piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

PI claim by tenant: SC overules CA and Dowding & Reynolds

For years tenants have relied upon Brown v Liverpool Corporation [1969] 3 All ER 1345 when suing landlords for damages for personal injury caused by an accident on external steps or a front path leading to the front door of a house. In that case the Court of Appeal held that the steps were part of the exterior of the dwelling-house. In the case of Edwards v Kumarasamy [2016] UKSC 40, the Supreme Court held that decision was wrong. The case of Edwards involved a subtenant being injured when he tripped on an uneven paving stone on the paved area between the main entrance to the block of flats and a carpark. The subtenant brought proceedings against his landlord (the headlessee) claiming his injury was caused by his landlord’s failure to keep the paved area in repair in breach of the covenants implied into the subtenancy by section 11(1)(a) and 11(1A)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 11(1)(a) of the 1985 Act implied a repairing obligation into the subtenancy “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house…”. Section 11(1A)(a) required section 11(1)(a) to be read as if it required a landlord “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of any part of the building in which [he] has an estate or interest.” Presumably influenced by the decision in Brown, the Court of Appeal had held that the path leading from the car park to the main entrance was “a part of the exterior of the front hall”. Lord Neuberger PSC said that ordinary language simply did not permit the path to be described in this way. He said “it is hard to see how a feature which is not in any normal sense part of a building and lies wholly outside that building, and in particular outside the floors, ceilings, walls and doors which encase the front hall of the building, can fairly be described as part of the exterior of the front hall.” Lord Neuberger was not persuaded that the words should be given a wide effect in the light of section 11(1A)(a). Having decided that the path was not a part of the ‘structure or exterior’ of the dwelling house the Supreme Court needed go no further. It did however go on to consider whether the landlord/headlessee had an “estate or interest” in the front hall. He had been granted a right of way over the front hall by the headlease and as a matter of property law, that constituted an interest in land (although not an estate). It was argued that the landlord/headlessee had, for the purposes of s.11(1A)(a), effectively disposed of his right of way to the tenant under the tenancy. This argument was rejected preserving the liability of the landlord/headlessee for disrepair in the common parts. Lord Neuberger said that s.11(3A) would have offered him some protection in that he would not have been liable for disrepair without prior notice. The final issue considered by the Supreme Court (again, not technically necessary due to its initial finding) was the question of notice. The court reiterated the law as it stands. The general principle is that a repair covenant effectively operates as a warranty that the premises will be in repair. As soon as premises are out of repair, the covenantor is in breach irrespective of whether he has had notice or whether he has had time to remedy the disrepair. There are exceptions to this general rule, one of which is that a landlord is not liable under a covenant with his tenant to repair premise which are in the possession of the tenant and not the landlord, unless and until the landlord has notice of the disrepair. The court went on to consider what happens when the landlord has covenanted with one tenant to repair the structure but has let part of it to another tenant. In other words, what happens when property is in possession of neither the landlord or tenant? The answer is that the exception to the general principle does not normally apply: the landlord will be liable to the one tenant even though he is not in possession of the structure in concern and has had no notice from the other tenant. The final question on notice was whether s.11 always required it: in other words, whenever a tenant relies on the covenant implied by s. 11, is the landlord only liable when notice is given? The text Dowding & Reynolds, Dilapidations: The Modern Law and Practice, 5th ed (2013) supported the landlord’s submission that notice was required when a tenant relied upon the s.11 covenant. The Supreme Court thought otherwise. The s.11 covenant was to be interpreted and applied in precisely the same way as a landlord’s contractual repairing covenant.

Assessing the cost of ATE Premiums

If anyone needs a reminded why the costs landscape for personal injury litigators has changed so dramatically they may not need look much further than the judgment of the Designated Civil Judge of the County Court at London, HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting with DJ Letham as assessor in the costs case of Banks v London Borough of Hillingdon, which has been commented upon in the legal press. The case concerned the correct assessment of an After-The-Event insurance policy, an issue which ranked high on the list of insurers' (and it seems the Government's) bugbears with the unreformed CFA system.   The underlying case was a straightforward, low-value, public liability tripper case. The successful claimant was awarded just under £7,000 in damages and costs were assessed/agreed save for a somewhat eye-watering £24,694 ATE premium. Master Gordon-Saker the costs judge cut this down to £9,375 on the basis that it was patently unreasonable for a premium to so extensively exceed the likely assured sum. This latter figure the Master considered would have been a maximum of £15,000, that is, the maximum amount such an insurer would have to pay out in costs should the claimant lose the case. He awarded half this sum, plus another 25 percent. Before the learned senior circuit judge it was argued that the costs master misdirected himself and should have considered the “basket of risk” for insurers, rather than applying some sort of common-sense approach on a case-by-case basis. The court overturned Master Gordon-Saker’s decision on the ground that he indeed erred and failed to consider the august guidance of the Court of Appeal in Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1134. The court held that it was for the paying party to adduce evidence that the premium was excessive and as this had not been available in the instant case, the costs master had no basis to conclude that the sum claimed was unreasonable (per, Kris Motor Spares Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2010] EWHC 1008). This decision must be seen as victory for claimant litigators, given that it should serve as a persuasive reminder to trial judges to follow Rogers in the ever-diminishing rump of cases where such high ATE premiums are seen. The lesson for defendants is obvious: in cases where they are put on notice that, if successful, a claimant party will seek payment of what appears to be a very high ATE premium, it would be prudent to obtain evidence that lower premiums were available to support the conclusion that what is allowed should be assessed down. In the event that such information is not available until at or after trial, such a defendant would have little option other than to request that the matter be subject to detailed assessment, potentially at the expense of the claimant party.

QOCS : applies to appeals?

Qualified One-way Costs Shifting: does it apply to appeals?   Yes, according to Edis J in Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB), who held:   3.         If (as is likely to be the case here) the claimant's access to justice is dependent on the benefit of QOCS, that access will be significantly reduced if he is exposed to a risk as to the costs of any unsuccessful appeal which he may bring or any successful appeal a defendant may bring against him. ...   4.         The power to make enforceable orders for costs is designed to compensate successful parties for their expense in bringing or resisting claims, but it also has an effect of deterring people from bringing or resisting claims unsuccessfully. It is an incentive to resolve disputes and serves a public as well as a private interest. ...   9.         CPR 44.13 provides "(1) This Section applies to proceedings which include a claim for damages – (a) for personal injuries"   10.       The issue is, therefore, whether the appeal is part of the proceedings which include a claim for damages for personal injuries or whether it is separate from them and thus not subject to the regime. If it is separate from the proceedings which culminated in the trial, is it nonetheless a set of proceedings which includes a claim for damages?   17.       An appeal by a claimant against the dismissal of his claim for personal injuries is a means of pursuing that claim against the defendant or defendants who succeeded in defeating that claim at trial. There is no difference between the parties or the relief sought as there is between the original claim and the Part 20 claim. Most importantly, to my mind there is no difference between the nature of the claimant at trial and the appellant on appeal. He is the same person, and the QOCS regime exists for his benefit as the best way to protect his access to justice to pursue a personal injury claim. To construe the word "proceedings" as excluding an appeal which was necessary if he were to succeed in establishing the claim which had earlier attracted costs protection would do nothing to serve the purpose of the QOCS regime. ...

Damages for abuse

The Claimant in KCR v The Scout Association [2016] EWHC 597 (QB) suffered sustained abuse by a Cub Scout Group Leader when a young boy in the 1980s. In 2003 the abuser was convicted of a large number of sexual offences against boys including the Claimant. As might be expected, given recent trends in this area of law, the Defendant admitted that it was vicariously liable for the abuser’s actions. The court was therefore concerned solely with the assessment of damages. The case had one feature that is depressingly common and one that is rather unusual. It is also, in more general terms, a helpful illustration of how courts may approach the difficult issues that cases of this kind throw up. It is often the case that victims of abuse are peculiarly vulnerable individuals. Sometimes this gives the abuser the opportunity to perpetrate abuse (for example, if a child is in care) or prevents the abuse being detected (because there is no-one the child can trust enough to confide in). The correlation (or at least frequent concurrence) of pre-existing vulnerability and abuse makes determining issues of causation in such cases difficult, because children who have experienced traumatic childhoods may already be destined to lead difficult adult lives in any event. In this case, the Claimant’s parents separated when he was four or five years old after his father had been violent towards his mother. He began using drugs in his teens and subsequently obtained his income principally from drug-dealing, with the exception of a few short-lived periods when he was in employment. He had a number of convictions for offences relating to drugs, firearms, dishonesty and violence.   The Claimant contended that he was entitled to a Blamire award for loss of earnings, past and future, on the basis that his inability to find sustained employment was a result of the abuse he had suffered. The Defendant accepted that the Claimant was entitled to general damages, but disputed the loss of earnings claim, contending that it was his “lifestyle choices” rather than the abuse that had prevented him being in sustained employment. The Defendant further contended that, even if factual causation was established, much of the Claimant’s loss should be deemed irrecoverable as a matter of public policy because it arose from the consequences of the Claimant’s own criminal conduct. After a careful analysis of the facts, the court preferred the Defendant’s case on causation. As a result, it did not have to go on to consider the application of the ex turpi maxim. It assessed general damages at £48,000 and dismissed the claim for aggravated damages with reference to Richard v Howie [2004] EWCA Civ 1127. The unusual feature of the case was that at the time he was subject to the abuse, and for some time afterwards, the Claimant and another boy effectively blackmailed the abuser when they realised they could demand from him rewards of money and material possessions in return for keeping quiet about the abuse. The Defendant contended that it should be given credit for the sums thereby extorted from the abuser by the Claimant. It was prayed in aid in support of this submission that the Claimant had himself described the payments in his witness statement to the police as “compensation”. Such a submission is so obviously unattractive that it is perhaps surprising that it was ever advanced and it is not at all surprising that it was rejected by the judge, who held (a) that the payments were gifts and hence could not properly be considered as compensation and (b) that as a matter of public policy the Claimant’s damages should not be reduced as the Defendant suggested. The judge reached the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. The payments were not gifts; they were, on the facts, part of a bargain between the Claimant and the abuser whereby the abuser sought to buy the Claimant’s silence so that he could continue to perpetrate abuse (of the Claimant and of others). The real reason the Defendant was not entitled to credit for the payments was that they did not relate to the subject matter of the claim, which was damages for the effect of the abuse on the Claimant in terms of pain, suffering, anguish etc. The abuser made the payments so that he could continue his abuse, not to compensate the Claimant for the effects of that abuse. Because the Defendant’s contention could have been dismissed for that reason, the resort to public policy was unnecessary and possibly unhelpful for future cases where the same or similar issues arise. There may be cases where it would be appropriate for a defendant to be given credit for payments made by an abuser. Suppose an abuser later repented of their abuse and wrote to their former victim expressing contrition for the harm they had caused and enclosing a cheque which the victim banked. Such cases are likely to be exceptional, but as and when they do occur then on what principle of public policy should a defendant who was vicariously liable for the abuser’s actions not be entitled to have that payment taken into account? There will be cases at the margins which will be difficult to decide, but the principle that should be applied remains whether the payments were genuinely compensatory or whether, as here, they were really the price that the abuser was willing to pay to avoid detection. A victim extorting money from an abuser may be unusual but it is not unprecedented. A case that sticks in the mind from criminal law lectures is R v Camplin (“the chapati pan case”) where the defendant murdered his abuser, who he had been blackmailing in return for not revealing the abuse of another boy called “Jumbo”: see the report from the Court of Appeal [1978] QB 254 at 257C. Many of the abuse cases currently working their way through the courts involve wealthy abusers who may have made payments to their victims. How to treat those payments is therefore an issue which the courts are likely to have to address again before too long.

Vicarious liability: extension, extension, extension

 “The law of vicarious liability is on the move” are the opening words to the opinion of Lord Reed in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 (quoting Lord Phillips in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56). The Supreme Court has handed down two judgments in the field of vicarious liability (Cox and Mohamud v WM Morrison [2016] UKSC 11) which continue to extend its scope. The five policy reasons for the vicarious liability relationship identified in the Christian Brothers case have effectively been narrowed to three in Cox - a case in which the Supreme Court found that the prison service was vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner working in a prison kitchen. In Mohamud the Supreme Court stuck to the articulation of the law in Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 but elaborated saying that the court has to consider (1) what functions or “field of activities” have been entrusted by the employer to the employee (a question to be approached “broadly”) and (2) whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable. That broad approach meant that the employer of an attendant at a petrol station was vicariously liable for the attendant’s violent attack on the claimant on the petrol station forecourt. For more detailed analysis of these decisions see 1 Chancery Lane Personal Injury Briefing March 2016. Photograph courtesy of Freefoto.com                                                                 http://www.freefoto.com/thanks.jsp

Foreign Law in the English Courts

A number of the English lawyers who conduct PI litigation in cross-border cases have warned that the full implications of the Rome II Regulation (864/2007) – and the impact that it has on the assessment of damages awarded to English Claimants by English Judges – have yet to be felt. By way of recap, Rome II provides (in Article 15(c)) that once the applicable law of the tort has been identified it will apply (among other things) to the existence, the nature and the assessment of the damages to which the Claimant is entitled. In other words, (and by contrast to the previous position under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995) Rome II extends the reach of the foreign applicable law beyond the identification of heads of recoverable loss and into the assessment of damages process itself. This means a much greater role for foreign legal experts in the English Courts and it also means that English Judges may find themselves confronting (on a regular basis, given the volume of EU RTA claims in the English jurisdiction) vexed foreign law issues which have not been clearly resolved in the foreign jurisdiction from which they derive. In this sense, an English Judge may be called to determine (if you like “to make”) German/French/Lithuanian (delete as appropriate) law. Soole J confronted a dilemma of just this kind in the very recent case of Syred v PZU SA [2015] EWHC 254 (QB) (12.2.16): a PI claim by an English Claimant against a Polish insurer Defendant in respect of an RTA in Poland (to which the English Court applied the law of Poland). One of the issues confronting the Court was the assessment of (what we would call) general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Polish law provided no fixed scales or guidelines for such damages, but there was evidence that Polish Judges tended to use the non-pecuniary elements of a table or tariff published in an Ordinance by the Polish Labour Ministry. So far, so good, but the additional expert evidence was that the Polish Supreme Court had criticised the use of the Ordinance in this way. Despite this, the Polish lower Courts had continued to use the Ordinance and the Supreme Court had failed to provide an alternative method of calculation of such damages. What was the English Judge to do? The use of the Ordinance was (per Polish Supreme Court) unlawful where it was the sole method of assessment of general damages, however, it was a continuing convention of the Polish Courts to have regard to the Ordinance (in the "overall" assessment process) and it was, therefore, permissible for the English Judge to have similar regard in assessing damages (see, Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurance [2014] 1 WLR 4263 (CA)). Soole J went ahead and assessed damages accordingly. This looks like a pragmatic solution: after all, the Judge has to find some means by which to make the appropriate award. However, it also looks like an English Judge has resolved an issue of Polish law that the Polish Courts have yet wholly to resolve for themselves. One wonders whether Soole J’s decision will have any precedent value in Poland?

Fixed Costs and Part 36 Offers

What is the effect of a claimant’s ‘beaten’ Part 36 Offer upon their costs in a low value personal injury case within the RTA or EL/PL Protocol where claimants' costs are fixed pursuant to CPR 45? This has been a vexed question since the introduction of the fixed costs regime , but one the Master of the Rolls giving the sole judgment of the Court of Appeal in Broadhurst & Anor v Tan & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 94 has now answered with important and far-reaching consequences for litigators in this area. The Court of Appeal held that Parliament and the draftsmen of the amended Rules intended Part 36 offers to have costs consequences in cases where they were bettered at trial even where costs were usually fixed. This means that, per Rule 36.14(3), where a claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer, the court will, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the claimant is entitled to four enhanced benefits including "(b) his costs on the indemnity basis from the date on which the relevant period expired” and thus (as held) the “tension between rule 45.29B and rule 36.14A must, therefore, be resolved in favour of rule 36.14A”, the specific provision taking precedence over the general.    At paragraphs 30 and 31, the Court held that:    “...The starting point is that fixed costs and assessed costs are conceptually different. Fixed costs are awarded whether or not they were incurred, and whether or not they represent reasonable or proportionate compensation for the effort actually expended. On the other hand, assessed costs reflect the work actually done... ...Where a claimant makes a successful Part 36 offer in a section IIIA case, he will be awarded fixed costs to the last staging point provided by rule 45.29C and Table 6B. He will then be awarded costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis in addition from the date that the offer became effective. This does not require any apportionment. It will, however, lead to a generous outcome for the claimant. I do not regard this outcome as so surprising or so unfair to the defendant that it requires the court to equate fixed costs with costs assessed on the indemnity basis... a generous outcome in such circumstances is consistent with rule 36.14(3) as a whole and its policy of providing claimants with generous incentives to make offers, and defendants with countervailing incentives to accept them.” Whether this clarification will lead to an increase or decrease in litigation will remain to be seen. Certainly the current interpretation of this (formerly) knotty issue ought to remind all litigators, but particularly those acting for claimant parties, of the importance of early, well-pitched Part 36 Offers in both encouraging settlement and giving rise to another means of escaping the confines of the fixed costs regime.

Part 36 Offer: derisory or genuine?

The case of Jockey Club Racecourse Ltd v Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd  [2016] EWHC 167 deals with two interesting questions: (1) does a Part 36 offer have to reflect an available outcome in the litigation to be valid? (2) when is it a genuine attempt to settle liability?  The case concerned a defective roof at the racecourse at Epsom. The claimant offered to settle the issue of liability on the basis that the defendant would “accept liability to pay 95% of our client’s claim for damages to be assessed.” The issues of liability were ultimately resolved by consent wholly in the claimant’s favour. The claim was pleaded at in excess of £5m. The judge endorsed the remarks of Henderson J in AB v CD  [2011] EWHC 602  in which he drew the distinction between a genuine offer or ‘merely a lightly disguised request for total capitulation’. A request to a defendant to submit to judgment for the entirety of the relief sought by the claimant was not an ‘offer to settle’ within the meaning of Part 36. An offer to settle had to contain some genuine element of concession on the part of the claimant to which a significant value could be attached in the context of the litigation. Henderson J considered in the context of a road traffic accident that the offer of 95:5 was derisory. In Huck v Robson [2003] 1 WLR 1340 the Court of appeal held that although no judge would apportion liability 95:5, that was irrelevant. The offer reflected the fact that most claimants prefer certainty to the ordeal of trial and uncertainty about its outcome. They did not think it was merely a tactical step to secure the benefit of the incentives provided by the rule but provided the defendant with a real opportunity for settlement. In Jockey Club Racecourse Edwards-Stuart J. found that, although the Part 36 offer of a 95:5 split was not an outcome available to the court, it did not prevent it being a valid offer. Nothing had been changed by the addition to rule 36.17(5) of subparagraph (e) which requires the court to consider whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings. The judge then went on to consider whether it would be unjust to order the consequences which flow from a failure to better a Part 36 offer. He did not order the consequences to flow from 21 days after the date of the offer but allowed the claimant to have costs on the indemnity basis from the earliest date after that by which “the Defendant could reasonably have put itself in a position to make an informed assessment of the strength of the claim on liability”. That conclusion sits uneasily with the comments of the Court of appeal in its harsh decision in Matthews v Metal Improvements Co Inc [2007] C.P. Rep. 27 where the judge was criticised for deciding the case on the basis of reasonableness. The answer to the two questions I posed above is: (1) a Part 36 Offer does not have to reflect an available outcome in the litigation to be valid although this is less likely to be an issue in personal injury where contributory negligence can reduce a finding that a defendant is liable. (2) A genuine attempt to settle liability is one where the offer is not derisory and is one in which there is ‘some genuine element of concession on the part of the claimant, to which a significant value can be attached’. This will depend on the facts of each case although in the context of a personal injury claim an offer of less than a 5% reduction would be risky where the value is not high.

