Summary of Recent Cases – Civil Procedure


Relatives of A Claimant in Contempt of Court for Attempting to Bolster a PI Claim On the Issue of Mobility

Brighton & Hove Bus & Stage Coach Ltd v (1) Sheridan Brooks (2) Merihan Tadrous (3) Nabil Tadrous [2011], EWHC 2504 (Admin) 14/10/11

The applicant insurer sought to have the Claimant’s two daughters and husband of a Claimant committed. It was for the applicant to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the statements and representations relied on were made, that they were false, that they were likely to interfere with the course of justice in some material respects, and that, at the time they were made, the maker had no honest belief in their truth and knew of the likelihood that they would interfere with the course of justice. An impression had been conveyed to the medico-legal experts by one of the daughters and the husband that the Claimant had very limited mobility which was in sharp contrast to the surveillance evidence. The relevant statements and representations made to the experts were clearly false in so far as they related to the Claimant’s mobility. It was held that the Claimant’s daughter and her husband had agreed to present a false picture of the Claimant’s limited mobility and must have known that their false statements and representations would interfere with the course of justice. However nothing in the witness statements of the Claimant’s family was false to the extent that the entire case against the Defendant was false.

A Judge Could Conclude A Motorist Had Been Negligent Even If They Could Not Say Which Action or Omission Constituted the Fault

Christine Smith v Barry Kempson [2011], EWHC 2680 (QB) 21/10/11

The Appellant submitted that the judge had failed to make findings about what a motorist failed to do or did which constituted a breach of duty after she was found negligent for pulling out from a minor road into a motorcyclist. It was held that the judge had directed herself correctly when she had found on the balance of probabilities that the driver had driven below the standards of a reasonable driver, with it significant that she had found that the motorcyclist was not culpable of driving below the reasonable standards of a motorcyclist. Though the judge did not make a specific finding of what it was that the motorist did or did not do which was negligent, which the trial judge should have done, it did not preclude the trial judge from reaching a conclusion that the motorist had failed to reach the high standard of care required. It was open to a judge to conclude that a person had acted in breach of the standard of care, even if the judge was unable to say, or had not said, precisely what action or omission constituted the fault.

December 1, 2011 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases