88th CPR Update – What to expect

As tradition dictates, every April the CPR is amended and this year is no exception.  There are a number of noteworthy amendments which will come into force on 6 April 2017.

The following changes are to be made:

• Payment and refund of court fees for hearings.

Court fees will no longer be automatically refunded which will significantly reduce the number of financial transactions and administrative work for court staff.

The HSE are on a roll!

Following the introduction of the new Health and Safety Sentencing Guidelines, the HSE has handed out another large fine, this time to Warburtons Limited. The company was fined £2million after a worker was hospitalised following a fall from height.

PI Reforms Announced - Small Claims Limit to be increased

The Ministry of Justice has published part one of its response to the 'Reforming the soft tissue injury ('whiplash') claims process' consultation.

Small Claims Track

The small claims track will be increased from £1,000 to £5,000 for minor RTA soft tissue related personal injury claims and from £1,000 to £2,000 for other personal injury claims in line with inflation.

RTA Claims

The Government has decided not to remove payment of PSLA for minor RTA related soft tissue injury claims nor to have a single payment for minor claims. Instead, the Government intends to pursue a tariff of fixed compensation for all claims with an injury duration of between 0 and 24 months.

Discount rate changed to MINUS 0.75%

In a surprise step, the Government has today announced changes to personal injury compensation payments. The Discount Rate will be lowered from 2.5% downwards to -0.75%. Previously, the Discount Rate had remain unchanged since 2001.

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss said: "The law is absolutely clear - as Lord Chancellor, I must make sure the right rate is set to compensate claimants. "I am clear that this is the only legally acceptable rate I can set."

Business as Usual - The Court of Appeal rules local authorities must respond to reported potholes over the weekend

Michael Crawley v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (2017) [2017] EWCA Civ 36 CA (Civ Div) (Jackson LJ, Briggs LJ, Irwin LJ) 02/02/2017

A local authority appealed to the Court of Appeal after a jogger who tripped in a pothole and suffered injuries was awarded damages.

The Claimant tripped over a pothole on a Saturday evening, the same pothole had been reported to the local authority by a member of the public the day before on Friday afternoon. The report was not seen by a highways inspector until the following Monday. In accordance with the local authority's system, a complaint made by a member of the public on a Monday to Thursday would be considered by an inspector on the following day. However, a complaint made on a Friday would not be reviewed until the next working day, after the weekend.

Forbes at Trial: Supermarket not liable for Point of Sale Display

The Claimant was shopping in a supermarket and cut his hand on the top of a mobile free standing ladder rack display stand.  As he reached up to the top shelf, he brought his hand back down on to the stand and in doing so suffered a laceration to the back of his hand.

Forbes at Trial: Local Authority not liable for collapse of four properties

Lyons v Pendle Borough Council

Preston County Court – January 2017

The Claimant was the owner of an end terraced house in Nelson and the Defendant the owner of 3 unoccupied, derelict properties on the same row.   In 2013 the roof structure of all four properties collapsed, leaving them unsafe and in need of demolition.     The Claimant alleged that the initial collapse occurred at number 71 and a domino effect was caused.

Forbes at Trial: Defendant One Step Ahead

Jacobs v Symphony Housing Group

Liverpool County Court – January 2017

The Claimant alleged she sustained an injury after slipping on pooled water and catching her foot on the lip of the top step of a communal entrance. The communal steps gave access to the flat owned by the Claimant.

It was alleged that the lip on the top step had caused water to pool. The Claimant contended that the Defendant had failed to repair the alleged defect even though the lip had been brought to their attention.