Monthly Archives: November 2014
MONTHLY ROUNDUP: NOVEMBER 2014
This month has seen a large number of developments in procedure. However we have had useful posts this month on important developments in liability, evidence, damages and limitation. There is a useful guide to help with costs and costs budgeting which ties in which chamber’s new approach to working with solicitors in the costs budgeting […]
NO LIABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SENSITIVITY TO PLATINUM: GREENWAY -v- JOHNSON MATTHEY PLC
Originally posted on PERSONAL INJURY: LIABILITY AND DAMAGES:
In Greenway -v- Johnson Matthey PLC [2014] EWHC 3957 (QB) Mr Justice Jay decided that there was no claim in law for claimants whose exposure to substances at work led to their developing sensitivity to platinum. THE CASE A number of claimants had become sensitive to platinum…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – PART 2 – APPLYING IN TIME
By John Collins Mitchell [2014] 1 WLR 795 and Denton [2014] 1 WLR 3926 dealt with the situation of an application out of time, that is to say when the time had expired for performance of a step dictated by a rule or by practice direction or a court order had expired. But the further […]
The Denton 3 stage test applies where costs schedules are filed late
By Nicola Phillipson Group M v Cabinet Office [2014] EWHC 3863 (TCC), concerns the costs of an “interested party”. The court held that this party should get their costs, but it was argued that these costs should be assessed as nil as the schedule had been served late. It had only been served around 3 […]
The consequences of non payment of Court fees and the failure to file trial bundles – A recent case considered
By Elliot Kay Abdulle and others v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Summary Despite solicitors for three claimants failing to pay the relevant court fees, failing to file a pre-trial checklist, and failing to prepare a trial bundle (which caused the trial window to be lost) it was nonetheless inappropriate to strike out the […]
Frontier Estates -v- Berwin Leighton Paisner: in time application for extension of time refused
By Frances Lawley Parties are advised to make applications in advance of the expiry of time limits in order to avoid a breach and have the courts look more favourably on their applications. It must be remembered however that an application made in time is not necessarily bound to succeed. This was the case in […]
When a system of inspection simply isn’t enough.
By Justin Crossley Butcher –v– Southend on Sea Borough Council [2014] CA (Civ Div) 30/10/2014 is something of a novelty. A successful tripping claim. The circumstances of the claim are as follows. The Claimant had been visiting her parents who had lived for some years in sheltered housing owned by the Defendant. The Claimant’s parents’ […]
APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE A RESPONDENT’S NOTICE – MITCHELL PRINCIPLES APPLY
By Bronia Hartley Altomart Ltd v Salford Estates (No.2) Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1408 Under CPR r.52.5(4) and (5), a respondent who is seeking permission to appeal from the appeal court or wishes to ask the appeal court to uphold the order of the lower court for reasons different from or additional to those given […]
LAUGHTON V SHALABY – “SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE” IN CIVIL CASES – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF INCOMPETENCE IN OTHER CASES IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIM.
By Colin Richmond In Laughton v Shalaby [2014] EWCA Civ 1450, the claimant appealed a decision that the defendant surgeon had not acted negligently in the course of carrying out a hip operation. First Instance Judgment The claimant’s case was that the defendant had negligently failed to attach the gluteus medical muscle to the bone […]
COSTS BUDGETING & COMPLETING PRECEDENT H: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE
At Zenith we have been working hard to ensure that we can help you with the preparation of Precedent H. Our civil clerks Clive and Karen have produced a questionnaire designed to help with the preparation of counsel’s fees. Contact them if you require any information about counsel’s fees for this purpose. A number of […]
Asbestos, recoupment of compensation, and the Pneumoconiosis (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979
By Mark Henley Defendants in asbestos-related claims should be careful to ensure that compensation paid under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 (“the Act”) is properly deducted from a claimant’s damages, before an order for damages is made against them.
RELIEF FROM SANCTION – WITHOUT A FORMAL APPLICATION.
By Catherine Duffy In Cutler v Barnet LBC (QBD 21/10/14) Supperstone J held that a judge had erred in not considering a defendant’s oral application for relief from sanction. The court had a discretion to consider such an application even where a formal application under Part 23 had NOT been made.
‘YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT’ – THE DEFENCE OF ‘REASONABLE PRACTICABILITY’ IN A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE WORKPLACE REGULATIONS
By Andrew Wilson Whilst the caselaw suggests that a defence of ‘reasonable practicability’ in an employers liability claim will often be difficult for a Defendant to make out, a recent High Court decision is a reminder that such a defence can succeed in appropriate circumstances.
Mirfin v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: Manchester County Court’s application of the Mesothelioma Claims Practice Direction to “non-mesothelioma” cases
By Mark Henley The Manchester County Court’s designated District Judges for Cancer Asbestos and Terminal Illness (“CAT”) cases apply from the outset the Mesothelioma Claims Practice Direction to all asbestos-related claims, irrespective of whether they involve mesothelioma: and this appeal judgment supports this practice.
Limitation: Constructive Knowledge re-visited. Howard Platt –v- BRB (Residuary) Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1401
By Simon Ross Howard Platt –v- BRB (Residuary) Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1401 On 15th October 2014, the Court of Appeal had cause to review the manner in which a claimant might find a claim statute barred by reason of constructive knowledge.
Zenith PI: PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION IN PRACTICE 