piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

Top personal injury decisions of the Court of Appeal in 2015

The Court of Appeal has made a number of important decisions in 2015 in the field of personal injury. As the year draws to a close, Ella Davis and I review some of the most important of them for the PI practitioner. They cover psychiatric damage, causation, quantum, the Athens Convention, jurisdiction, duties of care, vicarious liability and non-delegable duties... Psychiatric Damage Liverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne [2015] EWCA Civ 588 was a case of a claimant claiming damages for psychiatric injury consequent on seeing the condition of a loved one brought about by the negligence of a defendant. Of the four requirements for recovery, the decision focused on whether C’s illness had been “induced by a sudden shocking event.” Three issues were at the heart of the case: (1) whether C had suffered a recognised psychiatric illness, (2) Whether there had been “an event” and (3) how “shocking” the event must be. Edward Bishop QC provided a masterly analysis of this and other decisions in the 1 Chancery Lane October 2015 PI Briefing. In brief, C’s wife became extremely unwell due to the negligence of D. C claimed he had suffered psychiatric injury as a result of the shock of seeing his wife’s sudden deterioration and appearance in hospital. The CA confirmed that courts should pay close attention to diagnostic criteria, that whether an event is ‘horrifying’ must be judged by objective standards and by reference to persons of ordinary susceptibility and that for an event in a hospital to be ‘shocking’ required something “wholly exceptional in some way so as to shock or horrify”. It also considered what was meant by an ‘event’ and ‘sudden’ finding that C had not been exposed to one event (“a seamless tale with an obvious beginning and an equally obvious end”) but a series of events with no “inexorable progression”. What had happened was not sudden, it had not caused an “assault upon the senses” but at each stage C had been conditioned for what he was about to perceive. Causation Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust  [2015] EWCA Civ 119 was considered on this blog in a posting by Ella Davis “Quantity not Quality”. She rightly observes that the decision brings clarity to the law rather than any new departure. The CA considered causation in a case where a patient was a paraplegic requiring a care regime (due to non-negligent causes) but due to the negligence of D causing pressure sores, her care needs were increased. The question was whether D caused all her care needs or whether D was only liable for those needs less the needs which she would have had but for the negligence. The key issue was whether the pre-existing care needs were qualitatively different from those caused by the negligence or whether they were merely quantitatively different. The CA found they were only quantitatively different and therefore D was only liable for C’s increased care requirements. In future parties will doubtless pay careful attention to whether losses are qualitatively or quantitatively different as a result of negligence adding to a pre-existing condition. Causation and the Burden of Proof Graves v Brouwer [2015] EWCA Civ 595 concerned a house fire of unknown cause. Mr Brouwer set fire to a small bundle of papers in the passageway next to his house. Very shortly afterward the roof of his neighbour’s house caught fire. The experts agreed that the chances of an ember from the papers travelling to the eaves of the building and starting a fire were very low but, absent arson, were unable to come up with a more probable cause. The judge rejected arson as fanciful and found that, while the flying ember theory was scientifically improbable, the Claimant succeeded on causation. The Court of Appeal overturned her decision saying she had failed to ask herself the ultimate question whether the flying ember theory was more likely or not to be true. The fact that no other possible causes were identified, in large part because there was no investigation at the time, did not make it more probable than not the fire was caused by a flying ember. As Roderick Abbot observed in his blog post “Sherlock Holmes in the Court of Appeal”, the exercise is not one of identifying the least unlikely cause. The Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof and that was all the judge was required to find. Quantum Billett v Ministry of Defence [2015] EWCA Civ 773 concerns how courts should assess damages for loss of future earning capacity in circumstances where the claimant suffers from a minor disability, is in steady employment and is earning at his full pre-accident rate. Should the court follow the traditional Smith v Manchester approach or should the court use the Ogden Tables, suitably adjusted? C suffered from a minor Non Freezing Cold Injury (“NFCI”) which had a substantial impact on his day to day life in cold weather. The condition had less impact on his work as a lorry driver than it had on his leisure activities. The judge found that his loss of future earning capacity should be assessed by using Ogden Tables A and B, suitably adjusted, not by applying Smith v Manchester.  The CA upheld his decision that C had a minor disability clarifying that where a court considers whether an injury substantially limits a claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, the enquiry should be directed at what the claimant cannot do rather than what he can do. The CA overturned the judge’s decision to use the Ogden Tables: unadjusted they produced an unrealistic future loss; adjustment however was a matter of broad judgment which was no more scientific than the approach in Smith v Manchester. The judgment still leaves open the question when a disability becomes serious enough to engage the approach in Ogden Tables A and B and when and how those might be adjusted.  However as Andrew Spencer said in his blog on this case (Loss of future earnings and disability) the case is strong authority for retaining the Smith v Manchester approach in cases of minor disabilities with little effect on the claimant’s chosen career. Athens Convention In South West Strategic Health Authority v Bay Island Voyages [2015] EWCA Civ 708 the CA considered two issues relating to the Athens Convention (which governs personal injury to passengers at sea). The first was whether it extended to claims against carriers for contribution to liability of others and the second was the effect of the time bar prescribed by the convention. Dr Feest was injured in a boating accident in the Bristol Channel. The carrier was Bay Island Voyages (“BIV”). Dr Feest’s first firm of solicitors failed to issue against BIV within the 2 year time limit under the Convention and so she sued her employer SWSHA on the basis the accident occurred in the course of her employment. SWSHA joined BIV who successfully applied to have the Part 20 proceedings struck out. The Court of Appeal found that the provisions of the convention were not directly applicable to SWSHA’s claim against BIV. It also found that the time bar in Article 16 did not extinguish the cause of action but only barred the remedy: this was critical for SWSHA’s contribution claim as, if the limitation provisions had extinguished the right to bring the claim, under the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 SWSHA could only have brought a claim within 2 years of the accident. Ian Miller, who represented SWSHA with John Ross QC, blogged on the case: “Contribution, limitation and the Athens Convention.” Jurisdiction Brownlie v Four Seasons Holding Incorporated [2015] EWCA Civ 665 involved the application of the Canada Trust gloss and a novel question about where damage in a tort claim was sustained. C bought an off package excursion in Egypt in which her husband was killed and she was injured. She booked the excursion by making a telephone call in England to the concierge at the hotel in Egypt. After the accident she brought proceedings in the High Court in contract and tort. She brought three tort claims (1) in respect of her own injuries; (2) as a dependant of her husband and (3) for the loss suffered by her husband’s estate. On appeal the court of appeal, applying the Canada Trust gloss – which is well set out and explained in the judgment - found that there was a good arguable case as to the identity of the defendant and as to whether the contract was made in England. This was not novel point of law: it was merely a finding that it was likely that C had called the concierge with proposals and he had accepted them. Given a contract for an excursion is made at the place where the words of acceptance are received, the contract was made in England. The novel point of law considered by the CA was the question of whether damage was sustained within the jurisdiction for the purposes of C’s claim in tort. This is the requirement of paragraph 3.1(9)(a) of the Practice Direction 6B (the tort gateway) for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The CA held the jurisdictional gateway should be interpreted consistently with Rome II and therefore the country in which the damage occurs should be the country where the injury was sustained regardless of the country in which the indirect consequences could occur. Thus the Claimant’s personal claim and the claim on behalf of the estate should be brought in Egypt. However, the dependency claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 was not properly described as a consequential loss it was an independent loss and so the Claimant had shown a good arguable case that English law should apply to this claim. Matthew Chapman who appeared in this case with John Ross QC has blogged on it here. Duties of care and mental impairment In Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673  the Defendant (“V”) was a paranoid schizophrenic who poured petrol over himself and ignited it, injuring his nephew the Claimant. V’s mental state was agreed to be grossly impaired. On a spectrum between completely healthy volition and absent volition he was at least 95 per cent impaired and probably 100 per cent absent volition. A number of helpful points arise from the three lengthy judgments given. First, the court rejected any need to differentiate between mental and physical impairment. Second, a person with a mental impairment owes a duty of care. Third, the standard of care should not be adjusted to take account of the personal characteristics of the Defendant, it is purely objective. Fourth, only Defendants whose attack or medical incapacity has the effect of entirely eliminating any fault or responsibility for the injury can be said not to have broken their duty of care. The Claimant’s appeal was therefore allowed. Interestingly the court noted that insanity is a defence in crime because criminal law is punitive whereas the function of the law of tort is to compensate victims. Vicarious Liability In Graham v Commercial Bodyworks Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 47  the court had to determine whether an employer was vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who sprayed a co-worker’s overalls with thinning agent and then set them alight causing him considerable injury. Having looked at the Canadian authorities in sex abuse cases, the court considered that the starting point was to examine whether there was a close connection between the creation or enhancement of a risk by the employer and the wrong that accrues therefrom. In this case the employers created a risk in requiring their employees to work with paint thinners but there was not a sufficiently close connection between that risk and the wrongful act. The wrongful act did not further the employer’s aims and it was not related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent in the employer's enterprise. Where the employment does not require the exercise of force and there is no inherent friction, intentional conduct in the workplace, whether horseplay or more serious acts, will not normally give rise to vicarious liability. Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duties The Court of Appeal in NA v Nottingham County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1139 held that a local authority was not vicariously liable for the abuse of a child by the foster carers with which it placed her, nor did it owe her a non-delegable duty to protect her from harm. The relationship between the local authority and the foster carers was not sufficiently akin to one of employment to give rise to vicarious liability. On the issue of a non-delegable duty all three members of the court of appeal gave different reasons summarised in our November 2015 PI Briefing. In brief, Tomlinson LJ held that the local authority had discharged rather than delegated its duty in placing the child with foster carers. Burnett LJ held that what the Claimant sought to do was to expand the common law imposing a strict duty on local authorities on the basis that foster parents were not always able to satisfy a claim. Black LJ held that it would not be fair just and reasonable to apply such a duty; in fact it would be unreasonably burdensome and potentially harmful if it led to over cautious practice.  

Failure to file costs budgets: a recent example in practice

Pursuant to CPR 3.12 and 3.13, unless the Court orders otherwise all parties (unless they are litigants in person) in a multi-track case commenced after 1st April 2013 must file and exchange costs budgets. The date for doing so will either be prescribed by the Notice of Proposed Allocation served by the Court pursuant to CPR 23(1) or, in the absence of a specific date, they must be exchanged and filed 7 days before the first CMC. The sanction for not filing a budget is contained in CPR 3.14 and is extraordinarily draconian: "Unless the Court orders otherwise, any party which fails file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees". This sanction grabbed the headlines recently in the Andrew Mitchell MP case (Mitchell v  News Group (2013) EWHC 2355), since his solicitors failed to file a budget on time and Master McCloud applied CPR 3.14 to its full effect (albeit only by analogy since the claim was a defamation action not strictly governed by the new Part 3 regime). She also gave permission of her own motion for the Claimant to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In Maisuria v London Borough of Ealing (Uxbridge CC, 18th September 2013, unreported) the Defendant did not file a costs budget until the day before the first CMC. However, when the Court sent out the CPR 23(1) notice of proposed allocation, the Defendant  completed the attached directions questionnaire indicating that the appropriate track was in dispute. The Defendant's case was that, based upon the existing medical evidence, the time estimate for trial (1 day) and the pleaded claim for special damage, it was a fast track case. The directions questionnaire contained a box stating that parties should file a costs budget in precedent H if the claim was "likely to be allocated to  the multi-track". The Defendant did not think it was likely, or indeed that the evidence supported a claim in excess of £25,000, and therefore elected not to do so. Shortly before the CMC, the Claimant served additional expert evidence indicating that his injury had not recovered in accordance with the original prognosis and was more serious than had been anticipated. In light of this deterioration, the Defendant accepted that the case should now be allocated to the multi-track and filed a Costs Budget on the day before the CMC. The Claimant argued that, by analogy with the Andrew Mitchell MP case, the Defendant should be limited to a costs budget comprising its Court fees, pursuant to CPR 3.14. DDJ Sofaer concluded, however, that the Mitchell case was distinguishable on its facts. Whereas in that case the reasons for not filing a budget related to the solicitors being under pressure of work and experiencing unexpected delays, in this case there had been a genuine jurisdictional dispute as to whether this was a multi-track case at all, and the Defendant had been served with the relevant evidence late in the day. The Court had a discretion built in to CPR 3.14 ('Unless the Court orders otherwise') and it was not necessary for the Defendant to make a separate application for relief from sanction. Accordingly, the Court approved the Defendant's (and Claimant's) budget and did not apply the sanction.

