemnity arrangements for NHS care, what does this mean for claimants

Whiplash: Again …

A short article in yesterday’s Guardian caught my eye (Let’s not add insult to personal injury: 20.2.12). It wasn’t the author’s commentary on David Cameron’s recent “Insurance Summit” that attracted my attention (see, Laura Johnson’s PIBLAWG piece a week ago). It wasn’t the reporting of the statistics, although it has to be admitted that these

Beware of Rehman v Estate of JG Brady [2012] EWHC 78.  Claimants and Defendants should note that it contains a serious error of principle.                                     Facts:  A seven year old girl “hurried” 3.41 metres across a road before being struck by a car that was travelling at 28-32mph when the judge found it should have

The common duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act owed only to visitors. But a claimant’s status as “visitor” to the premises generally is necessary but not sufficient for there to be a duty in a particular case. So it’s always worth examining a bit further to see whether the common duty of care

Practice at the Bar provides an interesting perspective of the country’s economic ups and downs.  I think many of us would cite anecdotal evidence that as soon as the economy begins to contract, claims where fraud is an issue begin to spike.  Whether this is due to defendants becoming more aware of the pennies and

Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars