Paying the (full) price? Underpaid fees and limitation periods by Simon Murray

If you pay less than the appropriate fee when issuing your claim before the expiry of the limitation period is your claim in time? Or do you pay the price by being statute barred?   On 7 April 2016 Warby J. sitting in the QBD was asked to determine a summary judgment/strike out application in case called in Bhatti v Asghar which raised this issue.   The claimants in this breach ... [Continue Reading]

Cost Budgets – Rule Changes by Roderick Abbott

Changes to the CPR coming into force today alter the rules relating to cost budgets. In cases with a stated value of over £50,000 all parties except litigants in person will now exchange budgets 21 days before the first case management conference. Parties must then file an agreed  “budget discussion report” at least 7 days before the first CMC setting out what is agreed, wha... [Continue Reading]

Damages for abuse by Roderick Abbott

The Claimant in KCR v The Scout Association [2016] EWHC 597 (QB) suffered sustained abuse by a Cub Scout Group Leader when a young boy in the 1980s. In 2003 the abuser was convicted of a large number of sexual offences against boys including the Claimant. As might be expected, given recent trends in this area of law, the Defendant admitted that it was vicariously liable for the abuser’s acti... [Continue Reading]

Claims of alleged fraud not exempt from Denton by Ella Davis

“The court cannot ignore that insurers are professional litigants, who can properly be held responsible for any blatant disregard of their own commercial interests.” - Gentry v Miller & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 141 at 34. Such was the warning sent to insurers by the Court of Appeal earlier this month in allowing a Claimant’s appeal against a decision to set aside default judgme... [Continue Reading]

Evidence and interim payment applications by Edward Bishop QC

  The High Court has given useful guidance (which serves as a warning) to defendants on their evidential obligations when defending applications for interim payments. In Sellar-Elliot v Howling [2016] EWHC 443 (QB) Sweeney J refused permission to appeal an interim payment order by Master Cook and held that it was not enough for a defendant to rely – when defending an application fo... [Continue Reading]

Vicarious liability: extension, extension, extension by Ian Miller

 “The law of vicarious liability is on the move” are the opening words to the opinion of Lord Reed in Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 (quoting Lord Phillips in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56). The Supreme Court has handed down two judgments in the field of vicarious liability (Cox and Mohamud v WM Morrison [2016] UKSC 11) which continue ... [Continue Reading]

Foreign Law in the English Courts by Matthew Chapman

A number of the English lawyers who conduct PI litigation in cross-border cases have warned that the full implications of the Rome II Regulation (864/2007) – and the impact that it has on the assessment of damages awarded to English Claimants by English Judges – have yet to be felt. By way of recap, Rome II provides (in Article 15(c)) that once the applicable law of the tort has b... [Continue Reading]

Fixed Costs and Part 36 Offers by Thomas Crockett

What is the effect of a claimant’s ‘beaten’ Part 36 Offer upon their costs in a low value personal injury case within the RTA or EL/PL Protocol where claimants' costs are fixed pursuant to CPR 45? This has been a vexed question since the introduction of the fixed costs regime , but one the Master of the Rolls giving the sole judgment of the Court of Appeal in Broadhurst & An... [Continue Reading]

A predictable revolution: Knauer v Ministry of Defence in the Supreme Court by Paul Stagg

The Supreme Court has today handed down its judgment [2016] UKSC 9 in the 'leapfrog' appeal to it from the decision of Bean J in Knauer v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 2553 (QB). Bean J's decision is available on BAILII at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/2553.html and the Supreme Court's decision is at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/9.html. Permission for the 'leapfrog' app... [Continue Reading]

The root of the issue - Highway authority has no duty to remove moss and algae from its footpaths by Jack Harding

  Does the duty to maintain the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 extend to the removal of moss, algae and other equivalent substances from the footpaths and carriageway? This was the question which came before Haddon-Cave J in Rollinson v Dudley MBC (2015) EWHC 3330 (QB). The answer - a resounding 'no'.   Mr Rollinson was walking along a short footpath near to ... [Continue Reading]

piBlawg is running on BlogEngine.NET 2.0.0.36


Use of this site is governed by our Terms and Conditions.

Month List