piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

An anniversary observed in silence

The New York Times reported last week (12 February 2011) that today marks the five year anniversary since US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke in court during oral argument.  Amusingly the reporter, Adam Liptak, speculated about how Justice Thomas would conduct himself today: "If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in... [More]

Claims and Counterclaims: RTA uplifts and settling on the day of trial

Slade J handed down judgment this week in an appeal concerning the question of whether the claimant's legal representatives were entitled to a 100% uplift on their costs, in accordance with the fixed uplift regime for conditional fee agreements in road traffic cases, where the case settled on the day of trial, but before the trial commenced.  She also addressed the vexed question of... [More]

Limitation of action - Court's power to override time limit in personal injury claim.

In EB v Haughton [2011] EWHC 279 (QB) (hearing date 17 February 2011) the Claimant claimed damages for personal injuries caused by sexual abuse over a period of about one year in 1993. She relied on section 33 of the Limitation Act and argued that (1) she was a minor for a part of the period (2) her claim had been statute barred until the decision in A v Hoare [2008] All ER (D) 251 (Jan). The Defe... [More]

Risk assessments in practice - Uren v MOD (Feb 2011)

Employers doubtless hope that their risk assessments will sit on their shelves gathering dust and will never need to be dug out (except, of course, to be updated) as part of a disclosure exercise. It is obvious that the purpose of the assessment is to encourage employers to think of risks to their employees and to get them to take steps to reduce those risks. But how far does an employer have to g... [More]

Large landmark settlement for former prison officer in complex claim against MoJ.

Heaven v Ministry of Justice    The Claimant, an ex-prison officer, brought proceedings against the MoJ for severe psychiatric injuries which he suffered during the course of his employment at HMP Grendon, a category B prison. The Claimant was stationed on a wing that housed inmates convicted of serious sexual offences. As part of their rehabilitation, inmates underwent “therapeu... [More]

A risky business

The Claimant/Appellant in Robert Uren v Corporate Leisure & The Ministry of Defence was meant to be participating in a day which promoted his health.  It was on said day that his accident occurred.  He broke his neck after jumping head first into a shallow pool during a team exercise.   In its decision handed down last week, the Court of Appeal affirmed that an employer&... [More]

Dealing with the discount rate review

A settlement award of £7.85 million (capitalised current value) was recently agreed in the case of TBE v Royal Berkshire NHS Trust.  The award comprises a lump sum payment of £3,660,700 plus annual payments index linked to ASHE 6115 of £140,000 to age 19 and £225,000 from age 19 for life.    The case involved a 10 year-old claimant, TBE (name abbrevia... [More]

RTA Insurer not liable for the 'same damage' as its insured

In Jubilee Motors Syndicate v Volvo Truck & Bus (Southern) Limited (2010) Jubilee, a road traffic insurer within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988, had been ordered to pay damages following the settlement of a claim against its insured (Volvo) by an injured third party. Jubilee thereafter instigated contribution proceedings against its insured under the Civil Liabiliy (Contrib... [More]

B v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 1317

  Section 33 and causation: Personal injury claims issued three years after the date of knowledge are time barred pursuant to section 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980. However, it is often assumed that where a fair trial can still go ahead, the Court will most likely dis-apply the three limitation period and exercise its discretion under section 33 of the same Act. The cogency of the ... [More]