to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover:"

Transcription

1 Headlight motoring news welcome to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: case summaries bus claims Jade Christian v South East London & Kent Bus Co [2014] Gupta v Armstrong & Another [2014] contributory negligence Gray v Botwright [2014] Andrew Groarke v Cecil Fontaine [2014] ex turpia causa Joseph Thomas Beaumont & Lewis O Neill v David Ferrer [2014] fraud Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Thumber [2014] Mohammed Adris Aziz v (1) Ansar Ali (2) Esure Services Limited : Abdul Jamil v (1) Sherzad Serwan (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services : (1) Farhana Kazmi (2) Shamila Saleem v (1) Sherzad Serwan (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services [2014] motorcycle Michael Landau v Big Bus Limited & Zeital [2014] partial admission Pervez Akhtar v Jordan Boland [2014] article contributory negligence in road traffic accident claims - general principles and recent cases autumn 2014 edition

2 Jade Christian v South East London & Kent Bus Co [2014] C appealed against the dismissal of her claim for damages against K arising from an incident when she was a passenger on one of K s buses. C alleged that D, the driver of K s bus, performed an emergency stop instead of gradually stopping when approaching a queue of traffic. C had been standing close to the front of the bus and fell when the bus stopped, with another passenger landing on her. The judge heard evidence from both C and D and saw footage and stills from a CCTV camera on board the bus. The judge preferred the evidence of D; that a car pulled out into the lane in front of the bus, forcing D to pull into the other lane and perform an emergency stop. The CCTV stills and footage showed that the other vehicle started to cross in front of the bus 4 seconds after it passed it. The judge considered that D acted reasonably, considering that he had 4 seconds in which to react and prevent a collision. The judge found that the other vehicle was the sole cause of the incident. C argued that the judge was incorrect in deciding that D had acted reasonably in applying the brakes when he did. The appellate courts have to exercise restraint when considering whether to overturn findings of fact made by a judge who has had the opportunity of hearing and assessing evidence from the relevant parties. It could not be said that the factual conclusions were so obviously wrong or unreasonable that the judgment was required to be set aside. Even if a different judge may have come to a different conclusion, it was not proper to interfere with the court s finding of fact. C s appeal was dismissed. Gupta v Armstrong & Another [2014] The claimant pedestrian brought a claim against the first defendant coach driver and the second defendant coach company for damages stemming from personal injury sustained. The first defendant was driving a coach which had run over the claimant s leg. 1

3 The claimant s version of events was that he was standing opposite the coach driver when he signalled to him, indicating his wish to board the coach. The coach driver, having acknowledged the claimant, pulled away from the bus stop and stopped at the end of the road. The claimant, assuming the coach driver had stopped to let him board, banged on the passenger door and made eye contact with the driver. The coach driver looked away and began to reverse. The claimant subsequently tripped over the coach wheel, falling with his leg beneath the coach which was then run over. The coach driver argued that he had driven towards the junction, checked his mirrors, looked for oncoming traffic and taken care not to mount the kerb as he turned. Travelling less than 4mph, he turned left in a continuous motion. Feeling a bump, he got out of the coach to see the claimant lying on the ground. 4 witnesses gave broadly consistent evidence which supported the coach driver by saying that he had pulled out slowly into the road to turn left, the Claimant had run into the road and tapped on the side of the coach and that the coach driver had not stopped or reversed. They all said that the claimant tripped on the wheel of the coach, falling backwards, and the coach then ran over his leg. It was held that the coach driver was not to blame for the accident. The claimant had witnessed the coach start to move away from the bus stop and had attempted to catch up by running alongside on the pavement. The coach driver had taken care to look and use his mirrors before moving off, concentrated on the traffic and ensured that he did not encroach onto the pathway when turning. The coach driver had not been negligent and no eye contact had been made with the claimant. Whilst the claimant had tapped on the window, he had not banged it and there was likely to have been noise inside the coach at the time. Although the court was sympathetic to the claimant, it was found that the coach driver had not been at fault and the claim was dismissed. If it had been necessary to consider contributory negligence, the claimant would have been deemed to be more than 50% negligent. Gray v Botwright [2014] The appellant was involved in a road traffic accident with the respondent. The appellant had been driving towards a complicated junction which had 11 traffic lights controlling the flow of traffic. He was familiar with the junction and turned right when the lights turned green in his favour, knowing that other lights would be red at the time. The respondent had, however, driven through a red light and a collision occurred between the two vehicles. 2

4 The appellant suffered injuries and brought proceedings alleging that the accident had been caused by the negligent driving of the respondent. The judge found that the respondent had driven through a red light, had not been travelling significantly in excess of 30mph and that the accident had been caused solely by the negligence of the appellant by failing to check for vehicles when turning right. In case he was wrong, the judge assessed the claimant s damages at 2, The appellant s appeal was dismissed by a circuit judge and he, therefore, brought a further appeal, submitting that the judge had erred in finding that he was solely responsible for the accident when he found that the respondent had been negligent and also that the general damages were too low. It was held that the appellant had made a positive decision not to check for traffic when he turned right. His decision to cross the carriageway without looking was an act of sheer folly and it was not sensible to assume, without checking, that no car was approaching. However, his actions had not been the sole cause of the accident as the respondent should not have been there at the moment of impact. It was found that by entering the junction when he did, the respondent created the danger, which the lights were designed to prevent. The court of appeal held that both drivers had driven badly and apportioned liability 50/50. It was also held that whilst the district judge s assessment of general damages was on the low side, it was not so low that the court should interfere. The appeal on liability was allowed, but the appeal on quantum was dismissed. Andrew Groarke v Cecil Fontaine [2014] The claimant claimed damages for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident. The defendant had emerged from a side road and had collided with the claimant, a motorcyclist, who had been overtaking a third party. The defendant denied liability. His defence contained the words the claimant caused the collision. It did not include an explicit claim for contributory negligence, although it was obvious that he was critical of the claimant, making reference to him losing control because of driving too fast. 3

