Legal Watch: Personal Injury 24th September 2015 Issue: 077
Civil procedure/specific disclosure Although it is not a personal injury claim, Ali v CIS General
Insurance [Lawtel 11/09/2015] relates to a relatively common scenario in road traffic accident cases.
The claimant had been involved in a road traffic accident in which her car was damaged. A week after that accident, she
In this issue: • Civil procedure/specific disclosure • Watch this space
was involved in a second road traffic accident whilst driving her family’s second car, which was her fault, and her insurer settled the other driver’s claim against her.
A claims management company engaged in relation to the first
accident then provided the claimant with a hire car. The claimant sought to recover damages for vehicle recovery, repair and
storage, and credit hire charges from the defendant as insurer of the other vehicle in that accident. The defendant refused to settle the claim, and the claimant issued proceedings.
The defendant doubted whether the substantial hire claim arose from the first accident at all, considering that it arose as a consequence of the second accident, or at least that the
need for a vehicle was in part caused by the second accident
causing damage to the second family car. It was granted an order for specific disclosure requiring the claimant to provide,
by a certain date, details of all accidents she had been involved in for five years before and subsequent to the first accident, including disclosure of medical reports, details of
special damage claimed, witness statements and engineering
evidence. The order was not appealed. The claimant failed to provide documents relating to the settlement of the second accident. The district judge, having considered that that
material was relevant and ought to have been disclosed,
allowed the defendant’s application to strike out the claim for non-compliance.
The claimant appealed and argued that the district judge had
been wrong to strike out the claim because the non-disclosure complained of related to documents concerning the second
accident, which were not relevant to the issues between the
Events Plexus and Greenwoods hold a series of events which are open to interested clients. See below for those being held in the next few months: The Major Bodily Injury Group (MBIG) | Spring Seminar - You the client | 21.04.16 | The Wellcome Collection, London
parties in the present claim because she had not made any
management armoury and should not be deployed unless
even if the documents sought were relevant, striking out her
rightly concluded that the breach of the order for specific
claim in respect of the second accident. She submitted that claim was disproportionate.
‘…the defendant had been entitled to cast a relatively wide net in seeking disclosure’
its consequences could be justified. The district judge had
disclosure was real and far more than trivial, and the claimant had given no reasonable excuse for it. CPR 3.9(1) (a) and CPR 3.9(1)(b) required litigation to be conducted
efficiently and at a proportionate cost, with compliance
with the court orders. It was open to the district judge to have concluded that those who chose not to comply with the court’s directions, in the way the claimant had, ought
not to be indulged. A further unless order would itself be disproportionate. The mischief of a lost trial date would not
Dismissing the appeal, the county court judge held that the
be avoided. The court had no confidence in the claimant’s
had been sought were still relevant by the time of a strike-
to deal with the claimant’s uncooperativeness. She had had
made a claim in relation to the second accident did not
had failed to act within the letter and spirit of the CPR. This
the genuineness of the claim was in issue and there was a
further information that had been made by the defendant.
court had to consider whether documents whose disclosure
conduct and the defendant ought not to be further obliged
out application. The mere fact that the claimant had not
ample time to do what was necessary and in various ways
render the documents sought irrelevant. In a case were
included taking 5 months to respond to a Part 18 request for
material history of multiple accidents/claims, the defendant
had been entitled to cast a relatively wide net in seeking disclosure.
The extent of the damage to the claimant’s second vehicle potentially went to the issue of whether she needed to hire another vehicle on credit hire and for how long, or whether she might have reasonably managed with the second car. Whether the claimant had sought the hire car before the
second accident occurred was not determinative of the issue of reasonable need and mitigation of damage. The point
was whether she could reasonably have used the second
car. Thus, the extent of any damage to it was relevant to the
claimant’s conduct and motivation in entering into the credit
hire agreement after the second accident. The district judge had been entirely justified in concluding that the documents
relating to the settlement were potentially relevant to that issue.
In deciding whether the strike out was justified the district
judge had been required to consider the provisions of CPR 3.4. The striking out of a statement of case was
one of the most powerful weapons in the court’s case 02
Watch this space Calculating and reserving loss of earnings claims for low wage earners The minimum wage for workers aged 21 or over will increase on 1 October from £6.50 to £6.70 per hour. For those between 18 and 20 the increase is from £5.13 to £5.30. Potentially of
greater importance is the introduction from April 2016 of the
Publications If you would like to receive any of the below, please email indicating which you would like to receive. Weekly: • Legal Watch: Personal Injury Monthly: • Legal Watch: Property Risks & Coverage
Living Wage which will see those aged 25 or over entitled to
Quarterly:
£7.20 per hour.
• Legal Watch: Health & Safety
Costs
• Legal Watch: Professional Indemnity
Also effective from 1 October is an amendment to CPR 47.6
• Legal Watch: Disease
which deals with the detailed assessment of costs. In cases where a costs management order has been made it will be
necessary, when filing a bill of costs for assessment, also to provide a breakdown of each phase of the proceedings.
This will enable a comparison to be made between the costs claimed and the budget as initially broken down in
Precedent Form H. This is no doubt good news for costs draftsmen who now have an additional level of work to carry out when dealing with detailed assessments.
Contact Us
For more information please contact: Geoff Owen, Consultant T: 01908 298216 E: gro@greenwoods-solicitors.com
To unsubscribe from this newsletter please email: crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com
www.greenwoods-solicitors.com
www.plexuslaw.co.uk
The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 12 Dingwall Road, Croydon, CR0 2NA. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.