Legally Blonde - Page 1 of 9 - Backhouse Jones
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Legally Blonde
Page 1 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.uk
Legally Blonde
CONTEMPT OF London Organising been fundamentally
Committee of the dishonest. The Judge stated
COURT &
Olympic & Paralympic that the Claimant had
FUNDAMENTAL
Games v Haydn Sinfield become muddled and
DISHONESTY (2018) EWCH 51 confused – there was a
genuine claim which “went
Liverpool Victoria The Claimant broke his arm wrong” and it would have
Insurance Co Ltd v while spectating at the been substantially unjust
Mehmet Yavuz and 8 Olympic and Paralympic for the entire claim to be
Others (2017) EWHC games. Liability was struck out.
2088 (QB) BBD (Warby admitted. The Claimant
J) 06/12/17 made a claim for gardening On appeal it was held that
services in the region of the Trial Judge was wrong
Nine people who had £14,000. to find the Claimant
sought damages for careless. The Schedule of
commonly referred to When the gardener was Loss contained dishonest
“crash for cash” investigated by the misstatements which were
conspiracies were guilty of Defendant, he confirmed premeditated and
contempt of court for that he had worked for the maintained until the truth
repeatedly deliberately Claimant since 2005, the was uncovered. The entire
telling lies. nature of his work had not claim for damages was
changed and he had not dismissed.
produced any invoices. The
Defendant sought dismissal UK Insurance ltd v
of the claim under s57 of Stuart John Gentry
the Criminal Justice and (2018)
Courts Act 2015 on the
basis the Claimant had The Defendant alleged his
Rangerover had been
involved in a collision with a
vehicle insured by the
Claimant insurer. The
Claimant insurer had
previously paid the
Defendant £14000 in
respect of the value of the
car and was then presented
with a credit hire clam in
excess of £70000. Whilst
investigating the credit hire
the Claimant uncovered
that the parties involved in
the accident knew each
other and therefore as
there was a dishonest
element, they brought a
Page 2 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.uk
Legally Blonde
claim against the Defendant On appeal it was held that a of the claim when it had
alleging the accident was Judge had correctly held become aware. There had
not genuine and seeking that failure to carry out a been an excessive delay
damages for deceit. risk assessment regarding and no reason for this delay
the lifting of the box did not had been provided. There
The Court held that given breach the Regulations, in a was an extensive period
the parties attempts to hide circumstance where the where action had been
that they were friends, the Claimant had not shown taken by the Claimant but
accident was staged and that there had been a real The Defendant had not
the Claimant was awarded risk of injury. Appeal been notified.
Judgement. dismissed.
It was found by a Judge
EMPLOYERS PORTAL CLAIMS that failure to value the
LIABILITY MOVING FROM PART claim properly amounted to
an abuse of process. The
8 TO PART 7
Claimant was able to obtain
Rhonda Stewart (AKA
medical evidence without
Rhonda White) v Lyle v Allianz Insurance
consulting the Defendant
Lewisham and Grenwich Plc Liverpool CC 21
and avoided the damages
NHS trust (2017) December 2017
and costs limits if the claim
had remained in the
The case involved a midwife The Claimant was injured in
protocol through to trial or
lifting an oxygen box. It an accident in September
settlement.
was a commonly used piece 2011 and liability was not in
of equipment which the dispute. Part 8 proceedings
Once the Claimant was
Claimant had worked with were issued and on 10 July
aware of the value of the
for some years. No risk 2014 and a general stay
claim it took two years to
assessment had been was granted with no limit
apply to lift the stay. It was
carried out in relation to as to time. Further medical
held that this was not an
handling the box on the evidence was obtained, and
acceptable way to conduct
basis that the box was the Claimant obtained an
the proceeding under the
designed to be lifted by its order lifting the stay and
CPR. By failing to lift the
handle and had been used that the matter could
stay there was no
for many years without proceed as a Part 7. The
effectively no further course
problems. Defendants Application
action the Claimant could
sought to set aside the Part
take therefore the claim
The Claimant in this case 7 action. The stay was not
had to be struck out. The
suffered a back injury as a lifted, and the claim was
Claimant argued that this
result of lifting the box. It struck out.
was a draconian measure
was held that failure to
and should be a last option
carry out a risk assessment The Claimant appealed the
when there is a valid claim.
did not amount to breach of decision, but it was held
The Defendant argued that
the Manual Handling that the stay could not be
the claim now being
Operations Regulations lifted. It was the duty of the
brought was valued at
1992. Claimant to inform the
£200,000 and they were
Court of the increased value
faced with medical report
Page 3 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.uk
Legally Blonde
from experts whose
instruction it had no
opportunity to contribute.
