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Another case dealing with the thorny issue of withdrawn Part 36 offers is Britned Development Limited v ABB AB & Anor.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 […]