The Civil Liability Act 2018 received royal assent on 20 December 2018.  Following this, on 15 July 2019 the Lord Chancellor announced that the new discount rate would be set at -0.25% (to be reviewed in five years’ time).  However, despite the obvious progress of the Civil Liability Bill becoming an Act and the discount rate having been confirmed, much still remains unclear with no sign of an update in sight.

Lessons for everyone – civil practitioners, family lawyers, and judges alike – in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re M (for which the case report is awaited).

The appellant was arrested on suspicion of harassment but was later released without charge, after police had taken fingerprints and DNA samples. The appellant issued a claim for false imprisonment and assault.

In the majority of road traffic based personal injury claims, speed is often raised as an allegation of negligence.  Witness statements abound with comments that the other driver ‘must’ve been speeding’ and even, my personal favourite, that ‘they sounded like they were speeding’.  To what extent though does the speed of the other driver absolve the negligent driver?  The High Court has considered this question in a recent case involving a motorcyclist, a side road and bank holiday driving.

Newham London Borough Council v Arboleda-Quiceno QBD (Lambert J) 31/07/2019

The defendant local authority appealed against a master’s refusal of permission to withdraw a pre-action admission made by its insurer.

The  Lord Chancellor today announced that the discount rate will be minus 0.25%. The practical implications of this need to be considered. In particular practitioners may struggle to find tables with  – 0.25% guidance.  Zenith will post details of guidance as soon as it is received.   “Personal Injury Discount Rate – Statement from the Lord […]

The new whiplash portal is due to launch in the spring of 2020. It is likely to cover injuries arising from accidents occurring after 6th April.

From agreement of damages to approval, there are various procedural banana skins to be negotiated along the way.
Here are six tips to help you in having a settlement approved.

The claimant brought an action against the defendant for personal injury following a tripping incident on a path in Abram Park, Wigan.

Woodward & Ors v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 985 is the latest procedural skirmish in the ongoing battle between Claimants and Defendants.

09/05/2019 British Airways Plc v Prosser [2019] EWCA Civ 547, [2019] All ER (D) 30 (Apr)     Personal Injury analysis: Frances Lawley, barrister at Zenith Chambers, explores the decision in British Airways Plc v Prosser, which found that a solicitor can recover VAT on a medical reporting organisation fee.   What are the practical […]

Zenith Chambers are proud to announce that the Lord Chief Justice has appointed; Colin Richmond, Ruwena Khan, Chris Rafferty, Mark Henley and Keith Allen as a Deputy District Judge on the North Eastern Circuit. Huge congratulations!

Spencer Smith v Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court, 21/1/2019) Claimant who was found to have exaggerated and overstated his difficulties not fundamentally dishonest on the basis that his motive was to convince rather than to deceive The claimant was a qualified gas engineer who, on 14th July 2013 in the course of his employment, […]

In Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018] EW Misc  the Claimant was unsuccessful in his claim for damages arising from an injury suffered as a result of sitting next to a passenger of large stature  on the Defendant’s aircraft. Frances Lawley THE RELEVANT TEST The relevant test was: that the claimant suffered injury; as a result of an […]

In Blake v Mad Max Ltd  [2018] EWHC 2134 (QB) Peter Marquand (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered several disputed aspects of damages in a fatal claim. The judgment provides a useful guide to general damages in mesothelioma cases, it confirms the view that damages cannot be awarded for a “wake” and provides a […]

In Chisholm v D & R Hankins (Manea) Ltd [2018] EWHC 3407 (QB) the High Court found liability established on the grounds of an inadequate risk assessment by the defendant employer.  The judge also made important observations about the relevance of statutory duties after s.69 of the ERRA 2013.   “Breach of this regulation does […]

I recently represented a claimant at trial in relation to a personal injury claim arising out of a road traffic accident. The defendant indicated an intention to pursue a finding of fundamental dishonesty. There were certain aspects of the evidence that might have led to such a finding, but such an outcome was far from […]

Another case dealing with the thorny issue of withdrawn Part 36 offers is Britned Development Limited v ABB AB & Anor. Here, the Defendant withdrew a Part 36 offer after trial but before judgment. The Claimant was awarded damages in a lower sum and the parties were in a dispute as to the costs consequences. […]

In the case of Kelly Wallett (on her own behalf and on behalf of the dependants of Ian Hill (Deceased)) v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) the High Court considered (heard on 14.11.2018) issues of joint criminal enterprise in the context of the ex turpi causadefence. Two motorists drove alongside each other on a dual carriageway […]

Over a 100 people attended our annual update on the 22nd November.  Thanks to everyone who attended. We hope you had as good as time as we did.  Here are a few pictorial highlights. The course was opened by Gordon who explained that if people stayed to the end they would get Smarties.   This […]

Members of the group (and our clerks) have been reviewed favourably in the legal directories.  Here is what The Legal 500 & Chambers & Partners are saying about us.   THE LEGAL 500 PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE Zenith Chambers’ ‘very knowledgeable’ personal injury team reports a significant uptick in instructions from both claimants and […]

PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION IN AN AGE OF PROPORTIONALITY 2018: KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND EFFICIENCY TO HELP YOU THROUGH 2019 AND BEYOND. To book on the course – follow the link here.  This year Zenith’s Annual Update developments in the personal injury world has  a particular emphasis on efficiency cost-effectiveness. To help ensure that you can deliver […]

This case was heard recently in the Court Of Appeal before Lord Justice Erwin, Lord Justice Moylan and Lady Justice Asplin.  Lady Justice Asplin gave the leading judgment with which the Lord Justices agreed.  However, Lord Justice Erwin was keen to emphasise at paragraph 37, “how unusual are these facts and how limited will be […]

In Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212, the Court of Appeal held that an order staying the matter also stayed the Claimant’s obligation to serve the claim form. That being the case, the Claimant was not out of time for serving the claim form when he did so within the four month period […]

The need to avoid making dishonest and misleading assertions in the context of litigation is not, frankly, something which the High Court should need to reiterate. The judgment of Garnham J in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan and others [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) therefore makes for sobering reading. The interesting point of principle arising out […]

This is a recent decision of the Senior Courts Costs Office which deals with the need for solicitors to provide their clients with a bill of costs, even in fixed costs case where the solicitors were instructed on the basis of a CFA and where costs were recovered from the other side. The Defendant firm […]

In Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2491 QB, Mrs Justice Yip DBE considered whether it was reasonable to depart from the usual rule in r.44.2 that the winner recovers their costs in full. This is a useful example of how a Court approached the principle of costs when the overall winning party was unsuccessful […]

Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 When a claimant with the benefit of QOCS protection discontinues a claim there should be no enforceable costs order against them unless there has been fundamental dishonesty in bringing the claim. But what is the position in a case of multiple defendants where the same claimant is […]

1. At long last, 18 months after the judgments were delivered, Ilott v Mitson has reached the Law Reports – [2018] AC 554. It gives an opportunity to look again at some of the views expressed by the Supreme Court in what was and may well remain the one and only time that the interpretation […]

ALPHA INSURANCE A/S v LORRAINE ROCHE (1) and BRENDAN ROCHE (2) [2018] EWHC 1342 (QBD) (Yip J) – 25TH MAY 2018 The claimant discontinued a claim. The defendant’s alleged that the claim was dishonest and asked the court to determine the issue of fundamental dishonesty so the defendant’s could enforce their entitlement to costs. FACTS […]

Caine Steven John Ellis (A Child by his Grandmother & Litigation Friend Janey Titley) v Paul Kelly (Defendant/Part 20 Claimant) & Violet Ellis (Part 20 Defendant) [2018] EWHC 2031 (QB) In this case the defendant driver admitted liability for personal injury suffered by the eight-year-old claimant whom he hit at speed. However, he sought a finding […]

NEWS FLASH The Civil Liability Bill has just had its second reading and it has now been announced by David Gauk that vulnerable road users will be completely exempt from the new reforms.  Vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, had previously been exempt from all new provisions other than the increased small claims […]

In Swift v Carpenter [2018] EWHC 2060 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert carried out a detailed consideration of the value and cost of prosthetic legs.   It is unusual for this issue to be considered at length and the judgment is worth reading for that issue alone.  Gordon Exall looks at the key points to come out […]

This case is a reminder, if any were needed, of the difficulties facing Claimants in deciding whether or not to pursue multiple Defendants. BAE Systems Pension Funds Trustees Ltd v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd [2018] EWHC 1222 (TCC) is a case concerning a construction dispute. The comments therein on costs and discontinuance are of general application […]

Last month the judgment in Barclays Bank v Various Claimants was handed down and, despite not being a direct employee of Barclays, the bank was found to be vicariously liable for the sexual assaults a doctor committed on young women whilst examining them on its behalf.  The bank required applicants for employment to undergo a […]

JXA (By his mother and litigation friend VLA) v Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1747 (QB) 9th July 2018 Goss J gave judgement as follows:- Although a master had erred in failing to decide whether a claimant had been reasonable to instruct a specific solicitor in a clinical negligence case, the appropriate […]

In the introduction to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Hislop v Perde; Kaur v Committee (for the time being) of Ramgarhia Board Leicester [2018] EWCA Civ 1726,  Lord Justice Coulson succinctly identified the issues: ‘By reference to two earlier decisions of this court, the issue of principle can be delineated in this way. Where […]

There are lessons for practitioners in all areas in the judgment of Rose J in Aeroflot v Forus and others. That case – a long-running chancery matter concerning skulduggery, political intrigue and alleged fraud –stands as a reminder that parties plead fraud at their peril. The Claimant, Aeroflot, alleged that the Defendants had perpetrated or facilitated […]

The MOJ has today confirmed that the implementation of sweeping reforms to whiplash claims, introduced by the Civil Liability Bill, will be delayed until April 2020. Included in the reforms are measures such as an increase in the small claims limit and a tariff-based system of compensation for whiplash claims. The Ministry of Justice originally […]

In  CC v TD [2018] EWHC 1240 (QB) His Honour Judge Freedman (sitting as a High Court judge) found that it was appropriate for the court to award damages for loss of intangible benefit when children had suffered the loss of a father. THE CASE The deceased was…