5 Counsel for the defendant, just before trial, advised to amend the defence to specifically plead contributory negligence, and whilst an application was made at the beginning of the trial, permission was refused. The judge refused the application on the grounds that it should have been made in writing and supported by evidence, but did not remark, obiter, that the defendant s liability would have been reduced by one third had contributory negligence been pleaded. Judgment was entered against the defendant on a full liability basis. It was held on appeal that the defendant had a heavy burden to persuade the court to grant permission and whilst the judge gave weight to earlier failings by the defendant to comply with orders or directions, those were not directly relevant. Justice and fairness required that the amendment should have been allowed and there was no prejudice to the claimant as there was no need for an adjournment or for further delay or extra cost. It was held that as the claimant had obtained a windfall payment unjustly and as the contributory negligence finding had been obiter, there should be a retrial. The appeal was allowed. Joseph Thomas Beaumont & Lewis O Neill v David Ferrer [2014] The claimants, B and O, brought a claim in negligence against a taxi driver, F, after they sustained injuries after jumping out of his taxi as it was moving. B and O made a plan with 4 other youths to take a taxi and run away without paying at the end of the journey. When they reached the destination, 3 of the youths left the taxi and ran away making it clear that none of the passengers intended to pay. F started moving the vehicle again when this was realised and B and O left the vehicle whilst it was moving and sustained injuries in the process. B and O argued that they were owed a duty of care from F as his passengers to ensure their safety and well being. It was found that F had done nothing to encourage B and O, or lead them to make their decision, to exit a moving taxi. The fact that 3 of the youths had already left the vehicle left F in a dilemma of what to do. He wanted to stop the claimants from leaving without paying, but he also acted partly in fear as he had previously been attacked by a different group of youths. B and O argued that F should have just accepted the loss of their fare and should have allowed them to leave the vehicle when it was stopped. It was found that even if F had been at fault for driving on, it was not the act of his driving that caused the claimants injuries. The causal link was broken by the claimants decision to leave the vehicle, even though it was moving. 4

6 It was found that the doctrine of ex turpa causa also applied in these circumstances. The claimants were in the process of attempting to commit an illegal activity by avoiding paying the taxi fare when they suffered their injuries. The behaviour was not on the spur of the moment, but had been decided upon in advance. Although F s actions of driving the vehicle after 3 of the youths had run off had not been predicted, the outcome of not paying the fare due was the planned outcome of the journey from the start. Even if F had been found liable for continuing to drive when B and O exited the vehicle, their claim would still not have succeeded due to ex turpa causa, in that a claim for damages cannot succeed when the circumstances and injuries arise out of committing an illegal act. L filed a defence alleging fraud against T. On the day of the trial, T discontinued his claim against L and was ordered to pay L s costs. L applied for T to be subject to a committal hearing, which T obtained an adjournment of in order that he could seek legal advice. T was informed that the hearing would only be further adjourned if proper medical evidence was provided showing that T was seriously ill. 10 days prior to the hearing, T sent a doctors certificate to the court, which stated that he was not fit to work as the result of a depressive episode. T s brother advised the court that T may require hospitalisation. It was found that if T was unfit to attend Court, then this should have been made clear on his doctor s certificate. Depression was not a reason to not attend court and a further adjournment would not be granted on the basis of a depressive episode. Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Thumber [2014] T made a personal injury claim against L for injuries alleged to have occurred as a result of a road traffic accident involving L s insured. T had claimed that whilst driving his Audi, valued at 6,000.00, he had been hit by the insured s BMW, which wrote off his vehicle and caused whiplash. Over 130, of car hire fees were claimed to have been incurred as a result of the incident. L presented strong evidence of fraud and dishonesty on the part of T. It was clear that the claim being made was a fraudulent one and that if T had proceeded to trial rather than discontinuing his claim at the last opportunity, he would have committed perjury in order to obtain money. 5

7 It was considered that a sentence of 12 months imprisonment would be the appropriate outcome of this perjury. L s application for the committal hearing of T was granted. Mohammed Adris Aziz v (1) Ansar Ali (2) Esure Services Limited : Abdul Jamil v (1) Sherzad Serwan (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services : (1) Farhana Kazmi (2) Shamila Saleem v (1) Sherzad Serwan (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services [2014] The claimants, 4 in total, each claimed damages for negligence arising out of car accidents against the first defendant drivers and the second defendant insurance companies. The first claimant, who was the driver of a vehicle, gave three differing versions of how he made his claim for damages and what happened to his car after the accident. Expert evidence stated that the damage to his car was inconsistent with contact by a car in the circumstances alleged. The second, third and fourth Claimants brought claims for injury in relation to a separate accident and the third claimant later gave evidence that the accident had not happened and that the claim had been planned as a way of obtaining money. The expert evidence was also incompatible with the circumstances alleged. The second defendant insurance companies alleged that the two accidents did not happen. It was held that there was no doubt, on the evidence, that the accident that the first claimant had described had not taken place, and the expert evidence alone was sufficient in this regard. In any event, his account of the immediate aftermath was changeable, inconsistent and not credible, and the inference was drawn that the first claimant was not telling the truth. Similarly, the claims of the second, third and fourth claimants were dismissed due to the evidence provided by experts, which said that the accident did not occur as alleged. That conclusion was reinforced by the statement of the third claimant declaring that the accident had not happened. Michael Landau v Big Bus Limited & Zeital [2014] The appellant, L, appealed the judge s decision to dismiss his claim for damages arising out of a road traffic incident involving two other drivers, D and Z. 6

