header-logo header-logo

Under surveillance

05 May 2011 / Lisa Sullivan
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The court’s decision in Noble v Owens illustrates why judgments are and should be final, says Lisa Sullivan

Once the trial is over and time for appeal has expired, judgment is final and parties to litigation, winners or losers, can get on with their lives. Or can they? In Noble v Owens [2011] EWHC 534 (QB), Direct Line tried, for the first time, to use surveillance evidence obtained after trial to overturn the damages award made at trial. It failed. Other than the obvious interest in the outcome of the trial as a test case for this sort of litigation, the decision is interesting in that it illustrates why judgments are and should be final.

Background

In September 2003, Mark Noble suffered serious injuries to his pelvis, left leg, both arms and spine in a motorcycle accident. In March 2008 he was awarded damages of £3.397m following a trial lasting nine days. Field J found that Noble could not walk unaided outside the house. With crutches, he could walk about 75–80 feet. Otherwise he was

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll