Personal Injury and General Civil Digest
- Breach of disclosure orders and sanctions for criminal/civil contempt
- Civil Procedure - Adjournments and delay
- Conflict of laws and the appropriate forum for a claim
- Costs Order Upheld
- Permission to appeal refused
- Recoverability of cost of local authority care
- Road traffic
- Local Authority Provision and Funding of Care
- Assessing damages in a "loss of a chance" case
- Failure to provide prompt and appropriate care and intensive support
- Noise at Work Regulations 1989
- Damages and Earning Capacity
- Duty of after-care
- Accident Abroad
- Costs and Human Rights
- Costs following Discontinuance
- Employers' Liability
- Mental Health and Human Rights
- Strict Liability
Breach of disclosure orders and sanctions for criminal/civil contempt
In a recent case before the High Court the defendants had repeatedly breached orders requiring them to disclose and deliver up computers used in the course of their business. The husband had deliberately evaded personal service of the first disclosure order and his wife was guilty of civil contempt in failing to deliver up the computers (after being told not to do so by her husband) and refusing to give his mobile telephone number. The husband deliberately deleted files before eventually delivering up his home computer.
There was clear evidence of criminal and civil contempt of court and the judge ruled that the appropriate sanction for the wifes civil contempt was that she should pay costs on an indemnity basis. For the husbands criminal contempt, a short period of imprisonment was appropriate.
For legal representation in civil proceedings contact info@dfalaw.co.uk.
Civil Procedure - Adjournments and delay
In a case where the appellant had failed to turn up at court on unwarranted grounds the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without recourse to the merits of the case. The court had gone out of its way to accommodate the appellant and video conference facilities had been provided as the appellant could not attend the hearing in London. There was also a history of delay. The Court of Appeal held that enough was enough and further delay would have caused prejudice to the respondents.
Faced with civil proceedings? We offer advice on the procedure involved and representation in court. Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk.
Conflict of laws and the appropriate forum for a claim
In a case before the High Court service out of the jurisdiction was set aside where there had been non-disclosure that there were concurrent proceedings in the USA. The judge held that the claim did not raise a triable issue and the contract on which the claim was brought was not governed by English law, but Californian law. England was therefore not the appropriate forum for the claim.
Contemplating bringing civil proceedings? Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk first for advice and representation.
Costs Order Upheld
The Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal against an order for costs. The claimant had succeeded at trial in his claim against the first defendant but was unsuccessful in his claim against the second and third defendants who were awarded costs against him.
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to make the costs order as the claimant had not acted reasonably in joining the second defendant and had failed to show any evidence establishing the negligence pleaded during the course of the trial.
For advice on costs contact our civil litigation team on info@dfalaw.co.uk.
Permission to appeal refused
The Court of Appeal refused the applicant permission to appeal against a judges order that he should pay the other partys costs of an interlocutory application to re-amend his pleadings. The application was made almost a year after the claim had been settled.
The Court found that:
- the appeal would have been wholly disproportionate as it would have been necessary to re-examine the merits of a case which had effectively been settled
- the applicant had not shown a real prospect of success on the appeal.
For advice on all aspects of civil procedure contact info@dfalaw.co.uk.
Recoverability of cost of local authority care
The Court of Appeal has held that a local authority that provided residential care to a person injured as a result of the negligence of an NHS trust could not recover the cost of providing such care directly from the trust in a claim for negligence, since the trust did not owe a duty of care to the local authority. The Court of Appeal noted that the difficulty in this case was a matter for Parliament to resolve, and not the courts.
For advice on any aspect of personal injury litigation contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Road traffic
In a recent case the Court of Appeal has upheld the trial judges finding that each party was equally responsible where the car straddled a notional white line and a motorcycle had been speeding.
For assistance with your road traffic claim contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Local Authority Provision and Funding of Care
The High Court has held that an award of damages should not be made in respect of the cost of future care if the claimant himself would not incur the cost, because he will have the benefit of statutory provision of community care services. However, on the facts of the case, the statutory body responsible for the provision and funding of future care was short of funds and resources and the regime offered was not one that the claimant would accept or that the Court considered reasonable to meet his needs. In these circumstances, the Court accepted that a "top-up" award should be made to cover the claimants reasonable needs.
