Search Results for

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

TATLA Newsletter – January 2020

‘Where a cup of hot coffee, which is placed on the tray table of the seat in front of a person in an aircraft in flight, for unknown reasons slides and tips over, causing a passenger to suffer scalding, does this constitute an “accident” triggering a carrier’s liability within the meaning of Article 17(1) of

Following the decisions of Molodi v Cambridge [2018] and Richards & Anor v Morris [2018], it is commonplace for defendants to seek findings of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury cases. Many rely on Mr Justice Martin Spencer’s words emphasising the problem courts and insurers have faced with fraudulent and exaggerated claims. However, on occasion, a judge may give a judgment

On 14 January 2020 Stewart J granted the Claimants permission to appeal against the decision of Master Cook dated 4 November 2019 striking out their secondary victim claims. The claims arose from them witnessing of the heart attack and death of their father some 14 months after the negligence occurred that the Claimants allege led to

On 19 December 2019 judgment was entered in the High Court for the Defendant in Metcalf v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 3549 (QB). The case arose out of the admitted failure by the Defendant Trust to diagnose the Claimant’s husband’s lung cancer; accordingly it was concerned with factual causation. In

Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars