PERSONAL INJURY Alert

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "PERSONAL INJURY Alert"

Transcription

1 A weekly news bulletin from Greenwoods Issue 315: 20 June 2012 In this issue - Liability/RTA - Excluded liability/s151(4) road traffic Act Limitation/issuing a claim form - From within Greenwoods - When is a director of a company responsible for his own injuries? - Emplyers liability to safeguard employees from robbery - Successful defence of a claim by a cyclist at a cross roads Seminars - An audience with... - How Terms & Conditions in contracts can affect Subrogated Recoveries - Pensions Loss Training - Calculating Loss of Earnings Claims Using Ogden 7 Bristol One Redcliff Street BS1 6NP T London Bedford Square 18 Bedford Square WC1B 3JA T London Market Office 77 Gracechurch Street EC3V 0AS T Manchester 57 Spring Gardens, M2 2BY T LIABILITY/RTA The case of Scott v Symons [Lawtel 20/06/2012] illustrates the reluctance of the Court of Appeal to interfere with a judge s findings where there was a reasonable basis for them. The appellant/claimant had been injured when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a car driven by the respondent/defendant. He claimed damages, and the matter came before the judge on the issue of liability only, to determine whether the claimant or defendant had been driving on the wrong side of the road at the point of collision. Only the claimant gave live, oral evidence at trial. He contended that, as he approached the sweeping left-hand bend on which the accident occurred, he had been driving towards the middle of the road to give himself maximum visibility. He admitted that his right hand might have crossed over the centre line, but asserted that he had remained on the correct side of the road. He claimed that although he had not seen the defendant's vehicle cross over, the collision had to have been caused by the defendant wandering across into his lane. The defendant did not give evidence as he was 93 years old and not fit enough to attend court. The driver of a vehicle who had been in front of the claimant when the accident occurred was meant to give evidence, but did not attend the trial. His statement suggested that he had seen the collision in his rear-view mirror, and that the claimant had been on the wrong side of the road. He also stated that whilst he was stationary and waiting to turn right, the defendant had driven past him on the correct side of the road. The judge found that the claimant was a frank, honest and credible witness, but that his evidence was a matter of reconstruction rather than recollection. The judge gave no weight to the witness's evidence of what he purported to have seen in his rear-view mirror, but accepted the fact that the defendant's car had passed him on the correct side of the road as a key feature. He also took account of the claimant's admission that his right hand had strayed over the centre line. The judge concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, it was most likely that the collision had been caused by the claimant crossing onto the wrong side of the road. Dismissing the claimant s appeal the Court of Appeal held that there could be no dispute that, since the defendant had driven his car passed the witness s stationary vehicle, he had to have been on the correct side of the road at that point. Whilst he could have wandered over into the wrong lane afterwards, that would have to have happened quickly and without reason. The witness's evidence of the defendant passing him was a key feature of the evidence accepted by the judge, and one on which he was entitled to rely. The other feature relied on by the judge, arising out of the frankness with which the claimant had given evidence, was the admission that his right hand might have crossed over the centre line. If that was so, and the claimant was leaning to the left as he rounded the lefthand bend, his motorcycle had to have been over the central white line. That was an important admission and another feature on which the judge was entitled to rely. The judge had had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, what was most likely to have happened. His conclusion, based on those two essential and reliable features, was one which he had been entitled to reach. Milton Keynes 2 Eskan Court Campbell Park MK9 4AN T Southampton 3600 Parkway The Solent Centre Solent Business Park Fareham PO15 7AN T EXCLUDED LIABILITY/S151(4) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 In the case of Stych v Dibble and Tradex Insurance Co Ltd The claimant had been given a lift home from the (2012) EWHC 1606 (QB) the court was required to garage at which the first defendant worked, in a car determine as a preliminary issue whether, at the time of belonging to a customer. An accident occurred in which a road traffic accident in which the claimant was injured, the claimant sustained a spinal injury resulting in he had known or had had reason to believe that the car tetraplegia. He claimed damages from the first in which he was a passenger had been stolen or was defendant. The first defendant did not enter a defence unlawfully taken within the meaning of S151(4) Road and judgment in default was entered against him. Traffic Act The claimant also sued the second defendant, who was Personal Injury l Property & Construction l Insurance l Commercial & Financial Risks l Fraud l Health & Safety l Motor Prosecutions

2 Page 2 of 5 EXCLUDED LIABILITY/S151(4) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 Cont d the vehicle's insurer, for damages and a declaration that it was liable to meet the judgment obtained against the first defendant pursuant to S151(2)(b). Since the first defendant had not been authorised to use the car, he was not covered by the customer's insurance policy. However, provided that his liability to the claimant was not an excluded liability for the purpose of S151(2)(b), it would be covered by the second defendant's all persons insurance. The question whether the second defendant was liable to pay the claimant the sums recovered under his default judgment against the first defendant depended on whether the judgment related to an excluded liability as defined by S151(4). The claimant contended that he had assumed that the first defendant had been permitted to drive customers cars. The first defendant submitted that the claimant had known that he had taken the customer's car without permission and with the intention of taking it for a joy ride the next morning. Finding in favour of the claimant, the High Court judge held that in order to discharge the burden of proving that the liability which the default judgment relied on was an excluded liability, the second defendant had to prove that the claimant had known or had reason to believe that the car had been stolen or unlawfully taken. The 1988 Act had been enacted to implement Directive 84/85, which was subsequently consolidated in Directive 2009/103. Section 151(4) had to be construed as far as possible so as to fulfil the United Kingdom's obligations under the Directive, in which the requirement of knowledge to exclude liability was a requirement of actual knowledge or "blind eye" knowledge, consisting of suspicion accompanied by a deliberate refraining from asking questions. The central issue in the present case turned on whether the claimant was telling the truth about what happened or whether he was lying and the first defendant's evidence was correct. The claimant was a very impressive witness who was honest and credible, whereas the first defendant was an unsatisfactory witness and not reliable. Where their testimony was in conflict, the claimant's evidence was to be preferred. The first defendant was known by the claimant to have driven cars belonging to customers, both in the garage and for short distances out on the road. If the purpose of the lift the claimant had taken was simply to go the short distance home, rather than to take the car for a joy ride as the defendant alleged, it was plausible that it had not occurred to him that, if asked, the owner of the car would not have permitted the first defendant to drive him home. Accordingly, the claimant had not known when he allowed himself to be driven by the first defendant that the car had been taken without permission and driven unlawfully. Nor had he suspected that to be the case and deliberately refrained from asking questions lest his suspicions should be confirmed. It followed that the first defendant's liability to the claimant was not an excluded liability within S151(4). LIMITATION/ISSUING A CLAIM FORM Although not a personal injury case, Page and others v Hew and another (2012) EWCA Civ 805 is relevant to all classes of action. Readers will be aware that for limitation purposes it is not necessary for a claim form to have been issued before the due date provided that the claim form as issued was received in the court office on a date earlier than the date on which it was issued by the court. The claim is then brought for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and any other relevant statute on that earlier date [PD 7 5.1]. The claimant/appellants were beneficiaries under a will. The first respondent/defendant firm of solicitors acted for them in the administration of the estate. The second respondent was employed by the first respondent. He was instructed by the claimants in relation to a sale of a property in the estate. Unknown to the claimants, the second respondent carried on business as a property developer through a company and recommended that the claimants sell the property to a second company, which had agreed to pay the second respondent s company a share of the future profit or a fee. The claimants later discovered that the property's true value was higher than the sale value. In 2000 they complained to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors about the conduct of both respondents. They later began proceedings against both of them for breach of duty and negligence. The claimants new solicitor gave evidence that the drafting of the claim form and particulars was completed in December 2008 and that bundles were sent to the court by DX at that time. He claimed that the reason the claim form showed a date of February 2009 was that the forms were lost by the court and a fresh claim had to be issued. The Master held that the claimants' letter to the OSS showed that they knew enough to start time running and that he was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim form did not reach the post room or the registry, so that time began to run from 2000, bringing the claim outside the Limitation Act On the claimants first appeal the judge upheld the Master's findings and dismissed their claim. On the claimants further appeal the Court of Appeal held that the Master had applied the wrong test. The question was not whether he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities but whether the claimants had no real prospect of showing that the documents arrived at the court office. The Master and judge also assumed that the systems that should have been followed were in fact followed. However it was not unknown for the court to mislay important documents. On an application for summary judgment the court must consider not merely the current state of the evidence but also what evidence might reasonably be expected to be adduced at trial. The court had to approach the question on the footing that there was a real prospect that the claimants would show that documents put into the DX were delivered at least as far as the court's post room and perhaps as far as the registry. The main issue before the judge was whether the "claim form as issued" must be the same piece of paper as that received in the court office within the limitation period. The master and judge held that it must, with the consequence that the claimants could not rely on the "lost" claim as bringing forward the date on which the action was brought. This was the wrong subject matter to debate. When an action was 'brought' for the purpose of the Act was a question of construction of the Act. It was not a question of construction of the Civil Procedure Rules or of a practice direction. A claimant's risk stopped once he had delivered his request to the court office. Practice Direction 7 could not alter the correct construction of the Act and a would-be litigant was not responsible for any shortcomings of the court. If therefore, the claimants established that the claim form was delivered in due time to the court office, accompanied by a request to issue and the appropriate fee, the action would not be statute barred. The Master and the judge were wrong to summarily reject the new solicitor's evidence and the judge's order was set aside.

3 Page 3 of 5 FROM WITHIN GREENWOODS When is a director of a company responsible for his own injuries? Surprisingly there are very few reported decisions dealing with this issue. A company director owes a non delegable duty to comply with the health and safety regulations (although the director can ask another employee or outside agency to consider and put in place systems to comply with the regulations). This issue was recently considered at a trial in Brighton County Court. The director of the company was helping one of the employees to carry out an MOT test. The director was raised in a vehicle on a ramp to operate the controls of the vehicle for the testing to be done and at the end of the test should have been lowered on the ramp to exit the vehicle. Unfortunately the ramp did not lower immediately as the equipment which would lower it failed to work. The director decided to get out of the vehicle and as he was in the process of trying to lower himself to the floor sustained injury. He then sued the company. The director was a sole director of the company at the time of the injury. It was argued that as the sole director, he was in effect the defendant and was therefore suing himself. No allegation of vicarious liability was made against any other employee of the company. The judge found: 1. The company is a separate legal entity and the corporate veil applies. The company can be primarily liable for breach of Regulation 5 (1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations Despite the director s suggestions to the contrary, he ran the business. 3. In this case, the company was primarily liable for a breach of Regulation 5 (1). 4. However the director was 100% contributorily negligent because: a) There was no risk assessment and if one had been done systems could have been put in place to prevent such an injury occurring. b) The director never considered nor paid any attention to health and safety issues generally. c) The director had not put in place any systems of service, maintenance nor inspection of the equipment that failed. d) There was no evidence before the court that the defect would not have been revealed by servicing, inspecting or regularly maintaining the equipment. e) Therefore the director was responsible for the breach of Regulation 5 (1). The success of defending liability in these types of cases depends on the facts. If you require any further information concerning this decision please do not hesitate to contact Melanie Lewis ( ) Employers liability to safeguard employees from robbery The case of Waller v William Hill came to trial on the 7th and 8th June 2012 at Wandsworth County Court before His Honour, Judge Welchman. This case related to a trainee cashier who had undergone two days of initial training. She was on probation and was continuing her training at the defendants' premises in Vauxhall. The circumstances that gave rise to the claim were that she had been left alone temporarily whilst her manager went to move her car. it was in the evening and it coincided with the arrival of men in balaclavas with shotguns, who came to the till and pointed the guns at the claimant demanding money. She retreated to the kitchen as she feared for her life. She claimed that as a result of this incident, she suffered PTSD. The defendants denied liability on the basis that they had taken reasonable steps as employers to ensure the premises were kept and maintained in a reasonably safe condition for its employees by ensuring they had adequate training, that their shop was installed with alarms, panic buttons, a magnetic lock system, CCTV, blast counter screen and had also provided a safe haven in that their employees were trained to retreat to the safe haven, in this case, the kitchen, in the event of a confrontation. The defendants requested liability be heard as a preliminary issue. After the conclusion of the claimant's case, the defendants took the decision on the basis of having heard the evidence and in particular, the claimant's security expert, that a submission of no case to answer should be argued. In making his findings, the judge said that the appropriate question that a judge needs to answer in a case like this, was whether there was a case to be put in the first place? Was there a real prospect of success? He noted that the claimant's case had shifted slightly, as initially the case had been put on the basis the claimant should not have been left alone, thus exposing her to risk of injury and the fact of being alone had contributed to her injury. It was eventually conceded by the claimant's expert that the fact of being alone made no difference as to whether the robbery took place or not. The claimant's expert had also conceded that the security measures the defendant company had in place were appropriate and adequate and that everything had been done that should have been done and yet even with those measures in place, the robbery could not have been prevented. The Judge noted the risk assessments were undertaken shortly before the accident and that all the appropriate measures were in place. The Judge went on to say that one should consider whether there could be any criticism of the defendant. The claimant had stated in evidence that had she been aware of the robberies, she would not have worked there. The Judge ruled that this was an overly high burden for the defendant to have to discharge and in his opinion, was unreal. The Judge went on to say that to establish liability the claimant had to prove that the defendants were in breach of duty and injury must result from that breach. In concluding he opined that there was no realistic prospect of the claimant succeeding in her claim, as she had not established any breach of duty on the part of the defendant.

4 Page 4 of 5 FROM WITHIN GREENWOODS Cont d This is now another successful defence of an employer in relation to robbery in a betting shop. The duties for a betting shop are measured not just by industry standards, but also by reference to all retailers and employees who have to deal with money and members of the public. The court did consider in general evidence the suggestion that there should be air locks into the premises but found it to be inappropriate due to the fact that this would not be reasonable for normal retailers. Furthermore, such security for shops was inappropriate also, as this is not something that was done routinely either in shops or banks. There was, therefore, a wider interest in the outcome of the case, as it could affect the way employers look to protect their staff in the retail business generally. For further information please contact Christine Winter ( ) Successful defence of a claim by a cyclist at a cross roads Ede v Whitwood (High Court 19/04/2012) The case of Ede v Whitwood, heard in the High Court on 19 April 2012, involved a road traffic accident which occurred on 29 June 2006 on the B1145 Holt to Norwich road. Our client s insured, the defendant, was driving her car along the main road when she approached a cross roads with a minor road on each side. The junctions with the minor roads were slightly offset, with that to the offside slightly closer to the defendant s direction of approach than the road to the nearside. The main road was governed by a 60 mph speed limit. The defendant s visibility into the junctions was impeded by crops growing in the adjacent fields. The claimant was a sixteen year old girl riding a borrowed mountain bike which was intended for an older male and which was therefore too big for her. She approached the junction from the defendant s nearside intending to cross the main road and ride into the opposite junction. Knowing the road well and seeing a stationary car waiting in the offside, the defendant reduced her speed as she approached the junction. However, as she started to drive through the cross roads, the claimant rode out into the path of her car and sustained serious injury. Before looking at the circumstances of the accident the judge dealt with a number of allegations made by the claimant which were directed at the defendant s concentration. First its was suggested that the defendant was either using her mobile phone while she was driving or that she had made a call so close to the time of the accident that she must have been speeding to arrive at the junction point of collision as soon after the call as she had. With the assistance of the evidence of a local police officer the judge rejected these allegations on the basis that it was possible for the defendant to conclude her call while stationary, and still reach the scene, from where the call had been made, while travelling at a reasonable speed. However, the judge indicated that even if he had found that the defendant had been using her mobile phone and speeding shortly before the accident that would not have affected his judgment on liability. There was also what the judge described as a slightly half-hearted attempt to suggest, in evidence, that as the defendant had drunk a white wine spritzer with her lunch, a short time before the accident, that may have affected her reactions. Again the judge rejected the allegation as having no material relevance. The parties experts agreed that the defendant s speed at the point of impact was 45 mph but it was the claimant s case that, in all the circumstances, the speed was still excessive, given in particular, the limited visibility into the junction. The defendant accepted that she had seen the claimant only as she reached the mouth of the nearside junction. The cyclist was to her nearside and then almost instantly directly in front of the car and the claimant had appeared to be standing on the pedals, as if generating speed to move the cycle along. The parties expert witnesses disagreed as to the point of impact, with the claimant s expert relying on debris to make his calculations and suggesting that the claimant had crossed the white line in the minor road into the oncoming lane and then gone into the main road at a diagonal. However, the judge found that this approach was inconclusive and that it was safer to assume that the claimant would have stayed in her own lane and followed a normal course to navigate the junction. On the evidence the judge found that the claimant s probable course was from a position towards the centre of the nearside junction aiming towards the nearside of the offside junction, thus taking a straighter line than would otherwise have been the case and placing her closer to the defendant s car. The experts put the claimant s speed at between 4.4 mph and 8 mph but the judge concluded that at the material time she was probably travelling at an average of nearer 5 than 6 mph from the point of visibility to the point of impact. The judge found that visibility for a driver approaching the junction was 5 metres back from the giveway line from 50 metres away. The claimant would have travelled a further 2.5 metres from the giveway line to the point of impact. It was therefore possible for a driver travelling at 45 mph to see a cyclist in the junction when 57.5 metres from the point of impact. With a normal reaction time of 1.5 seconds theoretically it was possible for the driver to react, brake and stop some 6 metres short, avoiding the collision. However, he went on to find that would be setting too high a standard, almost perfectionist. His view was that the reasonable driver would perceive the claimant as someone who was slowing and likely to stop (as had the driver of the other car) and it would not be incumbent on the defendant to commence an emergency stop. The judge rejected the claimant s suggestion that to comply with the Highway Code the defendant should have slowed to 40 mph or less. The law did not require a reasonable driver to assume and plan at all times for the very worst that could possibly happen in a normal road situation. For further information please contact Jane Hall ( )

