Posts Tagged ‘litigation’
Thursday, January 12th, 2012
Days after Cameron launches an attack on the compensation culture the Transport Select Committee has recommended changes to the law to reduce the rising costs of whiplash injury claims.
The Committee reports there has been a 70% rise in motor insurance injury claims in the past six years, despite a 23% drop in the number of RTA casualties.
It recommends an increase in the threshold for receiving damages in whiplash cases and if this fails to reduce the number of claims significantly, the government should bring forward primary legislation to require objective evidence of whiplash injury and it having a significant effect on the claimant’s life, before compensation is paid.
Anyone who has been involved in a road traffic accident or who deals with these claims will be aware of the huge industry that now surrounds even the most minor accident. It is time for a change.
Posted by Steven Conway, specialising in: defence of claims on behalf of insurers, local and public authorities, in particular employers’ liability and public liability claims.
Steven Conway
020 7337 1037
sconway@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.3/10 (7 votes cast)
Tags: Browne Jacobson LLP, compensation claims, compensation culture, insurance, litigation, motor, motor insurance fraud, personal injury, road traffic accidents, road traffic claims, steven conway, whiplash claims
Posted in Insurance, Litigation | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012
The latest version of Well-maintained Highways: the Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management has been released which includes updated chapter 13 providing guidance on Winter Service.
This revision is a consolidation of all previous UK Roads Liaison Group winter guidance documents and includes new detailed information on the scope and detail recommended for local authority winter maintenance policies. Local authorities would be well advised to note these to ensure they comply with their duty under section 41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980 as we head in to the winter weather season.
Posted by Steven Conway, specialising in: defence of claims on behalf of insurers, local and public authorities, in particular employers’ liability and public liability claims.
Steven Conway
020 7337 1037
sconway@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)
Tags: browne jacobson, codes of practice for higways maintenance management, insurance, litigation, local authority winter maintenance, section 41(1A) of the Highways Act 1980, steven conway, uk roads liaison group, well maintained highways, winter service
Posted in Insurance, Litigation, Local Authorities | No Comments »
Friday, November 25th, 2011
The case of Fortune v Roe has re-visited the question of success fees and what the correct success fee ought to be if certain risks are removed from the litigation.
In this case the Claimant had been involved in a very serious car accident but by the time she entered into a CFA liability had been admitted and judgment entered for damages to be assessed. The CFA provided for a success fee of 100%. Sir Robert Nelson found that there was no risk to the recovery of charges to the solicitor and there could not be said to be a litigation risk. Therefore the only risk was of receiving no costs after beating a Part 36 offer and the success fee would represent compensation for that. As a result the court found that a success fee of 100% could not be justified and the figure of 20%, awarded by the first instance judge was upheld.
This shows the importance of getting the risk assessment on the CFA right. If it’s not an accurate assessment then we can expect the courts to get involved – with cost consequences!
Posted by Nichola Evans, who specialises in professional indemnity work, directors and officers, legal expenses insurance, conditional fee agreements and after the event insurance and commercial litigation.
Nichola Evans
020 7337 1019
nevans@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: cfa, insurance, litigation, litigation costs, Part 36, professional indemnity, risk assessments, success fees
Posted in Insurance, Litigation, Professional Indemnity | No Comments »
Tuesday, October 11th, 2011
A senior Scotland Yard officer has warned motorists to beware of “cash for crash” insurance scams following the sentencing of six men charged with insurance fraud following three induced road traffic accidents totalling over £50,000.
Only one of those charged received a custodial sentence, jailed for 8 months after admitting conspiring to defraud insurance companies, while the remaining five received suspended sentences having admitted committing similar offences.
Contrast these sentences with those handed out in the recent riots where one rioter was jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of water from a supermarket while another was jailed for five months for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they had been looted from a city centre store.
Judges criticised for the apparent harshness of sentences given to rioters were defended on the basis that the sentences handed down had a deterrent effect. Perhaps the time has come for the courts to take a similar approach to insurance fraud, or else continue to be seen as a soft touch.
Posted by Steven Conway, specialising in: defence of claims on behalf of insurers, local and public authorities, in particular employers’ liability and public liability claims.
Steven Conway
020 7337 1037
sconway@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (10 votes cast)
Tags: browne jacobson, Cash for crash, fraud, induced traffic accidents, insurance, insurance fraud, insurance scam, litigation, motor, motor insurance fraud, planned traffic accidents, steven conway
Posted in Insurance, Litigation | No Comments »
Wednesday, September 28th, 2011
On 1st October Practice Direction 51G Costs Management in the Mercantile Courts and the Technology and Construction Courts will come into force. Despite its less than catchy title, this will have important consequences for litigation in those courts.
Going forward litigants will have to file and serve spreadsheets project managing each stage of the proceedings and pricing out each section. Judges will voice their approval or disapproval of the costs budget. Judges may also take a cold hard look at the proposals the parties make in terms of how the parties wish to present their claim, say the number of witnesses and see if matters are being progressed proportionately.
A party may apply to the court if one party believes that the other is behaving oppressively and causing the other party to spend money disproportionately. It will be interesting to monitor how actively judges project manage cases and costs going forward. Also if this Practice Direction is successful whether Costs Management will be extended in other courts.
Posted by Nichola Evans, who specialises in professional indemnity work, directors and officers, legal expenses insurance, conditional fee agreements and after the event insurance and commercial litigation.
Nichola Evans
020 7337 1019
nevans@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: costs budget, litigation, Mercantile Courts, Practice Direction 51G Costs Management, Technology and Construction Courts
Posted in Insurance, Litigation | No Comments »
Friday, August 12th, 2011
Unlike litigation in the civil courts, costs orders in the employment tribunals are the exception rather than the rule. An employer successfully defending a claim against it can only recover its legal costs of doing so if it can show that the claimant behaved “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably” or that bringing the case was “misconceived.” In reality the employment tribunals award costs in only 0.2% of cases, and even then the level of award is often much lower than the legal costs incurred.
However, in a recent case an employment tribunal awarded costs of £100,000 against a former executive of Pertemps after she was unsuccessful in a sexual harassment case against her former employer. It is an encouraging example of an employment tribunal using a costs order in a case which, according to one newspaper, it found to be “vexatious, frivolous and [a waste of] the court’s time.”
Posted by Tom McLaughlin, who specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters including; contractual issues, unfair dismissal, redundancy and all areas of discrimination.
Tom McLaughlin
020 7337 1033
tmclaughlin@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: employment tribunals, litigation, Pertemps, recovery of legal costs, sexual harassment case
Posted in Employment | No Comments »
Friday, July 15th, 2011
Employers often approach us looking for ways to reduce their litigation costs. One of the ways in which we do this is to get the most frivolous claims struck out, thus negating the need for a full hearing.
In the future this may be more difficult due to the recent case of Reilly v Tayside Public Transport. In this case the EAT suggested that an employment judge should not strike out unfair dismissal claims as having no reasonable prospect of success, where the principal issue is whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
If judges require more cases to go to a full hearing then there will be an associated increase in costs for employers. With the current financial pressures on businesses, especially in the public sector, it will be important to see how tribunals react to the judgement.
Ben Standing
0115 976 6528
bstanding@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 7.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: EAT, litigation, Reilly v Tayside Public Transport, tribunals, unfair dismissal claims
Posted in Employment | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011
A rather robust judgment has been given in the High Court on the scope of the court to make costs orders against non-parties.
In a piece of litigation where Judgment had been given five years earlier, the parties were now embroiled in a dispute over the fact that several of the defendants who were shareholders in the first defendant funded that defence and as to how far they should now fund the costs of the successful claimant.
Insofar as four of the defendants were concerned, their involvement in the action was “open and honest”. Not only did they fund the litigation but they also had an “interest and control” of the litigation. As a result they had to take the financial consequences of that and bear the costs jointly and severally.
Posted by Nichola Evans, who specialises in professional indemnity work , directors and officers, legal expenses insurance, conditional fee agreements and after the event insurance and commercial litigation.
Nichola Evans
0207 337 1019
nevans@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Tags: dispute, High Court, litigation
Posted in Litigation | No Comments »
Thursday, January 20th, 2011
The final twist in the long-running ‘breach of confidence’ battle between Naomi Campbell and the Daily Mirror is the European Court of Human Rights Judgment in MGN v UK, which sets out a critique of the UK claims funding regime.
Revelations by the Mirror in 2001 that Ms Campbell was receiving treatment for drug abuse resulted in a string of litigation and a costs claim by Ms Campbell of over £1 million, including around £280,000 in success fees under a CFA.
Looking at the balance between the right to a private life and freedom of expression, the ECHR found the risk of substantial success fees had a disproportionate chilling effect on free expression, and so found a violation of the convention.
The Government is currently consulting on the impact of success fees in litigation. There is widespread feeling that these, and the ‘costs race’ they create, stifle a Defendant’s access to justice by reducing their ability to defend appropriate claims, for fear of disproportionate costs.
Posted by James Arrowsmith, who specialises in high value personal injury claims, extensive experience of claims relating to head injuries and serious bodily injury, psychiatric damage and injuries to children.
James Arrowsmith
0121 237 3981
jarrowsmith@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Tags: breach of confidence, cfa, daily mirror, litigation, naomi campbell
Posted in Insurance, Insurance - Advisory | No Comments »
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
In a significant development to defamation law, the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph has clarified the defence of fair comment (also renaming it “honest comment”).
It is not necessary for a publisher to have identified the matters on which comment is based in sufficient detail to enable a reader to judge for themselves whether the comment is well founded. Instead, an honest comment ”must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based” so that “the reader can understand what the comment is about and the commentator can, if challenged, explain…”. However, a defendant is not permitted to get support from facts that were not referred to by the comment, or facts that the defendant did not know when he made his comment.
This clarification allies the defence more closely with the realities of publication on the internet, in editorials and in blogs, and makes a little progress towards the more robust reform position currently proposed in the Defamation Bill. The ruling will please publishers and proponents of free speech – but on the other hand, it might make the judicial process for persons defamed in unbalanced attacks more difficult.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 8.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Tags: advertising, Brands, defamation, defamation law, fair comment, honest comment, litigation, media, Supreme Court
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property, Litigation | 2 Comments »
Friday, August 27th, 2010
The debate about the future of litigation costs rages on. The Adam Smith Institute is the latest body to publish a report proposing reform to the CFA regime, and the abolition of legal aid for most claims.
The report’s author, Anthony Barton, proposes a cap on recoverable success fees and ATE premiums accompanied by a modest uplift in general damages to address the concern that claimants will be left less well off. The great strength of his report is in placing legal costs issues in the context of the current economic situation.
Barton is critical of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals in relation to one way costs shifting and expresses concern in relation to the potential for unintended consequences, including spurious claims and fraud.
Jacksons’ recommendations should not be dismissed lightly and are likely to be at the heart of the Government’s proposed consultation in Autumn. Whether or not his conclusions prove correct, Barton’s report is also deserving of further consideration in the months ahead.
Posted by James Arrowsmith, who specialises in high value personal injury claims, extensive experience of claims relating to head injuries and serious bodily injury, psychiatric damage and injuries to children.
James Arrowsmith
0121 237 3981
jarrowsmith@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Tags: ate insurance, costs, insurance, jackson report, legal costs, litigation
Posted in Litigation | No Comments »
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
After several months preparation a report was published today which makes recommendations aimed at reducing costs of IP cases and speeding up the process of dispute resolution.
A constant criticism of litigation is that the costs involved in pursuing or defending a claim are disproportionate. The risk of having to pay the other side’s costs in the event of losing an action or even the unrecoverable costs of winning a claim are a barrier to using the courts for dispute resolution particularly for small and medium sized enterprises. It has been estimated that the average cost of taking a case to trial is in the region of £700k (although our experience is that we would not expect the average case to cost that much).
The new proposals contained in a report written by a serving Judge of the Court of Appeal and bearing his name (Jackson) include:
- reforming the Patent County Court and introducing a cap on recoverable costs (£50,000 in patent cases, £25000 for all other IP cases);
- introducing a fast track and small claims track for cases with low monetary value and clearer forms of pleadings
The proposals are welcome as if implemented they will enable us to give greater certainty regarding the exposure to costs of litigation. If such greater certainty is achieved will it mean greater confidence in the court system? What do you think?
Posted by Peter Ellis
0115 976 6267
pellis@brownejacobson.com
VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
Tags: ip, jackson review, litigation, litigation costs
Posted in Intellectual Property | 1 Comment »
Comment must be “honest” – it doesn’t have to be “fair”
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010In a significant development to defamation law, the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph has clarified the defence of fair comment (also renaming it “honest comment”).
It is not necessary for a publisher to have identified the matters on which comment is based in sufficient detail to enable a reader to judge for themselves whether the comment is well founded. Instead, an honest comment ”must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based” so that “the reader can understand what the comment is about and the commentator can, if challenged, explain…”. However, a defendant is not permitted to get support from facts that were not referred to by the comment, or facts that the defendant did not know when he made his comment.
This clarification allies the defence more closely with the realities of publication on the internet, in editorials and in blogs, and makes a little progress towards the more robust reform position currently proposed in the Defamation Bill. The ruling will please publishers and proponents of free speech – but on the other hand, it might make the judicial process for persons defamed in unbalanced attacks more difficult.
Posted by Oliver Sweeney, who specialises in regulatory matters; including compliance, representation e.g. company prosecutions and public inquiries; transport issues; commercial litigation, including reputation management, contractual litigation and injunctions.
Oliver Sweeney
0115 976 6247
osweeney@brownejacobson.com
Tags: advertising, Brands, defamation, defamation law, fair comment, honest comment, litigation, media, Supreme Court
Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Brands, Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property, Litigation | 2 Comments »