In yesterday’s webinar, Roger André and Richard Collier gave an update on non-party costs orders. They covered rehabilitation fraud and credit hire, including some recent case examples. They also discussed Section 57 and provided an update on exaggerated personal injury claims. If you missed it, you can view it here: The post Webinar Recording: Non-Party Costs Orders and Civil Fraud Update appeared first on 1 Chancery Lane ..read more

Introduction Amateur sport ought to be a positive and safe experience. It should not cause physical harm beyond unavoidable hazards. The Whyte review, released earlier this year (see here for a summary), indicated that British Gymnastics fell well short of these principles. These allegations are not limited to the United Kingdom. In Canada, the former captain of the Kelowna Rockets’, Mr. James McEwan, has commenced litigation against the Canadian Hockey League for allegedly promoting violence and fighting among underage players. He alleges that he suffered concussions as a result of this fight ..read more

Lawler v Co-Operative Group Limited [2022] Liverpool County Court In a recent appeal it was confirmed that where the Defendant has, in Employment Tribunal proceedings, made written and oral submissions that the Claimant was free to pursue her claim for personal injury in the County Court, an estoppel arises to prevent the Defendant relying on the rule in Henderson v Henderson and striking out the subsequent County Court proceedings. The Claimant was a regional manager in the Defendant’s employment.  She brought a claim against the Defendant in the Employment Tribunal for bullying and hara ..read more

Jenkinson v Robertson [2022] EWHC 756 (Admin) Issue What constitutes procedurally fair “adequate notice” of an allegation of fundamental dishonesty (“FD”) Brief facts The first instance judge found the Claimant, a litigant in person allegedly injured in a road traffic accident in 2013, to have been FD with the effect of triggering section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (“Section 57”). The Defendant raised FD for the first time at trial, not having previously given express notice of its intention to do so. Its pleaded case merely put the Claimant to proof on the injuries and sym ..read more

In a judgment handed down today, the Court of Appeal has allowed the appeals of the claimants in the joined appeals in HXA v Surrey CC; YXA v Wolverhampton CC [2022] EWCA Civ 1196.   Stacey J had upheld the striking out of negligence claims against the defendant local authorities by Deputy Master Bagot QC in the HXA case and Master Dagnall in the YXA case. Links to articles on those decisions, in which the factual background to the cases and analyses of the decision are set out, are given below.   ‘Failure to Remove’ Claims in the High Court: the Appeals in HXA v Surrey County Counci ..read more

Elite sport is a precarious occupation. An injury may abruptly end a promising career. Large sums of money are therefore at stake when a sports player brings a claim of medical negligence against their clinician. The stakes for those who treat such professionals are high. Accordingly, the recent judgment of Johnson v Williams [2022] EWHC 1585 (QB) ought to be carefully studied by healthcare practitioners. It illustrates the challenges for claimants in establishing causation, and the importance of abiding by the principles of The Ikarian Reefer for expert witnesses.   Factual Background Ro ..read more

Every sporting activity is commensurate with risk. This makes it difficult for practitioners who deal with such personal injury claims to identify when an ‘organiser’ of a sporting activity has fallen below their requisite standard of care, or whether the injury complained of fell within the inescapable risks that came with playing the sport. In the recent case of Sally James v USM Events Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 63, the Supreme Court of Queensland has provided important guidance on the duties imposed on those who organise sporting events. This article shall focus on the questions of duty of care, b ..read more

Along with our future colleagues at 9 Gough Chambers we are proud to be shortlisted for Personal Injury Set of the Year in the Legal 500 Bar Awards. The Legal 500 seek to recognise both chambers and individuals – barristers of all levels of seniority, practice managers and other chambers professionals. The awards are based on The Legal 500’s market-leading independent research for the annual directories. The awards will take place in London on 5th October 2022. The post 1CL shortlisted in Legal 500 Bar Awards 2022 appeared first on 1 Chancery Lane ..read more

Andrew Jenkinson v Gary Robertson [2022] EWHC 791 (QB) Under what circumstances can a Defendant accuse a Claimant of fundamental dishonesty?  That was one of the central questions before the Court in the recent High Court decision of Andrew Jenkinson v Gary Robertson. Background The Claimant was injured in a road traffic accident on 24 July 2013.  The Defendant accepted liability for the accident but fought on the issues of causation and quantum, disputing that the Claimant suffered from an ongoing injury to the mid-back. Overall, HHJ Dodd, who heard the trial at first instance, was ..read more

Some of you may remember the 2020 High Court decision in Transport Arendonk v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2020] EWHC 212 (QB), landing as it did at a time when there was a flurry of strike out cases exploring the boundary of the concept of causing harm versus failing to confer a benefit in the context of the duty of care, following the recent ‘trifecta’ of Supreme Court authorities: Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] AC 1732; Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] AC 736; and CN v Poole Borough Council [2019] 2 WLR 1478[1].  It was a curious ca ..read more