Daniel v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & London Ambulance Service: a human rights cautionary tale?

  Daniel v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust  and London Ambulance Service [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) Introduction Edward Bishop QC has successfully defended an NHS trust and the London Ambulance Service against claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 brought by the foster family of a man who died of a heart attack in Wandsworth Prison.  The judgment deals with the legal test for liability, causation and victim status.     The central allegation was that there was culpable delay in the attendance of paramedics caused by nursing error and an insufficiently flexible ambulance triage system.  The judge rejected both allegations on the facts and clarified the law on causation in cases of death in custody from natural causes.  She also dealt with “victim status” under the HRA, ruling that the deceased’s foster mother was entitled to bring a claim but his “foster brother” was not. Background James Best (“JB”) was a prisoner on remand at Her Majesty’s Prison (HMP) Wandsworth when he died from natural causes on 8 September 2011. He suffered a myocardial infarction (a heart attack), as a result of a ruptured plaque in the coronary artery, which caused cardiac arrest and death. He was only 37. He had no previous history of heart disease and it is likely that the plaque was ruptured by over-exertion in the prison gym. The First Defendant (“St George’s”) is a National Health Service (“NHS”) Trust responsible for the provision of primary health care within HMP Wandsworth. Doctors and nurses employed by the First Defendant in the Department of Primary Care at HMP Wandsworth tried unsuccessfully to save JB’s life on the day of his death. The Second Defendant (“the LAS”) is a NHS Trust responsible for the provision of ambulances within the London area. HMP Wandsworth is within its catchment area. On 8 September 2011, an emergency call for an ambulance for JB was made, but he was dead by the time the ambulance arrived. The central allegations were that the nurse who attended on JB in his cell failed to request an ambulance quickly enough, and further that there was unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the dispatch of an ambulance by the LAS. The Claimants had a close relationship with JB which began when the First Claimant fostered JB for 3 years when he was a teenager, between 1988 and 1991. The Second Claimant is the First Claimant’s biological son, and described JB as his foster brother. The Claimants have brought their claim for declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998”), alleging that the First and Second Defendants, as public authorities, acted in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Violation of Articles 2 and 3 Mrs Justice Lang set out the appropriate legal test to be applied when considering whether or not there had been a breach. She reiterated the guidance: “I remind myself that the test to be applied is whether the Defendants did “all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge” (Osman at [116]). In Rabone, Lord Dyson considered that an “immediate” risk was one which “present and continuing” (at [39]). He added, at [43]:   “The standard required for the performance of the operational duty is one of reasonableness. This brings in “consideration of the circumstances of the case, the ease or difficulty of taking precautions and the resources available”; per Lord Carswell In re Officer L [2007] 1 WLR 2135 , para 21.   The ECtHR and the domestic courts have emphasised that the operational duty must not be interpreted in a way “which imposes an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities” (Osman at [116])”   On causation, and having considered the evidence, the test was: “the legal test of causation is whether there was a failure to take reasonably available measures which could have had a “real prospect of altering the outcome”. Put another way, the Claimants have to establish that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.”   The court heard extensive evidence, not just from the actual persons involved in the immediate aftermath, but also from medical experts who gave evidence on the chances of survival following such a heart attack. Careful consideration was given to transcripts of the 999 call-outs, and the exact timing of those calls. The criteria and policy of the ambulance service was scrutinised.   Mrs Justice Lang was emphatic in her dismissal of the claims of breach. She did not consider that the “Claimants have succeeded in establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that, even if [the nurse at the prison] had called an ambulance earlier, or LAS had dispatched an ambulance sooner, that there would have been a “real prospect of altering the outcome” or that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.   As for the claims brought under Article 3, the Judge said: “The claim under Article 3 was unarguable, in my view. [the prison nurse] acted promptly, reasonably and professionally and did all she could to save JB’s life. There was no unreasonable delay in calling an ambulance. The LAS handled the emergency call in accordance with their procedures which were required to ensure that a limited resource of emergency vehicles and personnel were allocated fairly within the community according to priority need. ” It certainly did not amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”.   Victim status   Both Claimants brought claims alleging that they were “indirect victims”. Mrs Justice Lang considered the law on victim status, and set out the relevant test:   “In my judgment, the likely approach of the ECtHR in determining the status of the Claimants in this case would be to consider all the facts and circumstances to assess: ·       1. the nature of the legal/family relationship between the Claimants and JB; ·       2. the nature of the personal ties between the Claimants and JB; ·       3. the extent to which the alleged violations of the Convention (1) affected them personally and (2) caused them to suffer; ·       4. involvement in the proceedings arising out of JB’s death.”   On applying that criteria, she was satisfied that the first Claimant was a indirect victim as she had been JB’s foster mother for three years, leading to a longstanding parent-child relationship. JB had no other family of his own, and shortly before his death referred to himself as the first Claimant’s “third son”. Not only this, but the first Claimant had clearly suffered from acute distress following JB’s demise, and had been extremely active in the aftermath of his death.   However, the second Claimant was found not be an indirect victim. The status of “foster brother” is not recognised in UK domestic law or in ECtHR case law. There can be no question that the second Claimant suffered hugely from the loss of a close friend; but this alone is not a sufficient basis on which to found a claim.   The claims were dismissed.

T’is the season to be techie ….!

This is the time of year for families …. and for gadgets. Lots of them! In particular, smartphones. An average 65% of children in the UK aged between 8 and 11 now have their own smartphone.   This figure rises to 90.5% in Newcastle making it the smartphone capital of the UK for children. This compares with 55.2% in London and only 40% in Brighton and Hove.   All this and more is contained in a survey by Internet Matters (www.internetmatters.org) which also revealed that 72% of parents will have bought tech gifts for their children this year.   For those looking forward to getting back to drafting or responding to schedules of aids and equipment in the New Year the challenge is to wise up and become more e-savvy about equipment claims in 2016.   Also out before Christmas was the latest statistical bulletin from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) (www.ons.gov.uk) on families and households in the UK in 2015.   As a result, those grappling with accommodation claims in 2016 may need to reconsider some of the assumptions often made in schedules and counter schedules, for example, that a person will cohabit throughout his or her life and about the likely age at which a person is likely to leave home.   Although in 2015 in the UK there were 12.5 million people living in a married or civil partner couple family and a further 3.2 million living as a cohabiting couple family there were also 7.7 million people in the UK in 2015 living alone. The largest change – and, according to the ONS, one that is statistically significant - is in people aged between 45 and 64 where the number living alone has increased by 23% between 2005 and 2015.   In 2015 around 40% of young adults in the UK aged between 15 and 34 were still living with their parents. In 1996 around 5.8 million people aged between 15 and 34 in the UK lived with their parents. This figure increased to a peak of 6.7 million in 2014 and has remained at around 6.6 million in 2015.   Looking forward, Christmas wish lists are likely to continue to be dominated by tech gadgets and devices. However, in 2016, at least for parents, the focus may be less on paper chains and party games and more on parental controls and privacy settings.   A Happy New Year to all our readers!