However, the Claimant’s
significant and persistent
failures and the consequent
delay, increased expense
and prejudice to the
Defendant, was considered
enough not to lift the stay
and strike out the claim.
RELIEF FROM
SANCTIONS
Philip Freeborn (2)
Christine Goldie v Daniel
Robert de Almeida
Marcal (2017) EWCH
and the Defendant had unless order striking out
3046
been entitled to rely upon the claim until a proper List
it. In any event relief from of Documents was served.
A letter sent from the Court
sanctions would have been
asked the parties to
granted because the breach The Claimant needed to
exchange cost budgets no
was not serious, significant apply for relief from
less than 7 days before a
or deliberate; there was a sanctions following Denton.
CCMC. That request was in
good reason for the delay The Claimant was granted
contrast to CPR 3.13 which
and neither party had relief from sanctions with
states that budgets should
suffered prejudice. regards to the late
be filed no less than 21
disclosure as although it
days before a CMC. The
Crown House was late there was a
Claimant followed CPR 3.13
Technologies Ltd v comprehensive list.
and the Defendant followed
Cardiff Commissioning However, the Claimant’s
the Court’s letter. The
Ltd & Anor (2018) QBD claim for quantum was
Claimant’s Solicitor took
restricted to £9000 instead
issue with the Defendant’s
The Claimant provided a of the pleaded £200,000.
“gross delay” therefore the
disclosure list together with
Defendant made an
quantum documentation COSTS
Application for relief from
which was updated two
sanctions.
days before a case Francois v Barclays Bank
management hearing. The PLC QBD (2017)
It was held that the
First Defendant argued it
Defendant did not have to
was late and that the The Claimant’s claim was
apply for relief from
Claimant should be limited allocated to the small
sanctions. The letter
to what they could claim claims track. After several
amounted to a Court Order
and/or there should be an adjourned hearings the
Page 4 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.uk
Legally Blonde
matter was listed for a two The decision was appealed argued that the Notice of
day fast track trial and was and the appeal was upheld. Discontinuance unfairly
dismissed. The Judge The County Court Judge deprived the Defendant of
inferred from the fact that had applied the wrong test their costs.
the claim was listed for two in stating that he did not
day trial that the matter regard the case as The Claimant argued that
had been transferred to the exceptional when refusing the Defendant was seeking
fast track and awarded to order indemnity costs. to utilise the resources of
adverse costs against the There had to be “some the Court in a way that was
Claimant. On appeal the conduct or some contrary to the Overriding
Court held that there had circumstance to take the Objective and that the
been no order re allocating case out of the norm” which Claimant was able to
the matter from the small was satisfied. discontinue at any time. It
claims track to the fast was held that there was no
track and the costs order Christina Ann Mabb v inherent unfairness in a
was set aside. James English QBD 2017 Claimant filing a Notice of
Discontinuance in order to
Whaleys (Bradford) Ltd v The Claimant brought a avoid the effect of QOCS.
