header-logo header-logo

Civil way: 3 June 2016

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll