The Practical Lawyer

A useful note by Gordon Exall clarifies the position on infant approval fees. Apparently, many courts treat such a Part 8 application as being identical to a Part 7 claim (ie with the fee being a percentage of the value of the claim).

Can a defendant bring a PI counterclaim, and then claim the benefit of QOCS (qualified one-way costs shifting)? The answer is that it can.

Does ‘fundamental dishonesty’ need to be pleaded by the defendant? And, if so, at what stage?

The High Court has recently held that the Motor Insurers Bureau is an ‘emanation of the state’ under the EU Insurance Directives.

If a Part 36 offer is accepted out of time (ie outside the 21 day period) in a low value protocol case, then what are the costs consequences? In particular, does late acceptance mean a liability to pay standard (or indemnity) costs – rather than fixed costs – from the 21 day period through to the date of acceptance? The CA has confirmed that it does not; fixed costs still apply.

Given the fuss about exaggerated whiplash claims, it is worth quoting the words of Martin J which he used in two recent appeals. In the first, the claimant had disclosed only one previous RTA (he had been involved in five), with Martin J therefore deciding this was ‘fundamental dishonesty’ (and so the claim was dismissed). In the second, the claimant failed to attend a series of physiotherapy sessions (which led to the claim being dismissed for a ’failure to prove’):

The claimant was injured in an RTA, with the defendant admitting liability. The claimant alleged that he suffered from PTSD, and thus his loss of earnings claim was £850,000. The defendants said he merely suffered minor injuries which were resolved within six months. They therefore argued that he had ‘exaggerated’ his claim, and was therefore ‘fundamentally dishonest’ (so the claim should be struck out).

A claim for ‘future accommodation’ will typically be for the cost of alternative accommodation the claimant needs because of the injury suffered (eg specially modified accommodation). For the past three decades, awards for future accommodation have been calculated according to the methods set down in Roberts v Johnstone [1989], which were designed to compensate claimants for a notional loss of investment income on the capital used in buying a suitable property. However, as we noted in our June 2018 issue (p27) the logic of that approach has been under increasing attack in recent years. In particular, the arrival of the negative discount rate (in 2017) has simply made Roberts v Johnstone unworkable.

A reminder of some of the pitfalls of Part 36 offers:

Can an employer be liable for the acts of an independent contractor? That was the question posed in a series of claims against Barclays, with Barclays’ employees alleging that they had been sexually assaulted by a doctor who was carrying out medical examinations on the bank’s job applicants. The doctor had since died (before criminal convictions could be secured) and so the employees argued that Barclays was vicariously liable.