8 L was riding a motorbike and approached a junction at the same time as D, driving a tourist bus, and Z, driving a car. The 3 drivers stopped at traffic lights before taking a sharp left hand turn. The incident occurred when L s scooter became trapped between D and Z s vehicles. The claim was dismissed on the basis that the judge did not accept the position that L claimed to be in at the time of the incident in relation to the other vehicles. The judge had considered that L was in the blind spot of both vehicles and that even if they had seen L prior to the accident, they would have been reasonable to assume that L would have considered their vehicles prior to taking the left hand turn. L argued that the judge should not have found that he was in the blind spot as this was not evidenced by any of the parties to the litigation. It was also argued that D and Z were not right to assume that L would hold back and that it was the lack of observance from D and the positioning of Z on the road that caused the accident. The appeal was dismissed and the outcome remained. The appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with a finding of fact that is made by a judge who has had the opportunity of hearing and observing the witnesses in person and, therefore, is able to consider their reliability and believability as a witness. The judge s crucial finding in relation to the positioning of the vehicles was not that L must have been in the blind spot, but that he did not feel that L had proved his case sufficiently. The judge s alternative suggestion was not one only suggested by him and there was no evidence that undermined the suggestion. It was also found that based on the evidence before the court, the judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that the driving of D and Z had not fallen below what would be considered reasonable and that they were entitled to assume that L would have held back as they manoeuvred around the turn. Pervez Akhtar v Jordan Boland [2014] The appellant claimed damages totalling 6, The respondent admitted damages amounting to 2, in his defence and the claim was allocated to the small claims track. The judge entered judgment for that sum. The appellant applied for the claim to be changed to the fast track, but that application was refused on the basis that the partial admission of damages constituted a reduction of the amount in dispute and so the small claims track was appropriate. 7

9 His appeal against this allocation decision failed and so the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent s costs of that appeal. The key question was what was meant by the financial value of the claim in CPR 26.8(1)(a) and any amount not in dispute in CPR 26.8(2)(a) in deciding which track to allocate to. On appealing the dismissal of his appeal, it was held that the judge had interpreted the defence as including an unqualified admission that the appellant was entitled to 2, and entered judgment for that sum. There had been no application to set judgment aside. Once the court had determined that the appellant was entitled to judgment in the sum of 2,496.00, the only sum in dispute was the balance of the claim, which was less than 5,000.00, so the judge had been entitled to allocate the claim to the small claims track. It followed from CPR PD (3)(iv) that on entering judgment for the admitted part before allocation for the balance of the claim, a court could allow costs in respect of proceedings to that date and, accordingly, the judge should not have ordered the appellant to pay the respondent s costs of the appeal. The costs order was set aside. ARTICLE contributory negligence in road traffic accident claims - general principles and recent cases Contributory negligence is an issue which impacts nearly every personal injury case and, in particular, claims concerning road traffic accidents. The principles of contributory negligence are easily set out. The application of those principles, however, can be a little more problematic. general principles Prior to the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, contributory negligence operated as a complete defence. Since the 1945 Act, contributory negligence has been a partial defence. It cannot extinguish liability, but it can reduce it and it allows the court to apportion liability between the parties and to reduce a claimant s damages if it finds that the claimant suffers damage as a result partly of their own fault and partly of the fault of another person. The concept of contributory negligence has 3 elements: (1) That the claimant was in some way at fault; (2) That the claimant s behaviour was partly causative of the damage that was suffered; 8

10 (3) That it was just and equitable for the claimant s damages to be reduced (in which case they are reduced to the extent that it is just and equitable). The relevant contribution of the claimant is to the damage, not merely to the accident that causes the damage. Raising contributory negligence as an issue on the pleadings is no bar to the claimant obtaining judgment where liability is admitted, including summary or default judgment. The assessment of the degree of contributory negligence, if any, can be determined at the assessment of damages, though it will often be appropriate for the court to determine it as a preliminary issue. burden of proof It is for the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that contributory negligence is made out. Importantly, although inferences can be used, it is not something that a court will automatically decide. Defendants need to plead allegations of contributory negligence and argue the point at trial, if necessary. In the recent case of Melvyn Smith v Richard Bailey [2014] EWHC 2569, the court confirmed that the burden of proving contributory negligence lies with the defendant, even when dealing with interim applications, prior to trial. The claimant was seriously injured through the defendant s negligence in a road traffic accident. Proceedings were commenced in order to make an application for an interim payment. The defendant served a defence which did not admit liability and advanced a plea of contributory negligence that the claimant was travelling too fast, failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to heed or observe the defendant s vehicle and failed to stop, slow down or take any avoiding action. At the hearing of the claimant s application, the evidence before the court of the circumstances of the accident was contained in a police investigation report. There was no further evidence from the defendant about the incident. The claimant had no memory of what happened. The report recorded that there was nothing to suggest that the claimant had been travelling at excessive speed. The report concluded that the accident was the fault of the defendant. The master had rejected the defendant s submission that contributory negligence was a factor to be taken into account. He stated that the burden of proof was on the defendant, and that on the material before the court, there was no evidence which could justify a finding of contributory negligence. 9

11 The defendant submitted that the master was wrong to treat the burden of contributory negligence as resting on the defendant because of an interim application. The burden is on the claimant to establish the amount which he is likely to be awarded, after taking into account the possibility of reduction of damages for contributory negligence. Further, it was submitted that on the evidence available, there was a real prospect of a reduction for contributory negligence. The court held that the legal and evidential burden of proving contributory negligence at trial is on the defendant, but, in addition, on an interim payment application, there is an evidential burden on the defendant to put before the court material raising an issue of contributory negligence. The task of the master was to decide the likely amount of an award of damages by reference to the allegations of contributory negligence on the evidence which was before him. On that evidence, the master was right to reject the possibility of a finding of contributory negligence. The evidential burden was on the defendant to put evidence before the court on the application, as he could have done if there was an arguable case of contributory negligence. apportionment of liability When allegations of contributory negligence are raised, in assessing whether the claimant was contributory negligent, the court will adopt a fairly subjective test. It will not only consider whether the claimant acted reasonably in taking the risk, but also take into consideration whether it is just and equitable in the circumstances to reduce the claimant s damages. This is a very open test which will depend on the circumstances of the case. There is a significant amount of case law on contributory negligence in road traffic accidents, however, a number of recent cases have shown that the law of contributory negligence continues to raise difficult questions about personal capability. The court must perform a delicate balancing exercise, weighing up multiple factors. A road user has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage to others using or present on the highway. This not only covers other drivers, but also passengers and pedestrians. The standard of care required is the care and skill of an ordinary driver and no allowance is made for the inexperienced or learner driver. As a starting point for assessing whether a driver of a motor vehicle has been negligent and breached the requisite standard of care, the court will consider the application of the Highway Code. For example, drivers emerging from a side road are usually responsible for failing to take adequate care when pulling onto a major road. 10

12 However, excessive speed and a failure to reasonably observe the road conditions by the claimant driver on the major road can lead to contributory negligence on their part. Lack of observation by the driver on a major road or a misleading signal by the driver on a major road can also lead to a finding of contributory negligence. With regard to accidents involving a rear shunt, the Highway Code provides that the following driver should leave enough space to pull up safely if the vehicle ahead suddenly slows down or stops. The duty of the following driver is, so far as is reasonably practicable, to take up such a position and to drive in such a fashion as will enable them to deal successfully with all traffic emergencies reasonably to be anticipated. Fulfilment of this duty will be a question of fact in each case, but generally the vehicle colliding with the one in front is 100% liable, but where the vehicle in front brakes suddenly without reasonable excuse, contributory negligence will apply (possibly around 25%). passengers failure to wear a seatbelt General guidelines were set out in the case of Froom v Butcher for apportioning liability where a claimant has failed to wear a seatbelt, namely, that if the claimant s injuries would have been prevented altogether by wearing a seatbelt, the damages should be reduced by 25%; if the injuries would have still occurred, but be less severe, the reduction should be 15%. Obviously, if the failure to wear a seatbelt played no part in the injury, then no reduction should be made. This decision was made before seatbelt wearing became law, however, a number of challenges have been made to these guidelines, all of which have been unsuccessful. Accordingly, subject to any available medical evidence, the guidelines in Froom v Butcher remain binding and they provide a well understood formula and avoid an expensive, time consuming enquiry into fine degrees of contributory negligence. drunk driver Where a claimant passenger knew, or ought to have known, that the driver was unfit to drive, a finding of contributory negligence is likely, possibly in the region of 20%. The case of Owens v Brimmell [1977] remains the leading case in this area. The claimant passenger had spent the evening drinking with the driver. Although both were intoxicated, the defence argued that the claimant should have known before they started drinking that the defendant would not be in a fit state to drive them home at the end of the night. The claimant was found to be contributory negligent on the basis that he had the knowledge that the driver had been drinking and would not have been fit to drive him home. The claimant s compensation was, therefore, reduced by 20%. 11

13 child car seats The recent decision in the court of appeal case of Louise Emma Hughes v The Estate of Dayne Joshua Williams [2012] EWHC 1078 (QB) has confirmed that parents who fail to secure their children in appropriate child seats can be found to be contributory negligent for any injuries suffered by their child in a road traffic accident. Proceedings were brought by the claimant s mother on her child s behalf, who was aged 3 years 2 months at the time of the accident. There was no question that the claimant s mother had any fault in relation to the accident and her driving was found to be faultless. However, the defendant submitted that she could have prevented the seriousness of her daughter s injuries by using the correct child restraint in the vehicle. The claimant s mother had seated the claimant on a simple booster seat with an adult seat belt, rather than a child harness. The guidelines for the booster seat were that any child using the seat had to be between 4 and 10 years of age, between 15 to 35kgs and be 145cm in height. The claimant was below these requirements. The court held that it was negligent for the claimant s mother to put the claimant on the booster cushion. The child seat was definitely the most appropriate of the seats available, however, the claimant did not meet the requirements for the booster cushion. The manufacturer s instructions were explicit, both as to requirements for use and consequences in case of misuse. If the claimant had been seated in the child seat, her injuries would largely have been avoided. Therefore, the court held that pursuant to the rules laid down in Froom v Butcher, a contribution of 25% was appropriate. pedestrian safety In an accident involving pedestrians and motor vehicles, the contributory negligence of pedestrians is rarely assessed to be more than 50%. In Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107, the claimant pedestrian was initially found to be 60% contributory negligent after being struck by the defendant whilst walking along a dual carriageway whilst drunk. On appeal, the court of appeal substituted a finding of 40% contributory negligence on the basis that while the pedestrian may be more blameworthy than the car driver, they are highly unlikely to be more causatively potent, given that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon. Important issues about pedestrian safety were highlighted in the case of Osei-Antwi v South East London & Kent Bus Company Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 132. The claimant was hit by a bus whilst she waited to cross over the road at the junction of a main road and a bus depot. 12

14 The bus driver attempted to execute a sharp left hand turn into the depot and whilst undertaking this manoeuvre, the rear of the vehicle mounted the pavement and struck the claimant. Although the trial judge accepted that the claimant had been standing on the pavement rather than the road, he ruled that some criticism could be made of her position very close to the kerb. Accordingly, the claimant succeeded in her claim, but was found to be one third contributory negligent. The court of appeal found that the claimant had been standing on a studded area of the pavement that was designated for pedestrians. Accordingly, it was not clear what the claimant had done wrong that caused and/or contributed to the accident. She knew that the bus was about to turn the corner, but this did not make her obliged to move further back from the road because the area was intended to be vehicle free. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the finding of contributory negligence was quashed. emergency services/rescuers The case of Tolley v Carr [2010] EWHC 2191 (QB), [2011] RTR 7 QBD revisited the issue of contributory negligence in a non-professional rescuer situation. It made it clear that the same principle applies to both professional rescuers and Good Samaritans. The claimant was travelling on his morning journey to work along the M53 motorway when he stopped to assist the driver of a vehicle that overtook him and spun out of control. The claimant noticed that another driver had lost control of her vehicle and was blocking the outside lane of the northbound carriageway. As the female driver was in imminent danger, the claimant crossed the central reservation and helped her out of the car safely. The claimant then tried to move her car as it posed a great danger to other road users, however, it was hit by one vehicle, rapidly followed by another, and the claimant was thrown 35 feet down the road. He suffered devastating spinal cord and other injuries. The defendants argued that the claimant s damages should be discounted by between 25 to 33% because he had failed to take reasonable care for his own safety when making a wholly foolhardy attempt to remove the car from the carriageway. The defendant s allegations were not upheld and the claimant was not found to be contributory negligent. 13

15 As with other road traffic accident cases, the court was required to assess competing factors and strike the balance of fairness in this case. However, the outcome reaffirms that the law will be slow and cautious in finding negligence in those who imperil themselves to save persons from risks caused by the negligence of others and it recognises that the greater the risk to others trying to be averted, the greater the risk a rescuer may be said to be reasonably expose himself in the eyes of the law and it is not appropriate to subject a rescuer s action/subjective views of risk to the fine scrutiny of a court room. If there are any topics you would like us to examine, or if you would like to comment on anything in this bulletin, please the editor: Simon Evans at One Kingsway Cardiff CF10 3DS Tel : Fax : This update is for guidance only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Dolmans 14

Personal Injury Claims Involving Motorcyclists. Richard Cole Barrister, Civitas Law. www.civitaslaw.com. Introduction

Personal Injury Claims Involving Motorcyclists. Richard Cole Barrister, Civitas Law. www.civitaslaw.com. Introduction Personal Injury Claims Involving Motorcyclists Richard Cole Barrister, Civitas Law www.civitaslaw.com Introduction Case law emanating from the appellate courts concerning road traffic accidents often involve

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH. And EWART THOMAS. 2005: June 7 th November 21 st JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH. And EWART THOMAS. 2005: June 7 th November 21 st JUDGMENT ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV 2003/0364 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HAROLD JOSEPH And EWART THOMAS Claimant Defendant Appearances: Mr George Lake for the Claimant Ms Turkessa Benjamin

More information

to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich [2015]

to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich [2015] Headlight motoring news welcome to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: case summaries CPR 36 offers MVN (R on the application of) v London Borough of Greenwich

More information

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF

More information

to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover:

to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: Headlight motoring news welcome to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: case summaries capacity Jubair Ali (protected party by Jabid Ali, his father and litigation

More information

Headlight. motoring news. welcome. case summaries. articles. to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover:

Headlight. motoring news. welcome. case summaries. articles. to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: welcome to Headlight, Dolmans Solicitors motoring news bulletin. In this edition we cover: case summaries costs Churchill Insurance Co Ltd v (1) Fitzgerald (2) Wilkinson : Evans (1) Cockayne (2) Equity

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- n IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA -T-UL-L-Y- V. b e a c h...a n d. o t h e r s REASONS FOR JUDGMENT t u l l y v. BEACH AND OTHERS - JUDGMENT (o r a l ). JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY DIXON C.J. COMM:

More information

LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and

LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation

More information

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG LENTIKILE DAVID PHETE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an action instituted by Lentikile David Phete, a major male

IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG LENTIKILE DAVID PHETE JUDGMENT. [1] This is an action instituted by Lentikile David Phete, a major male SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter

More information

LYDIA MAPHOKA LEKHEHLE

LYDIA MAPHOKA LEKHEHLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 6765/08 In the appeal between:- LYDIA MAPHOKA LEKHEHLE Appellant and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Respondent HEARD ON: 10 MAY

More information

LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2015

LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2015 LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors

More information

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. 2. Who can

More information

-and- WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOHN HENRY RHODE-CLAIMS. I, John Henry Rhode-Claims of 25 Whiplash Crescent, Crashtown, Wreckageshire, WC0 0KK will

-and- WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOHN HENRY RHODE-CLAIMS. I, John Henry Rhode-Claims of 25 Whiplash Crescent, Crashtown, Wreckageshire, WC0 0KK will 1. Statement on behalf of: Claimant 2. Statement made by: John Henry Rhode-Claims 3. No of Statement: First 4. Exhibits: 5. Date: 11 th July 2011 IN THE NO CLAIMS COUNTY COURT Claim No: NT3078P BETWEEN

More information

JUDGMENT. 1. In this action the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, pursuant to the

JUDGMENT. 1. In this action the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, pursuant to the IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 1342/03 In the matter between: RAYMOND DYSSEL Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: Introduction

More information

DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS DO NOT PASS GO DO NOT COLLECT $200 PERSONAL INJURY PLEADINGS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY: MR NADIM BASHIR NEW PARK COURT CHAMBERS LEEDS LSI 2SJ TEL: 0113 243 3277 1 1. Introduction If there was any doubt

More information

LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015

LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 LEVEL 4 - UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors

More information

In order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following:

In order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following: Introduction A wealth of law exists to provide compensation to people who have suffered injuries, both physical and psychological, following an accident. This fact sheet provides a very brief guide to

More information

Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know

Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying

More information

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP

Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited

More information

TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK

TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 DEFENCES 6 Consent (Or Volenti Non Fit Injuria) 6 Illegtality (or Ex Trupi Causa) 7 Contributory Negiligence 8 NEGLIGENCE 11 Duty of Care 11

More information

B U R T & D A V I E S PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS -

B U R T & D A V I E S PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS - TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS - DEFENCES In a common law damages claim, the person who brings the claim is called the Plaintiff. The person against who the claim is brought is called the Defendant. For the Plaintiff

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF TIMOTHY HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 23, 2007 v No. 259987 Oakland Circuit Court CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2000-024949-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-

More information

Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000)

Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000) Date sent / / Claim notification form (RTA1) Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents ( 1,000-25,000) Before filling in this form you are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

More information

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police Case reference: PCCS/00410/12/CSP June 2013 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Central Scotland Police under section 35(1) of the Police Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act

More information

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 By Justin Valentine Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work

More information

Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim

Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim 2 Contents Introduction... 3 Important things that you must do... 3 In The Beginning... 4 Mitigating your loss... 4 Time limits... 4 Who can claim?... 4 Whose