(1) Garry Bennett (2) claim for medical
Jonathan Cubitt EWCA negligence. The Defendant ADMISSION OF
Civ 2143 made an application to LIABILITY
strike out and argued the
Following a Trial, the Claimant had no prospect of
Wood v (1) Days
Claimant had been awarded success. This application
Healthcare UK Ltd (2)
their costs on an indemnity was refused but permission
Secretary of state for
basis. The Defendants had to appeal was granted. The
health (3) Shropshire
failed to pay and failed to Judge noted that it was
Community Health
attend three further highly arguable that
Service (4) Balle A/S
hearings to deal with the causation could not be
(T/A F Reac A/S) (5)
issue of costs. made out. The Claimant
Berwick Care Equipment
went on to file a Notice of
Ltd (2017) EWCA Civ
The Claimant argued costs Discontinuance. The
2097
of the additional hearings Defendant applied to set
should be on an indemnity aside the Notice of
The Claimant required the
basis. The Judge decided Discontinuance.
use of a wheelchair. At a
that whilst the Defendants
time when she was using
had deliberately avoided The Defendant argued that
the wheelchair, it was
paying damages their the Notice of
propelled forward into a
conduct had not been Discontinuance had only
desk causing injury. She
exceptional, and the been filed in order to stop
issued proceedings against
Claimant company was the claim being struck out
5 companies or bodies, the
awarded costs on the on appeal. If the claim was
First Defendant being the
standard basis in respect of struck out the exception to
manufacturer of the
these further hearings. QOCS would apply and the
wheelchair. The First
Defendant would be entitled
to costs. The Defendant
Page 5 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.uk
Legally Blonde
LIMITATION CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE
Richards v McKeown &
Anor CA 2017 Lewis Casson v (1)
Spotmix Ltd (In
It was argued that part of Liquidation) (2) Gable
the Claimant’s claim was Insurance AG (in
statute barred and liquidation) (3) Red
therefore there had been Contract Solutions (Back
allegations of negligence on Office Support) Ltd
the part of the Defendants. (2017) EWCA Civ 1994
However it was held a The Claimant’s hand
County Court had erred in became trapped in
dismissing the entire machinery at work. The
personal injury claim on the Judge concluded that the
basis that it was statute Claimant should bear some
barred. responsibility for moving his
Defendant admitted liability hand so close to moving
however after proceedings It should have been parts when it became
were issued they applied for considered whether the trapped. On appeal the
permission to withdraw the time limit could have Judge had erred in making
admission. The Judge disapplied under S33 of the a finding of contributory
refused concluding that limitation Act or severed negligence. All other
there was no new evidence the personal injury claim employees would have
about the circumstances of element and allowed it to undertaken the same
the accident and although proceed. course of action as the
the value of the claim had machine could not be
increased since 2010 that switched off therefore it
was a risk inherent in any could not be supportive that
injury claim. On Appeal, it he was contributory
was argued that the value negligent.
of the claim had increased
significantly and evidence SERVICE OUTSIDE
arose where liability would
OF JURISDICTION
not have been admitted if a
report had been seen by
ED & F Man Capital
the Claimant loss adjusters.
Markets v (1) Obex
Appeal allowed.
Securities LLC (2)
Randall Katzenstein
(2017) EWCH 2965
The Defendant argued that
the Court had no
jurisdiction to permit the
Page 6 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.ukLegally Blonde
service out of jurisdiction of Wright v First Group PLC Whilst it was considered
an application for pre-action (2018) that the whole point of a
disclosure as no joint expert was to see if
proceedings had been The Claimant had been there were agreement on
issued and it was not a struck by the Defendant’s issues and this could mean
claim in its own right. Also, bus and suffered severe a change of opinion, in
permission should have injuries. The issue at trial these unusual
been refused as it had not was whether the driver circumstances the trial was
been disclosed that should have been going adjourned. The Claimant
proceedings had brought in slower and could have was granted permission to
the USA. It was held that avoided the accident by instruct a new
the Court’s jurisdiction to swerving. The Claimant reconstruction expert, as
permit claims to be served accepted that there was there was a lack of clarity
outside extended to pre- contributory negligence on from the Claimant’s original
action disclosure. his part as he had crossed expert and the Claimant
in front of the bus when it would be at an unjustified
CASE MANAGEMENT was unsafe to do so. Both disadvantage.