5 Page 5 of 5 Events Greenwoods holds a series of training events for both our lawyers and interested clients. Below are those events being held in the next few months. If you would like to attend any of the following events please indicating which you are interested in attending. An audience with... A chance for our lawyers and interested clients to put questions to an expert or other professional with whom regular contact is on a more formal basis. 11 July 2012 An audience with Mr John Nixon (Orthopaedic Consultant), London. Registration at 17.45, session , followed by refreshments. 18 September 2012 An audience with Tim Young (The Surveillance Group), London. Registration at 17.45, session , followed by refreshments. 13 November 2012 An audience with Richard Nieveen (Prosthetics Rehabilitation), London. Registration at 17.45, session , followed by refreshments. All the above will take place in Greenwoods London Market Office at 77 Gracechurch Street, London EC3V 0AS unless otherwise indicated.. Seminars HOW TERMS & CONDITIONS IN CONTRACTS CAN AFFECT SUBROGATED RECOVERIES Date Time Location Speaker(s) 28 June Gracecurch Street Parishil Patel London Essex Street EC3V 0AS 39 PENSIONS LOSS TRAINING Date Time Location Speaker(s) 10 July Gracechurch Street David Rabinowitz London FAS Partnership EC3V 0AS CALCULATING LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS USING ODGEN 7 Date Time Location Speaker(s) 12 July Eskan Court Geoff Owen Campbell Park Greenwoods Milton Keynes MK9 4AN

6 Page <#> of 4 Further information For further information on any of the issues dealt with in this Alert, other than where a contact has been provided, please contact Geoff Owen on T or E. To subscribe or unsubscribe from this Alert, please Other Greenwoods publications Greenwoods produces a number of regular publications on various topics, namely: PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION & INSURANCE REVIEW (Monthly) MOTOR CRIME FOCUS (Quarterly) FRAUD REVIEW (Bi-monthly) H & S REVIEW (Quarterly) MARINE INSURANCE REVIEW (Quarterly) If you would like to subscribe to any of the above publications, please indicating which you would like to receive. The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Greenwoods is a firm of solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in England and Wales. You can access the rules which regulate our professional conduct at: Greenwoods Solicitors 2012

PERSONAL INJURY Alert

PERSONAL INJURY Alert A weekly news bulletin from Greenwoods Issue 351: 9 May 2013 In this issue - Limitation - Provisional Damages - Costs - From within Greenwoods - A Caged Accident? Seminars - An Audience With... Bristol

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

PERSONAL INJURY Alert

PERSONAL INJURY Alert A weekly news bulletin from Greenwoods Issue 292: 17 November 2011 In this issue - When is an insurer entitled to adopt Article 75 status? - Vicarious Liability - Procedure/interim payment application

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

PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION & INSURANCE Review

PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION & INSURANCE Review A monthly review of property & construction, insurance, commercial & financial risks Issue 77: November 2012 In this issue - Restriction of strict liability in fire cases - Subrogated recovery and deliberate

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury. February 2014 Issue 007