More information

Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know

Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know Conditional Fee Agreement: What You Need to Know This document forms an important part of your agreement with us. Please read it carefully. Definitions of words used in this document and the accompanying

More information

Transport Committee cycling consultation

Transport Committee cycling consultation Transport Committee cycling consultation Thompsons Solicitors has been standing up for the injured and mistreated since the firm was founded by Harry Thompson in 1921. We have fought for millions of people,

More information

Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts

Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the

More information

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 46854/2009 DATE: 29/04/2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE REPORTABLE: YES/NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

More information

BEAT THE QOCS: costs in personal injury claims following Jackson

BEAT THE QOCS: costs in personal injury claims following Jackson BEAT THE QOCS: costs in personal injury claims following Jackson Patrick West, St John s Chambers Published on 9th March 2015 Patrick West looks at the growing impact of one of the most important costs

More information

PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE

PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation

More information

Level 2 Award in Safe Driving at Work

Level 2 Award in Safe Driving at Work Level 2 Award in Safe Driving at Work Student notes (sample) www.britsafe.org Membership Training Qualifications Audit and Consultancy Audit and Policy Consultancy and Opinion Policy Awards and Opinion

More information

FEDINAS & OTHERS vs FAYAQ & OCTAGON INSURANCE (18.6.2015) DJ Shepherd, Leeds County Court.

FEDINAS & OTHERS vs FAYAQ & OCTAGON INSURANCE (18.6.2015) DJ Shepherd, Leeds County Court. FEDINAS & OTHERS vs FAYAQ & OCTAGON INSURANCE (18.6.2015) DJ Shepherd, Leeds County Court. Introduction 1. One might have thought with the intense scrutiny that has been brought to bear upon the proportionality

More information

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. WILLIAM P. RASCHER OPINION BY v. Record No. 090193 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 CATHLEEN

More information

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marshall. - and - The Price Partnership Solicitors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marshall. - and - The Price Partnership Solicitors - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 4256 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Case No: 1HQ/13/0265 1HQ/13/0689 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL BEFORE: Wednesday, 2

More information

MOJ STAGE DEFAULTS AND PREPARATION FOR STAGE 3 HEARINGS. By Andrew Mckie (Barrister at Law) Clerksroom March 2012

MOJ STAGE DEFAULTS AND PREPARATION FOR STAGE 3 HEARINGS. By Andrew Mckie (Barrister at Law) Clerksroom March 2012 MOJ STAGE DEFAULTS AND PREPARATION FOR STAGE 3 HEARINGS Introduction By Andrew Mckie (Barrister at Law) Clerksroom March 2012 Telephone 0845 083 3000 or go to www.clerksroom.com The protocol for Low Value

More information

Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group

Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #2 11 February 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Save the

More information

L.E. LAW INFORMATION SHEET NO. 11 GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

L.E. LAW INFORMATION SHEET NO. 11 GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS LE Law Services Ltd 127 High Road Loughton Essex IG10 4LT Telephone: 020 8508 4961 Facsimile: 020 8508 6359 www.lelaw.co.uk L.E. LAW INFORMATION SHEET NO. 11 GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS 1. Introduction

More information

Personal Injury? What to Do?

Personal Injury? What to Do? Personal Injury? What to Do? 1 If you have been involved in a road traffic accident, an accident at work or an accident in a public place, you may be liable for a compensation! Every personal injury case

More information

GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY/ACCIDENT CLAIMS

GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY/ACCIDENT CLAIMS GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY/ACCIDENT CLAIMS At Richard Grogan & Associates we have Solicitors with significant experience and expertise who will advise and guide you through all matters relating to bringing

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1999 - B - 9999. ~ and ~ CLAIMANT'S BILL OF COSTS TO BE ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 26th JULY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1999 - B - 9999. ~ and ~ CLAIMANT'S BILL OF COSTS TO BE ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 26th JULY SCHEDULE OF COSTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENT C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1999 - B - 9999 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BRIGHTON DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN AB ~ and ~ CD Claimant Defendant CLAIMANT'S BILL OF COSTS

More information

Costs Law Update Lamont v Burton

Costs Law Update Lamont v Burton - The Defendant Costs Specialists Costs Law Update Lamont v Burton The Court of Appeal s decision last week in Lamont v Burton [2007] EWCA Civ 429 is likely to have serious costs implications for defendants

More information

GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS

GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:

More information

How to take a small claim to the County Court.

How to take a small claim to the County Court. Constables Central Committee How to take a small claim to the County Court. POLICE FEDERATION OF ENGLAND AND WALES CONSTABLES CENTRAL COMMITTEE 19 Langley Road Surbiton Surrey KT6 6LP INTRODUCTION Small

More information

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BAKER. - and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BAKER. - and - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 2668 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION BEFORE: Case No: QB/2013/0325 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 31 July 2013 HIS HONOUR

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-2525. Robert B. George and Christian P. George of Liles, Gavin, Costantino, George & Dearing, P. A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D09-2525. Robert B. George and Christian P. George of Liles, Gavin, Costantino, George & Dearing, P. A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CINDY L. SOREL, n/k/a CINDY L. EBNER, CASE NO. 1D09-2525 Appellant, v. TROY CHARLES KOONCE and COMCAST OF GREATER FLORIDA/GEORGIA, INC.,

More information

A Guide to Road Accidents

A Guide to Road Accidents A Guide to Road Accidents info@injuryclaimspecialists.com Contents About this Guide 2 Introduction to Road Accidents 3 How long will a Road Accident Claim take? 4 The Personal Injury Claims Process for

More information

A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT

A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT A GUIDE FOR PEOPLE INJURED IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CONTENTS General information 02 Early payment of expenses 03 The Accident Notification Form (ANF) 03 Who can make a claim Other driver or owner at

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...