parties instructed a
reconstruction expert. The
BDW Trading Ltd v ATE PREMIUMS
Claimant’s expert stated
Integral Geotechnique
that the Defendant’s driver
(Wales) Ltd (2018) Peterborough and
should have been aware of
The Claimant obtained a Stamford Hospital NHS
the hazard and on that case
report, which it was relying Trust v McMenemy & Ors
the Defendant was
upon to decide whether
contributory negligent. The
they should buy a piece of In two separate clinical
Defendant’s expert stated
land. The Defendant negligence cases the
there was nothing the
admitted that they were Claimants took out ATE
Defendant driver could do
aware of the existence of insurance as soon as
and therefore the
the report but relied upon a solicitors were instructed,
Defendant be absolved
witness statement from a then subsequently settled
from liability.
solicitor which stated that their cases. The insurers
Defendant did not know tried to recoup £5000 for
A joint statement signed by
whether the report had the insurance premiums
both experts stated that the
been provided to the from the Defendants. The
Defendant’s driver could
Claimant or whether the Court of Appeal has ruled
not have avoided the
Claimant had relied upon it. that Claimants should be
accident at his speed and
The Claimant made a Part able to take out and
would have had to have
18 request from the subsequently recover
been travelling much
Defendant in light of what it insurance premiums as
slower. The Claimant
read in the statement. It soon as they enter a
argued that the trial listed
was held that the statement Conditional Fee Agreement.
to place the following week
did not comply with CPR 32 The concern was that
be adjourned as their
and it needed to be Claimants may not be able
expert changed their
redrafted. to afford upfront costs of
opinion, which had not been
medical reports and access
fully explained.
Page 7 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.ukLegally Blonde
to justice would be negligence. The Claimant Barley v Muir & Thames
restricted. was classed as a Valley Police Force
‘dependant’ under Section 1 (interested party) QBD
MISCELLANEOUS of the Fatal Accidents Act 2017
however the bereavement
damages provision only Along side a criminal
Lord Howard of Lympne
applied to spouses and civil investigation for fraud, a
v Director of Public
partners. The issue before civil action was being
Prosecutions (2017)
the Judge was in relation to brought for fraudulent
the compatibility of the act misrepresentation.
A conviction under the Road
with the ECHR. The Judge Permission was given by
Traffic Act for failure to
found that there was no the police to interview
provide information as to
infringement on Art 8 ECHR witnesses for the purposes
the identity of the driver
because the absence of a of the civil proceedings and
following a speeding
right to compensation for these statements were
offence was quashed. The
grief was not linked to her given to the police.
individual did not know
private life. As it was not However, when the
whether he or is wife was
within the ambit of Art 8 he Claimant asked for the
driving, and there had been
dismissed the claim. On police statements from the
no option on the form to
Appeal the decision was witnesses the police refused
provide the information.
overturned and to not stating that the statements
The District Judge should
provide damages for were police material and
have considered a defence
bereavement for cohabitees advised the Claimant she
that he did not know and
breached Art 14. would have to go through
could not with reasonable
the correct channels of
diligence have ascertained
evidence.
who the driver was.
Jaqueline Smith (suing
in her own right as the
surviving partner of John
Bulloch Deceased) v (1)
Lancashire teaching
Hospitals NHS
Foundation trust (2)
Lancashire Care NHS
Foundation Trust (3)
Secretary of state for
Justice (2017) EWCA Civ
1916
The Claimant lived with her
partner for more than two
years before he died as a
result of the First and
Second Defendant’s
Page 8 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.ukLegally Blonde
The Claimant made an
application for disclosure. It
was held that there were
competing public interests.
There was a public interest
in there being as much
relevant material before the
trial judge but not at the
expense of the public
interest in the police
investigating a serious
crime and bringing This update does not
criminals to justice. The constitute formal advice
Application was refused. from Backhouse Jones and
should not be construed as
R v Abdul Khalik (2018) such.
Walsall Magistrates Court If you would like advice on
found a Sandwell taxi driver any matters raised, please
guilty under the Equality contact:
Act 2010 S170(3)(b) of
refusing to carry a blind Frances Whitehead
person and his guide dog. T: 01254 828 300
He was given a 12 month
Claire Mckie
conditional discharge and
T: 01254 828 300
ordered to pay costs.
Page 9 of 9
www.backhousejones.co.ukYou can also read
