17 to 24 January 2013
Prepared by
Diana Hardesty and Sophia Reed
Contents
Quantum
Costs
Procedure
Press
Legislation
Contact
To request cases or the full text of articles please contact:
Helen Cafferata
National Information Services Manager
helen.cafferata@blm-law.com
Quantum
(1)
JSB Bracket: Chapter 7(F)(c) £13,700 to £28,000
PSLA:
£10,000 (£10,144.57 RPI)
Injury:
Fracture to forearm
The claimant fractured her forearm when she was pushed up between the glass partition that
separated the seats and the exit of the defendant’s bus. The claimant had three bone grafts and
remained in plaster for a year, however, the fracture did not unite. Liability was denied, but the
case settled out of court and the claimant, now aged 74, received £30,000.
B v Metroline Travel Ltd [2012]
See Lawtel document no: AM0202113
1
(2)
JSB Bracket:
PSLA:
Injury:
N/A
£45,000 (£45,594.06 RPI)
Delay in cancer being diagnosed
The defendant hospital delayed diagnosing and treating the deceased’s pressure sore, which had
developed into a cell carcinoma. The deceased (M) suffered from spina bifida and he was
wheelchair bound. The delay in diagnosis meant that effective treatment was not available and M
died three months later. The defendant admitted breach of duty and M’s wife, the claimant,
received £50,000 in an out of court settlement.
SC (on her own behalf and as administratrix of the estate of MC deceased) v Great Western
Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2012]
See Lawtel document no: AM0202116
(3)
JSB Bracket:
PSLA:
Injury:
N/A
£7,500 (£7,595.88 RPI)
Deep vein thrombosis
The claimant was admitted to hospital to undergo a hip replacement. It was known at the time of
surgery that she was at a higher risk of suffering from deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The surgeon
provided instructions for the claimant to receive a 28-day course of Fragmin but this was not
administered or prescribed during her hospital stay. The claimant was discharged five days later
and directed to self-inject Fragmin for 23 days. The claimant subsequently developed DVT and
brought an action against the defendant on the basis that had she received the Fragmin in the
five day period post-surgery it would have prevented the DVT. Liability was denied. The case
settled out of court for £7,500.
C v Lancashire Teaching NHS Trust [2012]
See Lawtel document no: AM0202115
(4)
JSB Bracket: Chapter 3(A)(e)(iv) – £1,575 to £9,100, Chapter 7(A)(b)(i) – £17,850 to
£27,500, Chapter 7(D)(a)(iii) – £28,000 to £37,500
PSLA:
£50,000 (£50,286.65 RPI)
Injury:
Multiple injuries
The claimant, aged 29 at the date of injury, was struck by a motorcyclist when she was 75% of
the way over the zebra crossing. She suffered multiple injuries to her head, spine, neck and
pelvis, as well as bruising and cuts. She suffered a further stress fracture to her neck,
approximately a month after the collision, which was attributable to the accident. It was unlikely
that she would be able to have a natural birth in the future and would need to have a caesarean
section. She received £100,000 in an out of court settlement.
EP v Anthony Bret [2012]
See Lawtel document no: AM0202114
Costs
(5) The claim for damages arose out of the publication of a seriously defamatory article in a
newspaper. The defendant made a full apology, accompanied by an offer of damages, at an early
stage, to include the claimant’s reasonable costs. The purpose of the offer was to reduce delay
and expense. The claimant rejected the defendant’s offer and pursued the matter to trial. The
defendant appealed Mr Justice Bean’s assessment of damages and was successful. The
claimant chose to reject a clear and unequivocal offer of damages and it followed that he should
incur the additional legal expense himself. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs
on a standard basis up to the date of its offer (with some reduction for the temporary withdrawal)
2
and the respondent was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs from the date after the offer was
made, to include the costs of the trial and the appeal.
KC v MGN Ltd [2013]
See Lawtel document no: AC0135536
Procedure
(6) The appellant bank (the bank) brought proceedings for the payment of a loan, against the
respondent, who was the victim of a fraudulent scheme promoted by two accountants. The
proceedings were stayed to allow the respondent to start her own proceedings in the High Court
against the bank, but these were struck out. The question for the court was whether the
respondent should be allowed to advance allegations by way of a defence and counterclaim
against the bank’s claim for possession, along the same lines as a claim in the High Court. The
bank’s appeal was allowed, its application was successful and the respondent’s counterclaim and
defence was struck out. There was no scope within the rules to allow the respondent to amend
her defence and counterclaim. She could bring a new claim if she wished, though she would face
the danger that she is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980.
