A personal injury claimant who gave a “misleading impression” of his injuries was not fundamentally dishonest, the High Court has ruled. Mrs Justice Yip said that in finding that the man “had not established his claim for future care”, the trial judge was “not bound to find” he was dishonest.
The NHS has adopted what has been described as “a novel protocol” to deal with medical negligence cases involving traumatic complications following mesh implant surgery, in anticipation of further legal claims. The protocol concerns claims relating to pioneering operations carried out privately.
Latest bid for PI client’s file fails despite invoking court’s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors
Yet another bid to obtain the part of a personal injury (PI) file over which the solicitor has proprietary rights has failed in the Senior Courts Costs Office. Master Leonard built on his ruling last year in Green v SGI Legal, which was also brought by JG Solicitors, the firm that has lit a fire under PI lawyers by challenging deductions from damages.
Solicitors are the only ones who can determine the terms and content of their demands for payment, the High Court has ruled. Mr Justice Soole rejected the argument that a claimant could treat a bill as having been delivered, and subject to assessment, when it had not been sent to her.
An award of indemnity costs after a successful part 36 offer in a provisional assessment does not remove the £1,500 costs cap, the Court of Appeal has ruled in overturning the High Court. The Association of Costs Lawyers has called the outcome “harsh” for its members and called on the rule committee to review the decision.
A road traffic claim that settled pre-issue for £350,000 was subject to fixed recoverable costs because it began in the portal, even though it was later removed because of its value, a regional costs judge has ruled. It has been described as a consequence of the rule change that followed the Qader decision.
The High Court has made it clear that the additional 10% uplift on damages the courts can award for beating a part 36 offer means an uplift on damages plus basic interest. It also said the court’s focus under part 36 must be “upon the conduct of the litigation”, and not on “whether the claimant had led a blameless life up until the moment when a tort was committed against him”.
The High Court has agreed to order a claimant to pay additional security for costs, even though the ‘material change’ in circumstances behind the defendant’s application were known to the judge who made the original order.