Legal Watch: Personal Injury. February 2014 Issue 007 Legal Watch: Personal Injury February 2014 Issue 007 Civil Procedure/Compliance with Directions Almost every day brings more post Jackson/Mitchell cases. Although these are non-personal injury cases we

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

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

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

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

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 23rd July 2015 Issue: 071 Part 36 In the commercial claim of Dutton and others v Minards and others [Lawtel 20/07/2015] we have yet another case dealing with Part 36. Former

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 15th January 2015 Issue: 047 Public liability The difference between a local authority s powers and its duties was examined in Foulds (Deceased) v Devon County Council [Lawtel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motor Legal Care Terms and Conditions

Motor Legal Care Terms and Conditions Motor Legal Care Terms and Conditions The cover provided under this notice is in addition to your Breakdown cover and should be read together with your existing terms and conditions. RAC Motor Legal Care

More information

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how

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

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

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

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s

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

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

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

Advice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction

Advice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.

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

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

PERSONAL INJURY Alert

PERSONAL INJURY Alert A weekly news bulletin from Greenwoods Issue 373: 6 November 2013 In this issue - Civil Procedure/Extensions of Time CIVIL PROCEDURE/EXTENSIONS OF TIME - Civil Procedure/Expert Evidence - Civil Procedure/Expert

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

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

MIB Uninsured Agreement

MIB Uninsured Agreement MIB Uninsured Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 3rd July 2015 between the SECRETARY OF STATE ( the Secretary of State ) and the MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU ( MIB ), whose registered office is for the time

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

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd October 2014 Issue: 034 Causation/pre-existing condition The case of Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and another (2014) EWHC 3016 (QB) deals

More information

BSkyB v EDS judgment at long last

BSkyB v EDS judgment at long last BSkyB v EDS judgment at long last a dodgy degree, a dog called Lulu and some lessons for both customers and suppliers This is a briefing on the long-awaited judgment in BSkyB s claim against what was Electronic

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

PERSONAL INJURY Alert

PERSONAL INJURY Alert A weekly news bulletin from Greenwoods Issue 264: 24 March 2011 In this issue - Personal injury/fraud - Civil procedure/withdrawal of admission - Personal injury/adjournment of quantum assessment - From

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

Asbestos Disease Claims

Asbestos Disease Claims Asbestos Disease Claims A client s guide Spring 2007 Contents 2. Essential elements for a successful claim 3. What we will do 3. Funding the case 3. Preliminary investigations 4. What happens next? 4.

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

A quarterly review from Greenwoods Issue 16: December 2010

A quarterly review from Greenwoods Issue 16: December 2010 A quarterly review from Greenwoods Issue 16: December 2010 In this issue - examples - An introduction to some of our team - Counter Fraud Group expands to Milton Keynes - Updates on fraud capabilities

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

EWART PRICE SOLICITORS ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - NOTES FOR CLAIMING FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND OTHER UNINSURED LOSSES

EWART PRICE SOLICITORS ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - NOTES FOR CLAIMING FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND OTHER UNINSURED LOSSES E P EWART PRICE SOLICITORS ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - NOTES FOR CLAIMING FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND OTHER UNINSURED LOSSES If you have been involved in a Road Traffic Accident as a driver or passenger we hope

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

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

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

Subject to, notwithstanding and without prejudice to what do they all mean?

Subject to, notwithstanding and without prejudice to what do they all mean? Welcome Time. Never seems to be enough of it! This month is about shortcuts. Time pressure can make shorthand expressions which achieve the desired result useful tools, but are such expressions always

More information

JUDGMENT. TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent) [2014] UKPC 25 Privy Council Appeal No 0023 of 2013 JUDGMENT TLM Company Limited (Appellant) v Bedasie and another (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord

More information

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount

More information

Running Water, Ineffective Drains and Highway Maintenance. Hodges v Somerset County Council

Running Water, Ineffective Drains and Highway Maintenance. Hodges v Somerset County Council Running Water, Ineffective Drains and Highway Maintenance Hodges v Somerset County Council By Geoffrey Brown and Nathan Peacey Running water can be a cause of problems, not least on the roads. A highway

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

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza

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

Crashed your car? Information on claims for damage to your car, in and out of court

Crashed your car? Information on claims for damage to your car, in and out of court Crashed your car? Information on claims for damage to your car, in and out of court 1 After a car accident This brochure will take you through the important steps you need to take if your car is damaged