Litigants in Person, the Judges and You!

      According to the government's own figures, 623,000 of the 1,000,000 people who previously received public funding each year ceased to be eligible for such assistance when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 came into force on 1 April 2013.   On 5 July 2013 the Judicial Working Group on Litigants in Person (LIPs) published its report on how the judiciary proposes to deal with the massive increase in LIPs in courts and tribunals. It merits careful reading by all practitioners.    www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/lip_2013.pdf    The challenges are immense and will be further increased by the impending rise in the financial limit for the small claims track from £5,000 to £10,000. A doubling of this limit will inevitably mean more cases fall within the small claims track where public funding is not available. As for alternative sources of assistance, the Citizens Advice Bureau estimates that local advice and community based services will lose over 77% of their public funding.    In 2012, District Judge Richard Chapman, the immediate past president of the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges observed that already:   “Judges like me are spending more and more of our time having to deal with litigants who simply do not know the law, have never heard of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and have breached most of the case management directions”.    The report recommends that the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service should devote the necessary time and resources to producing, with judicial involvement, appropriate materials, including audio-visual materials, to inform LIPs what is required of them and what they can expect when they go to court as well as reviewing the information that is currently publically accessible on the various judicial websites – see [2.8] and [3.49-3.52] of the report.   The Judicial College should also urgently assess the  feasibility of providing training on LIPs –  a sort of “Quick Lit” course for judges – together with developing a  “litigants in person toolkit” utilising the existing judicial guidance – see [2.9] and [4.9-4.19] of the report.   More far reaching proposals include:   1.      The inclusion in the CPR of a dedicated rule which makes specific modifications to other rules where one or more of the parties to proceedings is a litigant in person.  2.      The introduction of a power into Rule 3.1 CPR to permit the court to direct, where at least one party is an LIP, that proceedings should be conducted as a more inquisitorial form of process.  3.      The introduction of a specific general practice direction or new rule in the CPR to address, without creating a fully inquisitorial form of procedure, the needs of  LIPs in obtaining access to justice whilst enabling  courts to manage cases consistently – see [2.10] and [5.11] of the report.    The stark reality is that in some courts and tribunals LIPs will be the rule rather than the exception. This will inevitably slow down and drive up the cost of proceedings and take up valuable judicial time. Equally inevitably, the call will surely go out from the judges to practitioners at all levels for assistance in responding to the challenges that lie ahead.   Image – www.123rf.com

Shut out: The UK Supreme Court’s first "secret hearing"

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury UKSC 2011/0040     The Supreme Court held a hearing in secret today, for the first time in its history.   According to the BBC, the justices spent 45 minutes in a locked session with a security guard stood outside the door to prevent anyone from entering. The hearing was so sensitive that the justices had to leave one courtroom and set up in another which had greater soundproofing.   The hearing arises out of the Treasury’s decision in 2010 to ban an Iranian bank from operating in the UK, using powers under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The government alleged that the bank had been indirectly involved in financing companies linked to the Iranian nuclear programme.   At first instance, Mr Justice Mitting permitted some of the government’s evidence to be adduced behind closed doors on grounds that it contained sensitive material that may compromise national security. The first instance judgment was therefore produced in two drafts, with only the redacted version being made available to the public.   A nine-strong panel decided that the court did have jurisdiction to consider the closed judgment, but would only do so if persuaded (on the basis of submissions in open court) that it was necessary for the purpose of fairly disposing of the appeal. At that stage the court was not so persuaded. Lord Hope described the government’s refusal to spell out even its basic national security case in open court as ‘cloak and dagger stuff’ that was ‘difficult to swallow’.   The court was reluctantly persuaded this morning that it was indeed necessary to consider the closed judgment and that this would necessitate a closed hearing. According to Lord Neuberger ‘unless and until an appellate court sees the judgment, it often cannot be sure its contents will be irrelevant or that its contents have been fully gisted’. He went on ‘no doubt in due course when we have completed the closed hearing...we will have quite a few things to say about this unhappy procedure.’   The court clearly has it in mind to use this episode to issue guidance to other courts faced with similar requests for a closed hearing. But whatever tests and safeguards are laid down, the use of secret courts is bound to become more widespread with the passage of the Justice and Security Bill.   Where litigants are prevented from seeing the State's evidence against them, hearing its submissions on that evidence, or understanding what part that evidence played in their claim being dismissed, the balance of justice is dangerously skewed. And far from being immune to these changes, PI litigation, employers’ liability in particular (for instance, claims by wounded servicemen against the MoD) may yet become the area of law most acutely affected.

Post Jackson CPR Amendments published – a brave new world?

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has published CPR amendments due to come into force on 1st April 2013. Some of the key provisions for PI practitioners are as follows:- Amendment to the Overriding Objective The overriding objective will become not just “to deal with cases justly” but also “at proportionate cost”; and the definition of “dealing with a case justly” will now include “enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders”. This puts both costs and compliance with directions right at the heart of the Rules – with these changes it will become more difficult to point a judge to the overriding objective when asking him or her to overlook a breach of the rules. Relief from Sanctions Talking about breaches or rules and court orders, CPR 3.9 is to be revised taking out the familiar checklist. Instead, the court will consider all the circumstances, including specifically the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and the need to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders. As above, this does represent a significant shift in approach. Costs Management The amendments will introduce a comprehensive set of rules on cost management for multi-track cases, including costs budgets. These merit detailed consideration. There are some sanctions in the event that these rules are not complied with – for example, failure to file a costs budget will mean the litigant is treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees (unless the court orders otherwise – see above). Increased Small Claims Track limit The Small Claims Track limit is raised to £10,000: but low value personal injury claims for general damages over £1,000 will continue to be Fast Track cases. The current rules regarding harassment; unlawful eviction relating to residential premises; and disrepair will remain. New Provisions relating to Disclosure These will include a requirement for parties to discuss and seek to agree a proposal in relation to disclosure meeting the overriding objective. Bonus for Claimants beating Part 36 offers In addition to interest on damages; costs on the indemnity basis; and interest on those costs, Claimants who beat their own Part 36 offers will be entitled to an “additional amount”, 10% of the sum awarded to the Claimant (where the claim is a money claim) up to £500,000 and 5% of the sum above that, up to a maximum £75,000. For non-money claims, the bonus applies to the sum awarded to the Claimant in respect of costs. Costs CPR 43 is revoked, and Parts 44 – 48 are replaced in full. That’s to say, all the existing sections of the CPR relating to costs are to be changed. Below are some of the key points from the new provisions:- Assessment of Costs When assessing costs, the court will “only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue”. Costs that are disproportionate may be disallowed even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred. Costs are proportionate if they bear a “reasonable relationship” to the sums in issue; the value of non-monetary relief; the complexity of the litigation; additional work caused by the paying party’s conduct; any wider factors such as reputation or public importance. This rule only applies to cases commenced after 1st April 2013. Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting This applies in personal injuries and Fatal Accident claims. It does not apply to pre-action disclosure. There is no means test: this is of general application. Qualified one-way costs shifting means that costs orders may be enforced against a claimant only to the extent that the aggregate sum of such orders does not exceed the aggregate sum of damages and interest made in favour of the Claimant. In practice, this will work as follows:-   a) Where a claim is dismissed, the Claimant receives no damages or interest. A costs order will be made in the Defendant's favour, but the Defendant will not be able to enforce the costs order against the Claimant to any extent.   b) The Claimant recovers damages, but fails to beat the Defendant's Part 36 offer. A costs order will be made in the Defendant's favour pursuant to Part 36. But this can only be enforced up to the total of the damages and interest payable to the Claimant. So if the Claimant is awarded £20,000 damages and interest, this figure provides a cap on the costs that can be enforced against the Claimant.   c) Interim costs orders have been made in the Defendant's favour, but the Claimant untimately succeeds. As above, the Defendant will be able to enforce its costs orders, but only up to the total of the Claimant's damages and interest. There are some exceptions, though:- Where proceedings have been struck out on the basis that a) they disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings; b) the proceedings are an abuse of process; or c) where the Claimant’s conduct is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, there is no qualified one-way costs shifting. Where the claim has been found to be “fundamentally dishonest” the court may grant permission for the Defendant fully to enforce the costs order. Claimant’s Costs where there is a Damages-Based Agreement The Court will make the same costs order in the Claimant’s favour as if there were no damages-based agreement.

