Never Say Never: the Import of the Fairclough Homes v Summers Decision - Helen Tinkler, BPP & Central Law Training
06/08/12. The recent decision in Fairclough Homes v Summers [2012 UKSC 26] has provided a ideal opportunity for all parties to consider tactics. Although the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) enjoins the parties to co-operation (see Hertsmere Primary Care Trust v Administrators of Balasubramanium’s Estate [2005] 3 All ER 274), this presupposes that the parties are playing fair. The reality is that the parties, particularly in personal injury claims, are enjoined in a fight. So, how might the Fairclough decision referee future legal fisticuffs?
The number of claims now scrutinised for fraud has increased many times over and will no doubt continue given the 18% rise in the number of personal injury claims made arising from RTA’s despite the 11% fall in the number of the accidents – according to the actuarial profession (July 2012).
The rules of fair play, otherwise known as the Civil Procedure Rules, may be pored over more keenly by parties keen to get the “ref” on side. One weapon in the CPR armoury is an...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/webphotographeer
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