Bank of Scotland Plc v (1) Elizabeth Jean Watson (2) Craig Miles Watson [2013]
See Lawtel document no: AC0135534
(7) The claimant bought an action for breach of contract and confidence against the third
defendant and one of its former employees, the first defendant. The first defendant had admitted
to copying documents and contacts from the claimant’s business on his own personal USB stick,
before leaving the company and uploading some of them onto the third defendant’s system.
The claimant had previously sought injunctive relief to prevent the third defendant from using the
information. Following the injunction proceedings, the claimant amended its particulars of claim,
however, the third defendant considered some of the allegations to have no reasonable grounds
and applied for strike out. The court upheld the third defendant’s application in part. It found that
some of the claimant’s allegations were based on mere suspicions, which were not supported by
any evidence and ordered the claimant to strike out those parts out of the particulars of claim.
Churchill Retirement Living Limited v (1) Oliver Luard (2) John Maddams (3) McCarthy & Stone
Retirement Lifestyles Ltd [2013]
See Lawtel document no: AC0135521
Press
(8) Discount rate
Discusses government proposals to set the discount rate in personal injury claims by reference to
returns from a mixed portfolio.
See SJ, 22/01/2013, p12
(9) Costs
Reflects on the assessment of interlocutory costs.
See SJ, 22/01/2013, p19
(10) Health and safety
Discusses the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill relating to strict liability.
See SJ, 22/01/2013, p23
3
(11) Civil justice reform
Argues against pushing through the Jackson reforms to meet the set timetable and ensure they
are brought into effect by April 1, 2013.
See NLJ, 25/01/2013, p56
(12) Health and safety regulation breaches
Considers the government's proposal to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 s47
by replacing the presumption in favour of civil liability for breach of employment-related health
and safety regulation with a presumption against civil liability.
See NLJ, 25/01/2013, p62
(13) Part 36
A review of Part 36 looking at ‘more advantageous’ judgments, multiple offers, the availability of
offers for acceptance until withdrawn, offers stating that they would be withdrawn if not accepted
at the end of the relevant period, the 21-day period for acceptance, multiple inconsistent offers,
and the acceptance of offers previously refused provided they were not withdrawn or lapsed.
See NLJ, 25/01/2013, p66
(14) Concurrent expert evidence
Considers the procedure of ‘hot tubbing’ at the pre-trial and trial stages.
See NLJ, 25/01/2013, p76
(15) Fraud prevention
Assesses the work of the Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department.
See Post Magazine, 24/01/2013, p24
(16) Court of Appeal fine ruling
Reflects on the decision in R v Merlin Attraction Operations Limited relating to the death of a
visitor who had fallen from a bridge at a historic tourist attraction.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p1
(17) Olympic safety methods
Reflects on an HSE research report that investigated the factors which contributed to the London
2012 Olympic Park being delivered on time, on budget and with an exemplary health and safety
record.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p2
(18) Local authority inspection code
Discusses the HSE’s consultation setting out sets out proposals for a National Local Authority
Enforcement Code.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p6
(19) Solvents and birth defects
Reflects on a study of pregnant women in France which found that workplace exposure to
chemical solvents during pregnancy increased the risk of certain types of birth defects.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p8
(20) Lab safety attitudes
Discusses the results of an international perception survey of laboratory workers’ attitudes to
workplace health, safety and welfare.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p9
(21) First SVHC respiratory sensitisers identified
Twenty three more ‘substances of very high concern’ under REACH have been identified.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p10
4
(22) Biocides revocation proposed
The HSE is consulting on revoking six existing regulations as a consequence of changes in EU
Biocides and PIC regulations.
See Health and Safety Monitor, February 2013, p11
(23) Adult onset asthma linked to cleaning jobs
Reports on a new study in which researchers at Imperial College found risks in the workplace
were responsible for one in six cases of adult onset asthma.
See TUC Risks, 26/01/2013 or online
(24) Paper company fined for safety failings
A paper company was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £1,483 in costs after an employee’s hand
was crushed in an unguarded machine as he tried to clean it.
See HSE press release, 21/01/2013 or online
(25) Illegal gas fitter prosecuted for unsafe work
An illegal gas fitter received a nine month prison sentence, suspended for two years and was also
ordered to pay £1,500 in costs for illegally carrying out substandard work at two chip shops.
See HSE press release, 21/01/2013 or online
(26) Construction site accident
The owner of a carpentry business was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs after a
carpenter fell more than seven metres from the top of an unsecured ladder.
See HSE press release, 23/01/2013 or online
(27) Company fined for worker fall during gym refurbishment
A company was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £3,500 in costs after an unsupervised labourer
fell more than four metres from a poorly constructed scaffold tower while stripping out a basement
gym.
See HSE press release, 23/01/2013 or online
(28) Firm fined after worker’s fingertip severed
A company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £5,894 after an employee severed the tips of
two fingers on an unguarded bandsaw.
See HSE press release, 24/01/2013 or online
(29) Company fined after driver lost fingers on unsafe equipment
A company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £8,833 in costs after a lorry driver suffered a
serious hand injury while using an unsafe wheel spinner on a construction site. He lost an entire
index finger, half of his middle finger and a severed end of his ring finger.
See HSE press release, 25/01/2013 or online
(30) Developer fined after worker seriously injured
A site developer was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £7,500 after a contractor suffered
major internal injuries when he fell through a floor and was hit by a falling concrete slab.
See HSE press release, 25/01/2013 or online
(31) NHS trust fined over patient death
An NHS trust was fined £42,000 and ordered to pay £19,073 in costs after a vulnerable patient
died following a fall from a first floor window.
See HSE press release, 25/01/2013 or online
(32) Council in court over teenager’s fireball accident
A council was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £17,246 in costs after a 15 year old was engulfed
in a fireball from a cooking stove during a school camping expedition.
See HSE press release, 25/01/2013 or online
5
Legislation
(33) Offers to settle in Civil Proceedings Order 2013
SI number:
2013/93
Enabling act:
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s55
Coming into force:
February 12, 2013
Application:
England and Wales
See Lawtel document no: AI0130093 or online
(34) Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement
Number 5 and Saving Provision) Order 2013
SI number:
2013/77
Enabling act:
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s151(1)(5)
Coming into force:
Bringing into operation various provisions of the 2012 Act on January 19,
2013 and April 1, 2013.
Application:
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
See Lawtel document no: AI0130077 or online
(35) Recovery of Costs Insurance Premiums in Clinical Negligence Proceedings
Regulations 2013
SI number:
2013/92
Enabling act:
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s58C(2)(3)(4)
Coming into force:
April 1, 2013
Application:
England and Wales
See Lawtel document no: AI0130092 or online
(36) The Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013
SI number:
Draft
Enabling act:
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s58AA(4)(5), s120(3)
Application:
England and Wales
See Lawtel document no: AI0137047 or online
(37) Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013
SI number:
Draft
Enabling act:
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 s58(4)(a)(c)(4A)(b)(d), s120(3)
Application:
England and Wales
See Lawtel document no: AI0137048 or online
(38) Civil Legal Aid Costs Regulations 2013
SI number:
Draft
Enabling act:
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s5(2),
s26(3)(4)(5)(6)(a)(7)(9)
Application:
England and Wales
See Lawtel document no: AI0137046 or online
HSB
- HEALTH AND SAFETY BULLETIN
IHL
- IN-HOUSE LAWYER
JPIL
- JOURNAL OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW
LSG
- LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE
NLJ
- NEW LAW JOURNAL
SJ
- SOLICITORS JOURNAL
6
TLR
- TIMES LAW REPORT
OHR
- OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH REVIEW
If you have any further questions on the content, please contact the editor(s).
Disclaimer
You have been sent this material because you have previously registered your interest in receiving
information from Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP. If you no longer wish to receive the mailing,
please unsubscribe.
This document does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute
legal advice. It is intended only to highlight issues that may be of interest to clients of Berrymans Lace
Mawer. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.
PI weekly review is published by the information services department of Berrymans Lace Mawer (Salisbury
House, London Wall, London EC2M 5QN) on behalf of Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP.
© Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP 2013.
Berrymans Lace Mawer is a trading name of Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP, a limited liability partnership
registered in England under number OC340981, which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors
Regulation Authority and accredited to quality standards ISO 9001 and Lexcel. The registered office is at
King’s House, 42 King Street West, Manchester M3 2NU where a list of members is available for inspection.
In Ireland, Berrymans Lace Mawer is a law firm regulated by the Law Society of Ireland. It is affiliated to
Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP and the partners of Berrymans Lace Mawer are all partners of Berrymans Lace
Mawer LLP.
Information is correct at the time of release.
7