Claimant’s solicitors pay wasted costs in RTA case

  The defendant insurers in the case of Rasoul v Linkevicius (5th October 2012, Unreported), successfully obtained a wasted costs order against claimant solicitors in an RTA claim. The case is a warning to claimant solicitors in RTA claims where there is an allegation of fraud and parties/witnesses who do not speak English. For defendants it is a lesson in how clear allegations set out from early on can have devastating consequences.  The background facts are similar to those commonly encountered in practice. Following the RTA correspondence ensued between the claimant’s solicitors and the defendant insurers. A modest PI claim was made and the insurers questioned the bona fides of the claim. The Defence pleaded fraud clearly against the claimant. He served a witness statement which did not have an integral statement of truth – the statement appeared on a separate sheet of paper rather than being part of the body of the statement itself. Two witnesses provided statements with statements of truth. At trial the claimant gave no evidence as only spoke Kurdish and was illiterate. His statement had been in English and not translated. The husband and wife witnesses were Kurdish. The husband spoke reasonable English but had given his statement over the phone to a solicitor he had not met and at trial he said that his statement was a substantial expansion of what he told the solicitor. The other witness (his wife) spoke no English – her husband translated for her whilst the solicitor took the statement over the phone. She gave evidence that she had never spoken to the solicitor before the statement arrived. Unsurprisingly the case was dismissed and the judge referred to either the extreme incompetence on the part of the solicitors or an attempt to establish a case on fabricated evidence. The insurer made an application for a waste costs order against the solicitors. The judge made an order on the basis that there was no evidence of a proper signed statement from the claimant or the witness taken before proceedings were issued. Although an interpreter turned up at trial he was not allowed to be used as there had been no order relating to his attendance. The judge was critical that the witnesses were not seen face to face by the solicitors given the allegations of fraud. He concluded that proper competent work by the solicitors would have ensured that the case collapsed long before the trial took place. Defendants will be alert to the possibility of pursuing claimant solicitors where fraud has been alleged, there has been incompetence on the part of claimant solicitors which, had it not taken place, would have been likely to have meant the case would not have gone ahead. Claimants will want to see witnesses and take statements face to face where there are allegations of fraud. They must ensure that a proper ‘integral’ statement of truth is signed on the witness statement. If someone is unable to speak English it is essential that a translator is involved in the process of taking the statement, that the statement is translated, the translator makes an appropriate statement (see Practice Direction to Part 32) and the presence of a translator at trial is anticipated by a court order. Careful preparation needs to be undertaken so that solicitors can protect themselves by showing that a witness did give the evidence set out in the statement – even if they deny it at trial and seek to blame it on the solicitors.  

We can all now resile from pre action admissions

In Woodland v Stopford [2011] EWCA Civ 266 handed down today the Court of Appeal again considered the law on resiling from pre action admissions when it dismissed an appeal by the Claimant of the decision of HHJ Holman who had permitted the Defendant to resile from their pre action admission. The claim arises as a result of the infant Claimant suffering an hypoxic brain injury during the course of a school swimming lesson on 5th July 2000. The Claimant was left severely disabled as a result of this injury and the claim is valued at between £2 and £3 million. After an initial denial of liability a pre action admission of liability was made by the Defendant on 27th November 2007. The Defendant then made an interim payment. Thereafter however the Defendant purported to retract that admission in further pre action correspondence on 27th July 2009. The claim was then issued on 25th November 2009 and the pre action admission was pleaded. There then followed cross applications made by the Claimant for Judgment on the admission and by the Defendant for permission to resile from the pre action admission. The applications came before HHJ Holman in April 2010. The applicable law was contained within CPR 14.1A and in particular paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Direction which sets out a non exhaustive list of factors for the Court to consider when hearing such an application. In relation to the Practice Direction HHJ Holman held that the fact that no new evidence had come to light was not fatal to a party wishing to resile. New evidence coming to light was simply one of the matters that the Court must have regard to. In addition HHJ Holman found that the reason why the Defendant had changed their mind about admitting liability was unclear. This absence of information again did not bar the Defendant from succeeding in their application. The clear inference that HHJ Holman formed was that the Defendants had simply misjudged the value of the claim when making the admission. In all the circumstances HHJ Holman permitted the Defendants to reslie from their admission. The main grounds of appeal raised were that there had been no new evidence relied on by the Defendant and that there had been no explanation given to explain the Defendants change of mind. Reliance was placed upon the decision of Steel J in American Reliable Insurance v Willis [2008] EWHC 267 (at present cited in the White Book) that these factual issues were crucial for a Court when deciding whether a party should be permitted to resile. In that case Steel J had described the requirement to show why a party had changed its mind and to evidence the same as a threshold requirement for the party making such an application.      The Court of Appeal held that American Reliable was an unusual commercial case on very different facts. The Court held that it would be “quite wrong” to lift Steel J’s observations out of context and elevate the factual issue of why a party had changed its mind on an admission to a threshold test. Instead the Court has a wide discretion under CPR 14.1A and the listed factors are not listed in any hierarchical order. In this case the Defendant had changed its mind mainly following a second careful appraisal of the known facts. This was an adequate explanation to found such an application. The Judge had carefully considered all of the listed factors he was required to consider and had come to a decision he was entitled to come to.    As a result the Claimants appeal was dismissed and the Defendant was permitted to resile from their pre action admission.    

Large landmark settlement for former prison officer in complex claim against MoJ.

Heaven v Ministry of Justice    The Claimant, an ex-prison officer, brought proceedings against the MoJ for severe psychiatric injuries which he suffered during the course of his employment at HMP Grendon, a category B prison. The Claimant was stationed on a wing that housed inmates convicted of serious sexual offences. As part of their rehabilitation, inmates underwent “therapeutic counselling” in which they were encouraged to speak openly about their offences.   The counselling sessions were held by prison officers and the Claimant was required as part of his employment to sit in the sessions and listen to the inmates talk in the most graphic terms about their offences. He had no training in counselling.  He struggled mentally to cope with the sessions and was eventually dismissed on grounds of ill health.   The MoJ admitted that the Claimant suffered an injury, namely PTSD and depression, but denied breach of duty. The issues in the claim were complex. Recently the MoJ settled the claim for a large undisclosed amount. The claim has been widely publicised in the national media. This is one of many more such cases to come.  

(Attempted) Murder on the Dancefloor

Everett & Another v Comojo UK Ltd t/a the Metropolitan & Others: Liability of nightclub for assault   Judgment was handed down in the Court of Appeal on 18 January 2011 in the above case.  The case concerned an assault in a upmarket private members nightclub.  A waitress working in the club was allegedly assaulted by two patrons.  Another patron, and regular guest of the club, was aggrieved on behalf of the waitresses  and (as one does) sent for his driver who, on arrival, attacked the men in question with a large knife and very nearly killed both of them.  The driver was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assaults and the badly injured men sued the nightclub for failing to prevent the assault.  The key question was whether or not the nightclub owed any duty in relation to the acts of a third party and, if so, whether the club was in breach of that duty on the particular facts.    LJ Janet Smith in her leading judgment in the Court of Appeal decided that the nightclub did owe a duty in relation to the acts of third parties but that, whilst it had a duty to take reasonable care, on the facts of this case there was no breach of duty as there was little the nightclub could do in the circumstances and it was not foreseeable that there would be an assault in an upmarket nightclub such as this one.  This judgment is worrying for nightclubs and hotels as it means that, depending on the nature of the establishment, there may be cases in the future where such establishments will be held liable for the acts of third parties on their premises.  While the standard to be applied is realistic there is still undoubtedly a duty owed by clubs and hotels and they will have to decide how they need to behave in order to respect that duty.