More information

THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS *

THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS * 15 January 2015 Level 4 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Subject Code L4-3 THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES UNIT 3 THE LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

More information

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, section 275; AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER of an arbitration; B E T W E E N : JEVCO

More information

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS Contents SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Definitions Paragraph 1.1 Preamble Paragraph 2.1 Aims Paragraph 3.1 Scope Paragraph

More information

Expert evidence. A guide for expert witnesses and their clients (Second edition)

Expert evidence. A guide for expert witnesses and their clients (Second edition) Expert evidence A guide for expert witnesses and their clients (Second edition) Addendum, June 2009 1. Introduction 1.1 The second edition of this Guide was published in October 2003, in order to set out

More information

Bus Passenger Accident Guide. Winston Solicitors LLP

Bus Passenger Accident Guide. Winston Solicitors LLP Bus Passenger Accident Guide Winston Solicitors LLP Compensation guide If you are unlucky enough to be injured in an incident whilst travelling on a bus or other public transport vehicle, it is important

More information

Guildhall Chambers Personal Injuries Team Animal Claims Workshop Answers. John Snell and Daniel Neill

Guildhall Chambers Personal Injuries Team Animal Claims Workshop Answers. John Snell and Daniel Neill Guildhall Chambers Personal Injuries Team Animal Claims Workshop Answers John Snell and Daniel Neill Case 1: The Rearing Horse Mrs. Smith is an experienced horse-owner. She is 67 years of age and no longer

More information

Claim notification form

Claim notification form Before filling in this form you are encouraged to seek independent legal advice. Date sent / / Claim notification form Low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents( 1,000-10,000) Are you

More information

Motor fraud update a legal perspective on the issue of tainting in road traffic accidents. Sarah Hill Partner, BLM Birmingham

Motor fraud update a legal perspective on the issue of tainting in road traffic accidents. Sarah Hill Partner, BLM Birmingham Motor fraud update a legal perspective on the issue of tainting in road traffic accidents Sarah Hill Partner, BLM Birmingham November 2008 Motor fraud update Over the past 12 months defence lawyers have

More information

ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD

ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD A FOREWORD A1. These Guidelines set out a process by which a prosecutor may discuss an allegation of serious or complex

More information

Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing

Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing Minutes of Investigation Committee (Oral) hearing Date of hearing: 5 February 2015 Name of doctor: Dr Veda Hari Prabhakar Ponnaiah Reference Number: 5200011 Registered qualifications: MB BS 1993 University

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other

More information

Common Law: Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence

Common Law: Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence Common Law: Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence Fact Sheet 02 Updated December 2010 An Introduction to Common Law: Trespass, Nuisance and Negligence Mostly, the environmental law that we rely on to protect

More information

1.1 Analyse the driver s duty of care to other users of the road. 2.1 Evaluate the evidential status of the Highway Code in RTA claims

1.1 Analyse the driver s duty of care to other users of the road. 2.1 Evaluate the evidential status of the Highway Code in RTA claims Title The law relating to road traffic accidents Level 4 Credit value 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the driver s duty of care to other users of the road 2 Understand the role of the

More information

NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE. Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice.

NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE. Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. NEGLIGENT SETTLEMENT ADVICE Daniel Crowley and Leona Powell consider the Court s approach to negligent settlement advice. The standard of care owed by a solicitor to his client has been established for

More information

Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COULSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : PANTELLI ASSOCIATES LIMITED.

Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COULSON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : PANTELLI ASSOCIATES LIMITED. Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-10-332 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

More information

JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT

JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT [2014] JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN

More information

Technical claims brief. Monthly update February 2013

Technical claims brief. Monthly update February 2013 Technical claims brief Monthly update February 2013 Contents News 1 Ministry of Justice Claims Portal Extension put back 1 Solicitors Regulatory Authority stands by April 1 2013 implementation of referral

More information

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013 PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS FROM 31 JULY 2013 Title Number I INTRODUCTION Definitions Para 1.1 Preamble Para 2.1 Aims Para 3.1 Scope Para 4.1 II GENERAL

More information

Atlanta, Georgia Road Test

Atlanta, Georgia Road Test 1. When driving your car Into traffic from a parked position, you should: A. Sound your horn and pull Into the other lane. B. Signal and proceed when safe. C. Signal other traffic and pull directly into

More information

SAMPLE POLICY ON THE USE OF COMPANY VEHICLES. 1. Purpose: To set out policy of The Company with regard to the use of company vehicles.

SAMPLE POLICY ON THE USE OF COMPANY VEHICLES. 1. Purpose: To set out policy of The Company with regard to the use of company vehicles. SAMPLE POLICY ON THE USE OF COMPANY VEHICLES Policy No: Edition No: Issued by: Issue Date: Effective From: 1. Purpose: To set out policy of The Company with regard to the use of company vehicles. 2. Scope:

More information

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,

More information

GARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED

GARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED GARETH DAVID CODD (an infant suing by Mr T Griffiths his Uncle and Next Friend) v THOMSONS TOUR OPERATORS LIMITED Before: LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS And LORD JUSTICE BROOKE [2000] EWCA Civ 5566 Litigation

More information

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant. COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent. French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant. COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent. French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA148/2014 [2015] NZCA 126 BETWEEN AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent Court: Counsel: French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ D J Heaney QC

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND. THE PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant/ Respondent (BY COUNTERCLAIM)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND. THE PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant/ Respondent (BY COUNTERCLAIM) TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL C.A. 101 of 2011 Claim No. CV 2006-00454 BETWEEN SHIROON MOHAMMED SAIHEED MOHAMMED NAIM MOHAMMED Appellants/ Claimants AND THE PRESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

THE BLAME GAME. The incidence of contributory negligence OCTOBER 2012

THE BLAME GAME. The incidence of contributory negligence OCTOBER 2012 THE BLAME GAME The incidence of contributory negligence OCTOBER 2012 BPP LAW SCHOOL OPINION PIECE THE BLAME GAME OCTOBER 2012 0 THE BLAME GAME the incidence of contributory negligence THE LAW The law in

More information

Personal Injury Claims

Personal Injury Claims Dawn Cardwell - dcardwell@hamers.com Robert Holroyd - rholroyd@hamers.com Jeremy Rea - jrea@hamers.com Paul Richardson - prichardson@hamers.com Jim Wyatt - jwyatt@hamers.com Freephone: 0800 591 999 5 Earls

More information

Pleading & Litigating Fraudulent Motor Claims

Pleading & Litigating Fraudulent Motor Claims Pleading & Litigating Fraudulent Motor Claims Arun Katyar CPD Ref: AVV/CHRW 12 King s Bench Walk, Temple, London EC4Y 7EL, Tel: 020 7583 0811, Fax: 020 7583 7228, Video Conferencing: 020 7583 4190 E-mail:

More information

SPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE

SPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE SPECIALIST 24 HR CRIMINAL DEFENCE What happens at the Police Station? Often the most important stage in any case is what happens in the police station. In most cases you will be under arrest and it may

More information

Hickman v Lapthorn [2006] ADR.L.R. 01/17

Hickman v Lapthorn [2006] ADR.L.R. 01/17 JUDGMENT : The Hon. Mr. Justice Jack : QBD. 17 th January 2006 1. This was a claim against solicitors and counsel for negligence in advising the claimant to settle at too low a value his claim arising

More information

Open, Calderbank and Part 36 offers considerations and tactics

Open, Calderbank and Part 36 offers considerations and tactics Open, Calderbank and Part 36 offers considerations and tactics PJ Kirby QC 1. Introduction 1.1 In detailed assessment proceedings there will, as in all disputes, be advantages in settling the matter in

More information

JAMAICA THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT

JAMAICA THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD ANDERSON APPELLANT [2012] JMCA Civ 43 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 37/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN GLENFORD

More information

Lowcountry Injury Law

Lowcountry Injury Law Lowcountry Injury Law 1917 Lovejoy Street Post Office Drawer 850 Beaufort, South Carolina 29901 Personal Injury Phone (843) 524-9445 Auto Accidents Fax (843) 524-6981 Workers Comp Lawyer@LowcountryLaw.com

More information

IOSH Midland North District

IOSH Midland North District IOSH Midland North District 26 th February 2015 The Civil Case Housekeeping Fire Safety please follow signs exit via stairwell and front door. Assembly point on car park. Toilets located on each landing.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VIKRAM BABOOLAL AND BRENT RAMOUTAR MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VIKRAM BABOOLAL AND BRENT RAMOUTAR MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-03518 BETWEEN VIKRAM BABOOLAL Claimant AND BRENT RAMOUTAR First Defendant MOTOR ONE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Before the Honorable Mr.

More information

MOTORING offences & criminal law

MOTORING offences & criminal law Really Useful Guide To MOTORING offences & criminal law From Road Accidents to Serious Crimes Friendly yet tenacious; We are on your side. Protecting you and your interests. Speeding, Driving without Due

More information

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Magistrates Appeals: Criminal) SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Magistrates Appeals: Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply

More information

TAXI and TLC-Licensee CASES

TAXI and TLC-Licensee CASES TAXI and TLC-Licensee CASES A Guide to Your Hearing at the OATH Tribunal 40 Rector Street, 6th Floor New York, NY TABLE OF CONTENTS Taxi and TLC-Licensee Cases Heard at OATH.......3 Should I Get a Lawyer?.

More information

TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance

TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance TEMPLE LITIGATION ADVANTAGE INSURANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS AND OPPONENT S COSTS Certificate of Insurance In return for the payment of the Premium specified in the Schedule and based on any Information that

More information

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE What to do if you are charged with a DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE This booklet is not about provincial Motor Vehicle Act penalties for drinking and driving. This guide explains what normally happens when

More information

Guide to RTA Liability. apii

Guide to RTA Liability. apii Guide to RTA Liability apii CONTENTS Foreword Preface Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Table of Cases Table of Statutes Table of Statutory Instruments Table of European Materials v vii ix xxi xxxv

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.138 OF 1994 BETWEEN: ALFRED JACKSON As Administrator of the Estate of ENNIS JACKSON Plaintiff and Appearances: Mr Arthur Williams

More information

MOTOR VEHICLES, ACCIDENTS AND ALCOHOL

MOTOR VEHICLES, ACCIDENTS AND ALCOHOL MOTOR VEHICLES, ACCIDENTS AND ALCOHOL This is a guide to what you must and should do if you: are involved in a motor accident; have dealings with a police officer involving a motor vehicle; are required

More information

Clinical Negligence: A guide to making a claim

Clinical Negligence: A guide to making a claim : A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process

More information

Before : Mr Justice Morgan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between :

Before : Mr Justice Morgan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 3848 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION 1 Case No: HC12A02388 Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: Tuesday,

More information

Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA)

Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) This agreement is a binding legal contract between you and your solicitor/s. Before you sign, please read everything carefully. This agreement must be read in conjunction

More information

Do You Have a Case? Truck Accident. ebooklet. Andrew Miller. 201 South 3rd Street Logansport, IN 46947 P: (574) 722-6676. www.starrausten.

Do You Have a Case? Truck Accident. ebooklet. Andrew Miller. 201 South 3rd Street Logansport, IN 46947 P: (574) 722-6676. www.starrausten. Do You Have a Case? Truck Accident ebooklet Andrew Miller 201 South 3rd Street Logansport, IN 46947 P: (574) 722-6676 www.starrausten.com Disclaimer No attempt is made to establish an attorney-client relationship

More information

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts. PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 19, 2009. It is intended for information and reference purposes only.

More information

National Blue Light Users Conference --- Roger Henderson FAIRSO Partner Lyons Davidson Solicitors

National Blue Light Users Conference --- Roger Henderson FAIRSO Partner Lyons Davidson Solicitors National Blue Light Users Conference --- Roger Henderson FAIRSO Partner Lyons Davidson Solicitors Emergency Driving A Legal Summary By Roger W Henderson Partner, Lyons Davidson Solicitors 2 3 Contents

More information