Surveillance Evidence Leads to Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty

Sudhirkumar Patel v (1) Arriva Midlands Ltd (2) Zurich Insurance PLC (2019) [2019] EWHC 1216 (QB) QBD (Judge Melissa Clarke ) 14/05/2019

A Claimant who alleged that he was unable to move or communicate has been found fundamentally dishonest and has had his claim struck out by the High Court, after surveillance evidence taken whilst shopping revealed he was able to talk and walk without assistance.

The Facts

The Claimant was involved in a RTA in January 2013.  A bus owned by the First Defendant hit the Claimant.   He had a cardiac arrest at the scene of the accident and was diagnosed with a brain haemorrhage. The Claimant’s case was that, despite an initial recovery, he began to deteriorate within a week of the collision and at the time of filing the claim, he was significantly disabled.

No Duty to Warn Opponents of Mistakes

Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd (2019)[2019] EWCA Civ 985

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a party is not required to draw attention to mistakes made by another party.

The Facts

The New Discount Rate: Time for Action

The Lord Chancellor has announced that the new Discount Rate will be set at minus 0.25% and will take effect from 5 August 2019. It is disappointing news for Compensators; although damages claims will be reduced, the savings fall far below those that would have been achieved had a change back to a positive rate been effected, as hoped.

Parties must now consider the impact the change may have on any existing cases.  In particular, the following action should be taken:

Delay settlement, or reconsider the terms.  The change is sufficiently imminent to allow parties to legitimately incorporate the new discount rate in to negotiations, or to delay settlement of any cases pending the change where the Claimant refuses to agree do so.

NASUWT Reports Teachers Won £15m in Compensation Claims in 2018

It has been reported by the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) that during 2018 they secured compensation of £14,933,905.34 for its teacher members. The sums were awarded as a result of claims for accidents, attacks by pupils, and employment disputes.

Without a doubt, reports of such significant sums being paid by way of compensation to teachers is a source of serious concern to schools.

Regulatory Update

• Annual Workplace Fatality Figures Released by HSE
   
• Manufacturer Fined After Worker Injured in Horrific Accident
   
• Local Authorities urged to sign Statement of Commitment to Improve Health and Safety Standards

Employers Liability - Forbes Successfully Defends One of the Last Strict Employers Liability Cases

Kathleen Musson (suing as Executrix of Leslie Musson) v Co-operative Group Ltd

Forbes Solicitors has successfully defended what is likely to be one of the last strict liability, pre-Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA) cases.

The Facts

The Claimant on behalf of the deceased Leslie Musson brought a claim following an alleged accident in May 2012. In the course of his employment, he sustained an injury whilst lifting the tail-lift on the rear of the vehicle he was driving. He alleged that there was a problem with the torsion bar, which meant that the tail-lift was heavier than it should be. He contended that he had to use his shoulder to lift the tail-lift and as a result, he suffered an injury to his back.

Claimant is the Author of his Own Misfortune

W v A Family Leisure Park

The Facts

In August 2015, the Claimant and his family visited a theme park owned by the Defendant. The Claimant alleged that he was sitting at a table in the restaurant when his chair simply collapsed. He suffered neck and back injuries as a result of the incident.

The Claimant argued that the Defendant, as occupier, was in breach of the common duty of care under s.2 (2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 ("OLA") to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of visitors using the premises.

Forbes at Trial: Accident Prone Claimant Loses at Trial

Higgs v Bury Council

The Claimant brought a personal injury claim after tripping in the street.  The Defendant admitted liability but put the Claimant to strict proof at trial.

The Facts

The Claimant alleged that she was on her way to pick her daughter up from school when she stubbed her little toe on a raised flagstone.

The Trial

At trial, the Defendant subjected the Claimant to robust cross-examination. The barrister questioned the Claimant on the route she had allegedly taken to her daughter’s school. 

Forbes at Trial: Claimant's Claim Hits a Major Bump in the Road

Curran v Calderdale Council

A Claimant, who alleged he had sustained personal injury after the wheel of his lorry hit a pothole, has agreed to pay the Defendant's costs in full if the Council agreed to withdraw their application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty.