Summer trial successes: Alice Norcross and Tom Strahan

Case 1.

LD v X MBC (Manchester County Court)

The claimant alleged she had fallen as a result of her foot going down a pothole. A breach of statutory duty in relation to the identified pothole was already conceded which meant that if the claimant established, she had in fact fallen as a result of the pothole, she would succeed in her damages claim. Indeed, damages were agreed should the claimant succeed.

As in many tripping claims causation was however in issue, there being a number of discrepancies in the claimant’s account to medical professionals as to the mechanism of how she injured her ankle, including the fact that she did not attend A and E until the following evening.  On that occasion it was recorded that she was wearing high heels “and fell off a kerb.” A similar account was given to her GP-again no mention of a pothole.

The judge also expressed a view that the pothole was clearly plain to see which also cast doubt on the accuracy of the claimant’s account.

The Judge concluded that on balance of evidence the claim must fail. Due to the operation of QOCs the usual costs order was made meaning that the claimant did not have to pay any costs despite her account not being believed. It appears the judge did not consider it a case worthy of a finding of fundamental dishonesty, although one would think it must have come close.

Case 2.

LA v Y Council (Manchester County Court)

This case involved a minor suing by his mother as a litigation friend. He had fallen from a rock which was part of the setup in a school’s play area. The allegation was that the council on behalf of the school was negligent in failing to adequately supervise the area even though the evidence was that there were 3 adults present supervising a not large number of children.  Also, the initial account of the accident was that it occurred when LA was pushed off the rock by another child. The account had changed to simply “falling” after the litigation friend had consulted solicitors.

Therefore, quite reasonably in the circumstances, the defendant counsel at the halfway stage submitted that the judge should find that the defendant had no case to answer. The judge agreed, dismissing the claim, commenting that the school could not be held to be at fault, and it would be a shame for

schools to be prevented from developing play areas and creative spaces like this.

The defendant’s witnesses who were ready at court to give evidence in defence of the claim if necessary were therefore not required.

Case 3.

RA v Z Council (Burnley C.C.)

This claim concerned the very common issue of whether it was a slip or a trip? The claimant alleged she had tripped due to a raised flag on the pavement. Once again, contemporaneous medical records were not to the claimant’s advantage.

Defendant counsel cross examined the claimant for almost 2 hours. There were multiple questions about the content of the medical records compiled on the day of the accident. there was a note compiled by the examining doctor which said, “walking and fell forward”. The Claimant agreed that there was no mention of a trip or a raised flag in that record and that the doctor could only have got information relating to the accident circumstances from her. In another medical note from a different doctor

It was recorded: “fall onto right knee today- 3.50pm. lost balance and landed on concrete/tarmac’’. The claimant agreed there was no mention of a trip nor a raised flag in that record either, and that the information about the mechanics of the accident could only have come from her.

There was then a cross examination about the direction of travel which again revealed discrepancies.

At the end of the cross examination, RA’s barrister asked for a break to speak with the

claimant and the judge adjourned for lunch. When the parties returned, counsel for the claimant,

No doubt having advised his client of her now severely limited prospects of success and the possibility of finding fundamental dishonesty, offered that his client would submit and agree to the Judgement of the Court if the case was dismissed with no Order for costs.

The claimant is a mother of three and works part time so was not a lady of any means so that was agreed and the claim duly dismissed. What was rather strange was the fact that the claimant seemed in high spirits despite the outcome. Perhaps she was just glad to escape 2 hours of cross examination which is an ordeal for anyone even if they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Was that the case here? You be the judge.

Case 4.

PF v Z Council

The Claimant was a litigant in person and issued his claim on the Money Claims Online for vehicle damage.  He indicated his car’s spring was broken as a result of going into a pothole. PF submitted very brief and vague reasons for the claim on the Claim Form, and he was put to proof on the same in the Defence. Liability was denied under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980. (essentially the authority took reasonable care and had a reasonable inspection and maintenance system in place). As is now mandatory with all small claims matters, we engaged in mediation with the Claimant where we maintained our denial of liability supported by the Section 58 Defence. The Mediator advised she would explain the reasons to the claimant and pass the file on to a Judge to issue a Directions Order and list for a small claims hearing. Shortly afterwards, we received an Order from the Court, provisionally striking out the Claimant’s claim unless by a certain date he provided Particulars of Claim which disclosed a legal basis for bringing the claim and a concise statement of the facts upon which he relied. This was not received, and the claim was therefore struck out.

This case demonstrated the importance of handling small claims matters in the same robust manner as in larger claims. That approach resulted in the claim being struck out and a saving for the Council.

Case 5.

MS v X MBC and BT

This was another claim where under intensive cross examination by our counsel, the claimant’s account of the accident circumstances became so muddled and different from the original pleaded case that the claimant’s counsel requested that the claim be discontinued against both defendants before the defence case needed to be heard.

The claimant alleged she’s injured her ankle when she went down a “pothole”. There was mention of a pothole both at the hospital and in the medical report compiled 5 months later. However, the version given by the claimant in the witness box was that she had stepped on a grid which partially gave way causing her to fall.

It was also put to the claimant that there was no mention of an ankle injury at her initial attendance at the hospital. She could not explain this but denied the ankle injury had occurred at a later date.

It was not surprising therefore, that she then took a decision based on barrister’s advice, to not discontinue the claim on the basis there would be no order for costs. This would not have been a pleasant experience for the claimant, but she clearly was either confused about how she came to fall over or came up with a scenario that she believed would result in compensation. Forbes stout defence of the claim ensured that the claimant departed no richer but probably much wiser.

Comment

The above cases were excellently handled by Alice Norcross (Solicitor) and Tom Strahan (Paralegal). Good results like these occur when there is attention to detail from the start of a claim to it potentially ending up at trial which 3 of the above cases did. The file handlers at Forbes are backed up by an excellent team of investigators consisting of Joe Winstanley and Nicola Preston who will generally interview witnesses to prepare their evidence for court. They also rely on instructing specialist and highly experienced counsel. We have seen from the above cases that good cross examination is often the key to establishing the truth of what actually occurred which again as we have seen demonstrated above is not always how the claim is presented.  Well done to all concerned and I’m sure our local authority clients are grateful for such excellent representation.