header-logo header-logo

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

Under surveillance

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

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