Welcome to our Team’s Summer newsletter in which we hope you’ll find something interesting, occasionally diverting and perhaps relevant to the work you yourself are doing.
Fixed costs in higher value cases are almost upon us, but the details remain frustratingly opaque. We can look forward to the rules themselves giving rise to yet more satellite litigation.
Interesting decisions in this area of law continue unabated including:
- FGX v Gaunt  EWHC 419 (KB): first ‘revenge porn’ case in the civil courts (bit of a misnomer as the claimant wasn’t aware that her boyfriend secretly filmed her doing things like cleaning the bathroom when naked) with damages awarded including £60K for PSLA.
- Apres Lounge Ltd v Wade  EWHC 190 (KB): Successful appeal by a defendant in a slipping on liquid case involving a spilled drink in a bar. This contains an excellent overview of the authorities on slips and trips. The appellate court found that the trial judge imposed too high a burden on the Defendant.
- Hetherington v Blythe  EWHC 41 (KB): Pedestrian failed in claim against car driver – no negligence on part of driver when he ran into the road.
The most senior and junior members of our team Charles Bagot KC and Charlotte Wilk have both appeared in the Supreme Court on different matters. You can read about the brief details in their short “What have we been up to?” sections below.
This section gives some idea of the breadth and depth of the work our team has been involved in. We have been acting in overseas jurisdictions, inquests and inquiries, dealing with cases at the cutting edge of the law, representing government departments and the most seriously injured, and dealing with cases with high profile and high importance. In addition to acting for the parties, the team have been acting in a variety of judicial, coronial and dispute resolution capacities. Mr Bagot finds himself in the possibly unique situation of appearing before the Supreme Court as advocate while also having his own judicial decision considered by the same body.
Take a look. And if something we’re doing chimes with the work with which you’re involved, get in touch.
This issue, we have a smorgasbord of articles on a wide variety of topics, part 36, costs, relief from sanctions and everything in between.
Charles Bagot KC writes about a recent decision on costs budgeting in which the Master disallowed solicitor time for attending on non-medical experts – a case elevated directly to the Court of Appeal.
Vanessa McKinlay writes about the dilemma facing claimant advisers in a clinical negligence or personal injury case where a Defendant makes a Part 36 offer at a stage when the Claimant’s prognosis is still uncertain.
Emma Zeb writes about the current Covid-19 enquiry which continues to produce both headlines and surprises.
Jasmine Murphy writes about the perennial battle over relief from sanctions and the overriding need to make your application timeously.
Aneurin Moloney writes about informed consent and the recent case of Bilal v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Trust; specifically, what is the test for reasonable alternative or variant treatments?
Colm Nugent writes about aggravated damages in personal injury cases – apart from those decisions involving the police, are they ever recoverable?
Charlotte Wilk writes about a recent decision on the award of interest on general damages and whether it may be increased by way of a punitive measure in appropriate.
Our open house sessions with drinks and nibbles on our large roof terrace continue. If you’re up in town, we’d love to see you. It’s all very informal and no business development networking is required (it may even be disallowed).
This photo of Gray’s Inn was taken by a recent attendee.
Colm Nugent – Editor for this edition