header-logo header-logo

02 September 2011 / Andrew Arentsen
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Features , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Out of control?

Andrew Arentsen calls for consistency in the application of Pt 36

Clarity and consistency are cornerstones of an efficient civil justice system. In no area of practice is this more important than Pt 36. The past two years have seen considerable uncertainty, but it is hoped that recent case law and pending rule changes might bring order to one of the most crucial areas of civil procedure.

Uncertainty developed with Carver v BAA [2008] EWCA Civ 412, [2008] 3 All ER 911. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant had not achieved a more “advantageous” judgment and “no reasonable litigant would have embarked upon this campaign for a gain of £51”.

There was further confusion when the court gave judgment in Medway Primary Care Trust and Dr Ashiq Hussain v Sebastian Marcus [2011] EWCA Civ 750, [2011] All ER (D) 219 (Jun). Sir Anthony May gave the lead judgment. Lord Justice Tomlinson concurred and Lord Justice Jackson dissented.

Diagnosis failure

The arteries in the claimant’s leg became blocked.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll