PI Brief Update

17 July 2006 - PI Practitioner

STREET FURNITURE AND THE HIGHWAYS ACT
Matthew Shine v. Tower Hamlets LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 852
The Highways Act itself did not create any liability in respect of bollards, barriers and other street furniture. Section 66 of the Act gives a highway authority the power to install such things, but that provision is merely permissive and does not give rise to a cause of action. Neither does section 41. However, a highway authority can still be liable for negligence in relation to defective street furniture.

In Shine, the child Claimant tried to leapfrog a bollard. It was installed into a hole that was unsuitable, and wobbled as he jumped over it. This caused him to fall and suffer injury. The claim under section 66 of the Highways Act failed. So did the claim under section 41, although the Claimant had argued that the bollard failed because of a defect in the highway – the hole in which it was installed. The court found that the complaint was about the inadequate installation of the bollard, and the attempt to bring it under section 41 was artificial.

However, the judge had found that it was reasonably foreseeable that children would play leapfrog on the bollards. The Defendant had known about the state of the bollard, and was negligent in failing to repair it.

RECOVERABILITY OF MEDICAL AGENCY FEES
Woolard v. Fowler 24/5/2006
CPR 45.10 does not provide for a fixed level of disbursements. Therefore, if the Claimant seeks to recover the cost of paying an agency to obtain a medical report in a case governed by this rule, that cost is recoverable, provided it is reasonable, proportionate and does not include an administration fee.

CPR 45: THE INDEMNITY PRINCIPLE
Nizami v. Butt 9/2/2006
The indemnity principle does not relate to costs payable under CPR 45(II). The rules contemplate only that there be an agreed scheme which set out what can be recovered. There was no direct relevance to what was actually incurred. Although this might lead to overpayment in some cases and underpayment in others, overall it was fair. There was no need for the paying party to satisfy itself that the Claimant’s CFA was valid by going to court.

The rules for disbursements under 45.10 are different, however, as the levels are not fixed. The usual rules apply.