Personal Injury

Recent Articles

•  

  30.05.2023

  United Kingdom

  Low dose as­bes­tos ex­pos­ure from the 1960s: when it is found to be enough

  Judgment in the case of Ness v Carillion Capita Projects [2023] EWHC 1219 (KB) gave consideration to the state of knowledge and foreseeability of risk of injury in a case involving both an early period of exposure from the 1960s and a very low dose.BackgroundThe personal representative of the estate of Mr Harrison, Sharon Ness, pursued a claim against his former employer Bovis alleging that he had been exposed to asbestos for a short period in the 1960s causing him to develop mesothelioma.It was alleged by the claimant that Mr Harrison was exposed to asbestos whilst working for Bovis as a...

  Read more
•  

  15.05.2023

  United Kingdom

  Civil Justice Coun­cil Costs Re­view – Fi­nal Re­port

  It feels that barely a week goes by without an update to costs legislation or a paper on potential future legislative changes. This week it is the turn of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) who have published their final report, following the establishment of a working group in April 2022. The working group was tasked with considering four issues concerning costs; (i) guideline hourly rates (ii) costs budgeting (iii) pre-action and digitisation (iv) consequences of the extension of fixed recoverable costs.The working group produced an initial paper raising questions for consideration. These questions...

  Read more
•  

  04.05.2023

  United Kingdom

  Su­preme Court rules again on bound­ar­ies of vi­cari­ous li­ab­il­ity – ap­ply­ing the close con­nec­tion test

  In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Appellant) v BXB (Respondent), the Supreme Court had to consider whether the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (WTBTSP) was vicariously liable for the rape of a member of a Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation by a congregational elder. In concluding that it was not, the court has provided further clarification on the boundaries of vicarious liability, in particular the application of the “close connection” test. BackgroundMark Sewall was an elder in the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s...

  Read more
•  

  24.04.2023

  England and Wales

  Ex­ten­sion of Fixed Re­cov­er­able Costs – 10 Head­lines for Lit­ig­at­ors

  The extension of Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) has been in the background for all litigation practitioners for the last 18 months after the Ministry of Justice, in September 2021, set out the intention to bring the 2017 recommendations of Sir Rupert Jackson to life.Initially set for October 2022, the implementation date was firstly pushed back to April 2023 and then again to October 2023. Absent of draft revisions to the CPR, scepticism was growing as to whether the October 2023 date would remain.On 20 April 2023 the Civil procedure Rules Committee brought FRC to the foreground, publishing the...

  Read more
•  

  12.04.2023

  United Kingdom

  Fun­da­ment­al dis­hon­esty and QOCS - Sol­dier, Spy, Tinker/Tail­or

  A recent case has illustrated that, under Practice Direction 44, the court has the power to direct that issues arising out of an allegation that a claim was fundamentally dishonest be determined notwithstanding that a Notice of Discontinuance has been served. This is significant because, where a claim is found to be fundamentally dishonest, it serves as an exception to the qualified one-way costs shifting regime.BackgroundIn Mantey v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 761 the claimant, formerly a soldier, had brought an action against the defendant for an alleged non-freezing cold injury. The claimant...

  Read more
•  

  13.03.2023

  England and Wales

  The High Court ap­plies the re­vised Og­den guid­ance for the re­duc­tion factors

  The High Court has applied the new Ogden Tables’ reduction factor guidance for contingencies other than mortality in Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB) for future loss. Further, the court considered the appropriate methodology for diagnosis and quantification of noise induced hearing loss and whether an individual could be held to have contributed to his hearing loss if he did not wear the hearing protection provided, appropriately. The claimant was awarded somewhat over £700,000 for noise induced hearing loss due to noise exposure during his service as a Royal Marine;...

  Read more