For advice on the assessment of damages in general contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Assessing damages in a "loss of a chance" case
In a "loss of a chance" case, it was held to be entirely legitimate for the judge to assess the amount of damages which would probably have been awarded at a notional trial, and to then discount the resulting sum to take into account the uncertainty on the issue of liability. The Court of Appeal held that, having correctly identified the approach, the judge had failed to adhere to it in his treatment of the expert evidence and in his findings as to the claimants alleged failure to mitigate their losses.
For advice on damages in connection with your claim contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Failure to provide prompt and appropriate care and intensive support
In a recent High Court case the defendant hospitals negligent failure to provide prompt and appropriate care with intensive support was held to have caused the death of the claimants wife from pneumonia.
For assistance with your clinical negligence claim contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Noise at Work Regulations 1989
The Court of Appeal has held that an employer who failed to provide practicable precautions, in the form of ear protection, to an employee who was consequently exposed to noise level in excess of 85 decibels regularly, over a significant period of time, was in breach of the common law duty of care and the statutory duty contained in the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.
For advice on employers liability in general contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Damages and Earning Capacity
It was held to be appropriate to recalculate the level of damages awarded to a passenger of a vehicle who had sustained brain damage in a road traffic accident so as to take into account the finding that a higher level of earning capacity was possible. The Recorder was entitled to find that, on the balance of probabilities, the passengers post-accident condition was caused by the brain damage which she had suffered as a result of the accident.
For information on how we can help with your damages claim contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Duty of after-care
Local authorities with a duty of after-care under s 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were held by the High Court not to be under an express duty to take steps until they were informed of the discharge of a detainee. Although practicality demanded that they should be under a duty in circumstances where a conditional discharge had been provisionally decided on, it was inconsistent with the lack of an express duty that they should have to monitor the condition of a patient before discharge, with a view to deciding whether to exercise discretion to arrange for services to be discharged.
Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now for advice on how we can help with your personal injury claim.
Accident Abroad
In a recent case the High Court held that, in the circumstances, a package holiday operator was not liable for spinal injuries sustained by a holidaymaker who fell into a swimming pool in Portugal. Although the Portuguese safety requirements had not been complied with in relation to the requisite non-slip material around the pool, it was not possible to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the claimant had slipped on floor tiles in the relevant margin.
Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now for advice on how we can help with your personal injury claim.
Costs and Human Rights
The House of Lords recently held that a scheme allowing success fees to be recovered from the losing party to an action for defamation was compatible with Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Therefore a defendant could not argue that the threat of liability to pay a large sum by way of costs infringed its right to freedom of expression.
Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now for advice on costs in the context of civil proceedings.
Costs following Discontinuance
In a recent case before the High Court, the claimant was ordered to pay the defendants costs on discontinuance of proceedings. It was held that it had been premature for the claimant to issue proceedings in order to obtain disclosure of documentation and there had been insufficient notice of the proceedings to the defendant.
Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now for advice on costs.
Employers' Liability
In a recent case the Court of Appeal held that two separate employers could both be vicariously liable for the negligence of a single employee.
Contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now for advice on employers liability in general.
Mental Health and Human Rights
The House of Lords has held that although the code of practice issued pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983 provided guidance and not instructions, a hospital had to consider the code with great care and depart from it only if it had cogent reasons for doing so.
In the circumstances, the policy of an NHS Trust governing the seclusion of psychiatric patients detained at its high security mental hospital was held to be lawful, even though it departed from the code of practice.
For assistance with your personal injury claim contact info@dfalaw.co.uk now.
Strict Liability
In a recent case before the High Court the first defendant was held strictly liable in respect of a fire which had spread from the factory premises it occupied to the claimants adjoining premises.
For advice on strict liability contact info@dfalaw.co.uk.
Call us now on 01604 609560 for more information
or email us at info@dfalaw.co.uk
