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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll