Blogs Archive

In this blog, Chris Lowe reviews the current requirements for proving medical causation in NIHL claims, reviewing recent practice in relation to the “Guidelines…” paper and considering the “R3” requirement With an ever-decreasing pool of viable NIHL claims, novel battle grounds inevitably develop. One such battle ground is the so-called ‘sliding-scale’ approach to the requirements…

The single joint expert’s decision can often have a decisive effect upon the viability and outcome of a given claim, particularly a disease claim. If the expert’s opinion is unfavourable, the aggrieved party will want to try and salvage the position. Unfortunately, given how busy single joint experts often are, by the time the report…

In an attempt to modernise an oft-labelled ‘antiquated’ justice sytem, a view more compelling in light of the difficulties faced during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has developed a programme of reform, which has been underway since 2016. The most recent measure to be introduced is the Damages Claims…

In an appeal which raises questions of a trial judge’s evidential analysis, you could be forgiven for assuming that obtaining a transcript of the evidence should be the first job on any appellant file handler’s ‘to do’ list. However, the High Court has confirmed that, in some instances, obtaining a transcript may be unnecessary for…

In King v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1576 (QB), the High Court once again demonstrated the difficulties faced by Claimants who suffer psychiatric conditions as a result of witnessing loved ones (in this case, a new-born baby) die in hospital. The Decision Mr King is a LAMDA-trained actor who has appeared…

In AL (by her Mother and Litigation Friend, S) v Collingwood Insurance Company Ltd [2021] EWHC 1761 (QB), a catastrophic brain injury case, Robin Knowles J provided further guidance to practitioners as to the application of the established principles previously laid down in Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 409. In a…

Master Davison closed the door, firmly, on costs budgeting in the Asbestos List in Smith v W Ford & Sons (Contractors) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1749 (QB). Philip Turton reports on the decision. The judgment can be read here. It has long been the practice in the Asbestos List to dispense with costs budgeting. In living mesothelioma claims…

“That the tort of negligence is a mess goes almost without saying.” So said David Ibbetson in How the Romans Did for Us: Ancient Roots of the Tort of Negligence (2003) 26 UNSWLJ 475. As James Plunkett put it in The Duty of Care in Negligence (Hart Publishing, 2018), p. 76:  Since Donoghue v Stevenson…

In Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Ms Meadows’ appeal, finding that there was no principled basis for excluding a clinical negligence claim from the ambit of the ‘scope of duty principle’ in the tort of negligence. The judgment can be read here. This short blog looks at the majority’s…

In TUI v Morgan [2021] PIQR P12, the Respondent, Mrs Morgan, sustained injury whilst on a package holiday to Mauritius, which she purchased from the Appellant, TUI. She was walking along an outdoor, unlit sun terrace at the hotel where she was staying when she collided with a heavy wooden sunbed, fell and sustained injuries…

In this blog, Nik Arora reviews the decision in Moutarde v SIG Logistics to limit the Claimant’s success fee in a mesothelioma claim to 27.5%. Q. When is a trial not a trial? A. When it’s a discrete dispute about costs. In the case of Moutarde v SIG Logistics [2021] EWHC 1670 (QB) Calver J refused…

On 27 November 2020, the High Court handed down judgment in James West v Joseph Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB) which concerns both dishonesty and the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for costs exceeding fixed costs in low value personal injury claims under rule 45.29J of the Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 45.29J Section IIIA of Part 45 applies…