More information

FAMILY CLASSIC LEGAL PROTECTION & ADVICE KEY FACTS BROCHURE

FAMILY CLASSIC LEGAL PROTECTION & ADVICE KEY FACTS BROCHURE FAMILY CLASSIC LEGAL PROTECTION & ADVICE KEY FACTS BROCHURE WHY YOU NEED DAS FAMILY CLASSIC STANDARD COVERS EMPLOYMENT COVER CONSUMER CONTRACT DISPUTES PERSONAL INJURY NEIGHBOUR PROBLEMS HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS

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

Downloaded from the website of the Data Protection Commissioner on 26 th July, 2011.

Downloaded from the website of the Data Protection Commissioner on 26 th July, 2011. Case Studies relating to privilege and solicitors Downloaded from the website of the Data Protection Commissioner on 26 th July, 2011. 6/2001 CASE STUDY 6/01 Legal firm identification of source of personal

More information

NOTES FOR GUIDANCE MIB Uninsured Agreement (2015) 1 www.mib.org.uk

NOTES FOR GUIDANCE MIB Uninsured Agreement (2015) 1 www.mib.org.uk 1 www.mib.org.uk NOTES FOR GUIDANCE MIB Uninsured Agreement (2015) Notes for Guidance MIB Uninsured Agreement (2015) The following notes are for the guidance of anyone who submits a claim to MIB under

More information

Fleet Legal Guard. Policy Wording

Fleet Legal Guard. Policy Wording Fleet Legal Guard Policy Wording What s inside... Introduction 3 What to do if you need to make a claim 4 Legal helpline 5 Claims for compensation 10 Claims for physiotherapy 12 Terms and Conditions 13

More information

1) Uninsured Loss Recovery An event causing damage to the insured vehicle and/or personal property in or on it

1) Uninsured Loss Recovery An event causing damage to the insured vehicle and/or personal property in or on it MOTORING LEGAL SOLUTIONS MCE ASSIST THIS IS YOUR INSURANCE POLICY This policy is evidence of the contract between you and the Insurer. Following an Insured Event the Insurer will pay the Insured s Legal

More information

Steen & Co Employment Solicitors

Steen & Co Employment Solicitors Steen & Co Employment Solicitors COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS This is a note about some of the issues involved in Compromise Agreements. It is not a substitute for individual advice that, of course, we will give

More information

How to make a personal injury claim

How to make a personal injury claim A publication by Cute Injury How to make a personal injury claim A CLEAR AND CONCISE GUIDE TO THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS PROCESS We provide professional and impartial advice from the outset and throughout

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 5th June 2014 Issue: 021 Civil Procedure/Service Of Claim Form There has been a run of cases relating to the service of claim forms and this continues with Kaki v National

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

This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2011) The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context.

More information

MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook

MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical

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

Medical Negligence. A guide for clients. The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. The Legal 500

Medical Negligence. A guide for clients. The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. The Legal 500 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A guide for clients The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience.

More information

1. This is an appeal by Gregor McGill FRICS & Gregor C. McGill & Co. (firm).

1. This is an appeal by Gregor McGill FRICS & Gregor C. McGill & Co. (firm). ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS APPEAL PANEL HEARING Case of Mr Gregor McGill [0044030] and Gregor C. McGill & Co (firm) [004755] Cheshire, WA2 On Friday 13 March 2015 At Warrington Village Urban

More information

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND

MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND MOTOR INSURER S BUREAU OF IRELAND COMPENSATION OF UNINSURED ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS Agreement dated 29th January 2009 between the Minister for Transport and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) AGREEMENT

More information

Legal Watch: Personal Injury

Legal Watch: Personal Injury Legal Watch: Personal Injury 1st April 2015 Issue: 058 Limitation Insurers who may be faced with claims for historical sex abuse will gain some comfort from the decision in RE v GE (2015) EWCA Civ 287.

