header-logo header-logo

25 February 2010 / Steven Lynch
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Valuable tactics

Steven Lynch traces trends in personal injury disposal hearings

A defendant who fails to file an “acknowledgment of service” in response to a claim may have a default judgment entered against him. In such cases, and where liability of personal injury (PI) is not in dispute, costs of a defence are reduced and time in completing necessary quantum allocation questionnaires is saved.

Further, the court is given the opportunity to exercise its case management powers earlier as a “disposal” hearing will usually be listed within six to eight weeks from the date judgment was entered.

According to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), in PI claims the default judgment is “for an amount to be decided by the court and costs”.  Paragraph 12.4 of Practice Direction [PD] 26 states:
l The disposal hearing will not last longer than 30 minutes.
l Oral evidence is not usually heard.
l The court can either assess damages or give directions as to the future conduct of the proceedings.
l Evidence at a disposal hearing is by witness statement and statement of cases/application notices provided

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll