header-logo header-logo

03 June 2016
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 3 June 2016

Spying tonight; appealing work; & form of the landlord

LATE WATCH

A defendant’s surveillance evidence of the claimant on a personal injury claim may well be allowed in where, on the defendant’s case, it would substantially reduce the award of damages—so long as the claimant has not been ambushed. In Hayden v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1121 (QB), a five day trial had been fixed to commence on 11 April 2016. The claimant was after close to £1.5m to include substantial loss of earnings. The defendant’s case was that symptoms were not as significant as she said and her ability to work was not materially affected. It was not until four days between 18 to 24 February and 10 March 2016 that surveillance was carried out following an unsuccessful joint settlement meeting on 29 January 2016. The claimant’s solicitors received the edited surveillance material on 24 March 2016 and the defendant’s solicitors issued an application for permission to adduce six days later which they wanted to be taken at the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll