PIBULJ
PI Practitioner, February 2013
18/02/13. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Simply fill in your email address at the top right of this website.
Recovering the costs of an inquest in subsequent civil proceedings.Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (as amended):
"S.51 Costs in civil division of Court of Appeal, High Court and county courts
(1) Subject to the provisions of this or any other enactment and to rules of court, the costs of and incidental to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Exceeding Fixed Recoverable Costs in the Proposed Expanded Regime - Matthew Hoe, Jaggards
17/02/13. Recent cases on whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ in RTA claims meaning that greater than fixed recoverable costs should be allowed set a benchmark for future expansion of the fixed recoverable costs regime. At the time of writing, the government’s response to the consultation on ‘Extension of the RTA PI Scheme: Proposals on Fixed Recoverable Costs’ is awaited. Whilst implementation of any changes in April 2013, along with the other Jackson reforms, seems unlikely, it seems that change is coming.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/GNK82
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
The Devil Is in the Detail: Pleading and Proving Allegations of Fraud - David Sawtell, 4 King's Bench Walk
16/02/13. When fraud is alleged, the claimant’s credibility is vital. Defendant insurance companies often rely on inconsistencies between a claimant’s GP notes, what he or she told his medico-legal expert, what is written in the pleadings and written witness statements and what the claimant finally says at trial. How far can these inconsistencies be relied upon to prove fraud? In Hussain v Hussain and Aviva [2012] EWCA Civ 1367, the claimant and the defendant were unrelated despite...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/payphoto
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Work Related Asthma in Healthcare Professionals - Tracey Graham, Slater & Gordon LLP
13/02/13. In January 2012 Occupational and Environmental Magazine published an article concluding that healthcare professionals are at risk of developing work related asthma from exposure to cleaning substances. Work related asthma remains an important public health problem affecting one quarter of adults with asthma. Although cleaning substances are routinely used in hospitals, few studies have addressed their potential adverse respiratory health effects on those working within healthcare. The article reported on a study which attempted to identify the relationship between work related exposure and the development of work related asthma.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/nikkormat42
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Court of Appeal decides Appeals on Autofocus Evidence - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
11/02/13. In Dickinson and others v Tesco Plc and others [2013] EWCA Civ 36, the Court of Appeal considered four appeals arising from credit hire cases in which the trial Judge based the assessment of the daily rate of hire wholly or partially on evidence put forward by Autofocus (“AF”), which has subsequently been discredited. The key tension in these appeals arises from the conflict between avoiding re-opening a substantial number of stale claims and allowing results based on tainted evidence to stand. The result is important for the precedent which it sets with regard to further appeals against decisions based on AF evidence.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/BartCo
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
More Articles...
- Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 - Georgina Hirsch, Devereux Chambers
- Is the Worst Still to Come for Pi Lawyers? - Richard Coulthard, Michael Lewin Solicitors
- Work Harder for Less - Andrew Prynne QC, Temple Garden Chambers
- Adding Insult to Injury: Time to Review Roberts v Johnstone, Again - Will Waldron QC, Exchange Chambers
![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)
