Court Strikes out Claim Incubated in the Portal worth £2.6 million

Barry Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited - Case number D34BI037

On Appeal, the Court has endorsed a decision striking out a claim worth £2.6 million for abuse of process.

The facts

The Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident on 1st September 2014. On 24th September 2014 a claims notification form was submitted referring to soft tissue injuries to the neck, back and shoulder. The Defendant made an admission of liability on 2nd October 2014, anticipating that the matter would be would be capable of an early and easy resolution.

On 28th November 2014, a medical report suggested for the first time that the Claimant was off work, and recommended without giving a definitive prognosis that the Claimant should be examined by a neurologist.

In January 2015, the service of the interim settlement pack led to an interim payment of £1000.

Portal Costs: Court of Appeal rules on the recoverability of disbursements

Aldred v Master Cham (2019) [2019] EWCA Civ 1780 CA

The Court of Appeal has found that the cost of instructing counsel to advise on settlement in a RTA claim involving a child is not recoverable as a disbursement and should be included as part of the fixed costs.

Court clarifies Stage 3 Procedure to be followed where Claimant Serves Evidence Out of Time

Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair (2019)[2019] EWCA Civ 1934

The Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers' Liability and Public Liability) Claims ("the Protocol") procedure to be followed if a claimant serves evidence for the purpose of the Stage 3 Procedure out of time.

The facts

The employee, Mr. Blair, had an accident at work. He submitted a Claim Notification Form, and liability was admitted.

The Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019

Following recommendations made by Dame Janet Smith, Chair of the Shipman Inquiry, new regulations have finally been introduced to ensure greater consistency in the reporting of deaths by medical practitioners in England and Wales. The Regulations came into force on 1st October 2019 with immediate effect. The regulations impose a duty on medical practitioners to report deaths in certain prescribed circumstances to the senior coroner. Prior to the introduction of the regulations, the reporting of deaths varied significantly across the country.

A copy of the Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 can be found here.

Court rules the costs of an Inquest are recoverable in a civil claim

Fullick v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB)

The High Court determined that costs relating to an Inquest are recoverable in a civil claim but such costs will be subject to the new post-Jackson proportionality rules. Usually, Coroners have no jurisdiction to award costs for inquest hearings.

The facts

Ms. Jones had voluntarily attended a police station as a witness to a crime. She became ill whilst at the police station and died in hospital 8 days later. The deceased's two daughters and her sister brought a claim for damages for breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, negligence and misfeasance in public office.

Regulatory Update

• Council and Bus Company fined after a passenger was killed by a lorry at a bus station

• Charity fined after fatal fall at a care home

• Worker injured by forklift truck

Forbes at trial: Unreliable and Evasive Claimant Fails to Prove his Claim

A Claimant who brought a claim against the local authority after tripping in a damaged manhole cover has lost his claim at trial.

The facts

The Claimant alleged that he was unpacking shopping from his car parked outside his niece's house, when his right foot caught in a damaged manhole cover, causing him to fall and sustain an injury.

Liability for the defect was admitted in the portal, but the Defendant was concerned about the number of inconsistencies in the Claimant's account of the accident and put the Claimant to strict proof.

At trial, the Defendant subjected the Claimant to robust cross-examination in relation to the accident circumstances.

Forbes at trial: Defendant Successfully Bumps Claim

The Claimant brought a claim for personal injury after riding the dodgems at the Defendant's fairground attraction.

The Claimant alleged that whilst on the dodgems, she was struck by another car driven by her cousin. She argued that as a result of the impact, she was propelled forwards and hit her knee on a protruding bolt located on the underside of the steering column. The Claimant sustained two lacerations and sought damages for scarring and psychological damage.

The Defendant denied that there was a protruding bolt located within the car, which could have caused the injuries claimed by the Claimant. The ride was inspected by the operator daily and by an external inspector on an annual basis and no issues had been found with the car in question.

The witnesses for the Defendant described at trial that the accident had occurred because the Claimant had removed her seatbelt and moved to a standing position when the ride was still in operation.

Forbes at trial: Gym Equipment Injury Claim Fails

The Claimant was exercising at the Claimant's gym premises when she was involved in an accident. The 71 year old was using a machine known as the " Tummy Tuck", when she alleged that suddenly and without warning, the machine toppled over and fell on her causing pain, injury and loss.

Forbes at trial: Claimant found fundamentally dishonest

Ryan -v- Rochdale Borough Council

Forbes Solicitors has secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a Claimant who brought a claim for personal injury after allegedly falling in a pothole.

In December 2014, the Claimant alleged he was crossing the street when he lost his footing in a pothole, fell and sustained an injury to his hand.

Upon receipt of the proceedings, it was apparent that judgment had already been entered. A review of the papers revealed a number of significant issues relating to factual and medical causation, which had come to light following an admission of liability in the portal. The Defendant proceeded to make a successful application to the Court for permission to set aside judgment and to resile on the admission of factual causation.