The Practical Lawyer

Personal injury

Part 36 – high-percentage offer

Any Part 36 offer must be a ‘genuine attempt to settle the proceedings’ for it to be valid. Accordingly, an offer by a claimant to settle on the basis of 100% liability by the defendant will never be effective.

Subscribers only...

Infant approval – fee

A useful note by Gordon Exall clarifies the position on infant approval fees. Apparently, many courts treat such a Part 8 application as being identical to a Part 7 claim (ie with the fee being a percentage of the value of the claim).

Subscribers only...

QOCS – counterclaim?

Can a defendant bring a PI counterclaim, and then claim the benefit of QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting)? The answer is that it can.

Subscribers only...

Fundamental dishonesty – need to plead?

Does ‘fundamental dishonesty’ need to be pleaded by the defendant? And, if so, at what stage?

Subscribers only...

MIB – exclusions

The High Court has recently held that the Motor Insurers Bureau is an ‘emanation of the state’ under the EU Insurance Directives.

Subscribers only...

Part 36 – late acceptance

If a Part 36 offer is accepted out of time (ie outside the 21 day period) in a low value protocol case, then what are the costs consequences? In particular, does late acceptance mean a liability to pay standard (or indemnity) costs – rather than fixed costs – from the 21 day period through to the date of acceptance? The CA has confirmed that it does not; fixed costs still apply.

Subscribers only...

Whiplash – bogus claims

Given the fuss about exaggerated whiplash claims, it is worth quoting the words of Martin J which he used in two recent appeals. In the first, the claimant had disclosed only one previous RTA (he had been involved in five), with Martin J therefore deciding this was ‘fundamental dishonesty’ (and so the claim was dismissed). In the second, the claimant failed to attend a series of physiotherapy sessions (which led to the claim being dismissed for a ’failure to prove’):

Subscribers only...

Fundamental dishonesty – exaggeration

The claimant was injured in an RTA, with the defendant admitting liability. The claimant alleged that he suffered from PTSD, and thus his loss of earnings claim was £850,000. The defendants said he merely suffered minor injuries which were resolved within six months. They therefore argued that he had ‘exaggerated’ his claim, and was therefore ‘fundamentally dishonest’ (so the claim should be struck out).

Subscribers only...

Damages – future accommodation

A claim for ‘future accommodation’ will typically be for the cost of alternative accommodation the claimant needs because of the injury suffered (eg specially modified accommodation). For the past three decades, awards for future accommodation have been calculated according to the methods set down in Roberts v Johnstone [1989], which were designed to compensate claimants for a notional loss of investment income on the capital used in buying a suitable property. However, as we noted in our June 2018 issue (p27) the logic of that approach has been under increasing attack in recent years. In particular, the arrival of the negative discount rate (in 2017) has simply made Roberts v Johnstone unworkable.

Subscribers only...

Part 36 – reminders

A reminder of some of the pitfalls of Part 36 offers:

Subscribers only...

Page 2 of 47

Most-read articles

Disputed will – guidance; procedure
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
What should you do if asked for correspondence and other documents in relation to a will you prepared for a client who has since died?  Read more...
MoJ – IT meltdown
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Many litigators are no doubt all too aware of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) January 2019 IT failures that hit the delivery of frontline legal services in some courts.  Read more...
Statutory notices – service
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The SC has widened the scope of the service of statutory notices. Read more...
Part 36 offers – appropriate
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Part 36 of the CPR allows a claimant or defendant to make an offer of settlement before trial. If the offer is not accepted and the opposing party does not meet the offer at trial, the court may... Read more...
Noise nuisance – liability?
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
A recent High Court decision has confirmed that L is not liable for nuisance caused by its T merely because L does not take steps available to prevent the cause of the nuisance, even when L knows... Read more...
RICS – service charges
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
We noted the RICS Code of Practice on service charges in our October 2018 issue, p19; the ‘Service Charges in Commercial Property (1st edition)’ comes into force on 1 April 2019. Read more...
Notice of severance – rectification?
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
A recent case reminds practitioners of the importance of ensuring that a notice of severance accurately records all of the titles intended to be severed. Read more...
Children – parental responsibility; removal of
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
In what circumstances might the court order the removal of PR from the father? The author comments on a recent case which involved a unique set of circumstances justifying the removal of PR.  Read more...
Incompetence – not discrimination
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The CA has held that an incompetent process does not amount to discrimination. Read more...
Sentencing – contempt of court
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in relation to a claimant remanded to prison overnight for discussing evidence in a civil case.  Read more...


IAG International
MSI Global Alliance
Join the IBA now!
In House Lawyer