More information

Brain injury lawyers Rehabilitation Change Support Care Family Pain Anger Justice Therapy

Brain injury lawyers Rehabilitation Change Support Care Family Pain Anger Justice Therapy Brain injury lawyers Rehabilitation Change Support Care Family Pain Anger Justice Therapy Fieldfisher provides a first-class service to clients. www.fieldfisher.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848

More information

Limitation an update on recent case law

Limitation an update on recent case law Limitation an update on recent case law John Dickinson St John s Chambers An update covering recent cases on limitation periods, including consideration of whether a professional was under a continuing

More information

Brain injury lawyers. Field Fisher Waterhouse provides a first-class service to clients. The Legal 500

Brain injury lawyers. Field Fisher Waterhouse provides a first-class service to clients. The Legal 500 Brain injury lawyers Field Fisher Waterhouse provides a first-class service to clients. The Legal 500 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Specialist brain injury solicitors Our brain injury

More information

WHY YOU SHOULDN T DISCLOSE ALL MEDICAL RECORDS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION

WHY YOU SHOULDN T DISCLOSE ALL MEDICAL RECORDS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION WHY YOU SHOULDN T DISCLOSE ALL MEDICAL RECORDS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION By Justin Valentine 6 th April 2014 This publication is intended to provide general guidance only. It is not intended to constitute

More information

www.saffroninsurance.co.uk Motor claims assistance When things don t go to plan, we go to work.

www.saffroninsurance.co.uk Motor claims assistance When things don t go to plan, we go to work. www.saffroninsurance.co.uk Motor claims assistance When things don t go to plan, we go to work. Motor claims assistance In the event of a claim, experienced specialists are on hand to ensure that your

More information

Your Motor Legal Protection Insurance Policy Wording

Your Motor Legal Protection Insurance Policy Wording Your Motor Legal Protection Insurance Policy Wording www.debenhamscarinsurance.co.uk Contents Your Motor Legal Protection Insurance Policy Wording... 3 General Exceptions... 10 2 Your Motor Legal Protection

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

Guide to making a Motor Insurers Bureau claim

Guide to making a Motor Insurers Bureau claim Guide to making a Motor Insurers Bureau claim www.mib.org.uk This booklet This booklet gives important information about the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) and making a claim. Please read it carefully before

More information

Sri Jyoti @ Homen Konwar.

Sri Jyoti @ Homen Konwar. 1 IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR M.A.C.T CASE No. 36 / 2012. P A R T I E S Sri Jyoti @ Homen Konwar. Claimant. -Versus- 1. Sri Trilochan Gogoi. (Owner -cum-

More information

Evidential Issues in Alpine Sports Injury Claims

Evidential Issues in Alpine Sports Injury Claims Evidential Issues in Alpine Sports Injury Claims Published by Darren Lewis, Barrister, St John s Chambers August 2010 St John s Chambers 101 Victoria Street Bristol BS1 6PU DX 743350 Bristol 36 0117 921

More information

Inquiry into Debt Recovery in New South Wales

Inquiry into Debt Recovery in New South Wales THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Our ref: Iit.law:RElw 16 May 2014 Mr Bryan Doyle Committee Chair Legislative Assembly Committee on Legal Affairs Parliament of New South Wales Macquarie Street SYDNEY

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

Table of Contents. 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1

Table of Contents. 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1 Table of Contents 1. What should I do when the other driver s insurance company contacts me?... 1 2. Who should be paying my medical bills from a car accident injury?... 2 3. What should I do after the

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

LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS

LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 July 2014. 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.

More information

Motor Insurers Bureau Making a claim

Motor Insurers Bureau Making a claim Motor Insurers Bureau Making a claim A brief guide This booklet This booklet gives important information about the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) and making a claim. Please read it carefully before you fill

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

Motor Legal Expenses Insurance

Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Motor Legal Expenses Insurance Policy Document Certificate of Insurance This insurance is underwritten by Inter Partner Assistance SA and managed on their behalf by Arc Legal

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

The Court of Protection Rules 2007

The Court of Protection Rules 2007 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2007 No. 1744 (L. 12) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES The Court of Protection Rules 2007 Made - - - - - 25th June 2007 Laid before Parliament 4th July 2007 Coming into force -

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

Court of Protection Note. The Court of Protection and Personal Injury Claims. Simon Edwards

Court of Protection Note. The Court of Protection and Personal Injury Claims. Simon Edwards Court of Protection Note The Court of Protection and Personal Injury Claims Simon Edwards 1. What happens when P brings proceedings for damages for personal injuries, those injuries being, substantially,

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

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES

More information