Legal Watch:Personal Injury8th October 2015Issue: 079

Events

Plexus and Greenwoods hold a series of events which are open to interested clients. See below for those being held in the next few months:

The Major Bodily Injury Group (MBIG) | Spring Seminar - You the client | 21.04.16 | The Wellcome Collection, London

In this issue:

• Specificdisclosure/litigantinperson

• FromPlexusLawScotland

Specific disclosure/litigant in personFollowing the revolution that took place in the funding ofpersonal injury litigation, the number of litigants in person(LiPs)has increased.Thelegalprofessionhasbeendirectedto treat such individuals fairly andnot to takeadvantageofthefactthattheyarenotrepresented.Twocaseslookatthecourts’ attitude to LiPs. The first caseof ofEl-Demellawy v European Bank for Reconstruction & Development [Lawtel6/10/2015]alsodealswithwhatitisreasonableforapartytodowhenorderedtoprovidespecificdisclosure.

Theclaimanthadworkedasamanagerforthedefendant.In2002,shewasdiagnosedwithdepressionanddidnotreturntowork.Theclaimantaccepted that thedefendantwasnotresponsible for her initial illness, but asserted that if it hadrespondedappropriately tomedicaladvicegivento itat thetime, shewould havemade a full recovery and could havereturnedtoworkwithinthreemonths,andthatitstreatmentofherhadcausedherconditiontoworsen.

Thedefendantadmitted that ithadbreached itsduty to theclaimant,butdeniedthatthathadcausedhertofailtorecoverortosufferany loss.Themain issuesattrialweretobetheextentofthebreachofduty,causationanddamages.

In September 2015, the claimant’s application for specificdisclosureofdocumentsrelatingtoquantumwasgranted.Inparticular, thedefendantwas required todisclose thesalaryandbenefitrangesthatithadsetforcertainemployees.Thedefendantdisclosedthefiguresforeach jobtitle,expressedas a percentage of the market reference point (MRP). Theclaimantarguedthatthatwasnotsufficient,asshewantedtheactual salary ranges.Thedefendanthadalsobeen requiredto disclose the appraisal documents of certain employeesfrom2002onwards;theclaimantarguedthattheinformationwasdeficientasitdidnotincludethe2015figures,noralltheobjectives.

02

Theclaimantmadethepresentapplicationandsubmittedthatthedefendantshouldbeorderedtocomplywiththosetwopartsofthedisclosureorder,andthatthetrialshouldbeadjournedfortwoweeksonthebasisofthedefendant’salleged failure to comply and because, as a litigant inperson,fairnessdictatedthatsheshouldhavefurthertimetoconsiderthematerial.

Refusingtheapplication,theHighCourtjudgeheldthatthedefendanthadbeenrequiredtodisclosethesalarybenefitsthatithadset.TheyhadbeensetbyreferencetotheMRP,withaminimumandmaximumcalculatedbyreferencetoapercentageofthatMRP.Thesalaryrangescouldaccordinglybecalculatedfromtheinformationgiven.Anyissuesarisingfromthatshouldbedealtwithattrial.

‘The order had made clear that disclosure did not extend beyond making a reasonable search’As for the appraisal documents, the defendant hadexplainedthatoncethe2015informationbecameavailable,it would be provided to the claimant.With regard to theobjectivesnotdisclosed,despiteareasonablesearchsomedocumentscouldnotbelocated.Theorderhadmadeclearthatdisclosuredidnotextendbeyondmakingareasonablesearch.Therewasnoforceinthesubmissionsthatafurtherorderrequiringbetterspecificdisclosureshouldbemade.

Asforadjournment,thetrialdatehadbeenlong-fixed.Thejudgehadhadthetrialdatewellinmindwhenhehadmadethedisclosureorder.Thedefendanthadincurredsubstantialcostswithregardtoexpertsand leadingcounsel.Further,althoughtheclaimanthadindicatedthatsheonlyneededafortnightlonger,thetrialwouldlikelyhavetobeadjournedfor severalmonths inorder tofinda timewheneveryonewasavailable.Itwasanoldclaimwithalengthyproceduralhistory, and it was in the claimant’s interests that it wasdeterminedassoonaspossible.

The previous case suggests that the courts will adopt asensible approach to LiPs and not be over indulgent, asmight have been the fear. This view is reinforced by thecommercial case of Sargeant v UK Insurance Ltd and another [Lawtel6/10/2015].

Theclaimantappliedtohaveatrialvacatedandreplacedwith a meeting of experts. The first defendant insurancecompany applied for an unless order with regard to theclaimant’snon-paymentofcosts.

Theclaimanthadclaimed for thecostoffloodandwaterdamage in his home. The defendant did not dispute thattheclaimantwasentitledtoindemnityundertheinsurancepolicy,buttherewasadisputeastotheamountthatshouldbepaid.Permissionwasgrantedtopresentexpertevidenceregardingbuildingandquantitysurveying,andtheexpertsweretomeetinJune2015,beforesigningajointstatement.The claimant’s expert was a company that covered bothbuilding and quantity surveying. Prior to the experts’meeting, theclaimantandhisexperthadadisagreement,wheretheclaimanttoldhisexpertthatifthecourtawardedhima lessersum thanhesought, theexpertshouldhavetomakeupanyshortfall.Theclaimantsubsequentlywentonholidayuntilthreedaysbeforetheexpertswereduetomeet.

Duringthatperiod,theexpertwrotetotheclaimantinforminghim that it was providing an opinion and not a warranty,andthattheclaimanthadtoacceptthatoritcouldnotactashisexpert. Italsostatedthathehadnotpaidfor initialwork ithaddone.Theclaimantsaid thatafterhisholidayhebecamedepressedandcouldnot remember receivingthe letter. The expert subsequently asked the court forpermission towithdraw from thematter. In themeantime,time for serving theexpertevidencewasextendedandacostorderof£943wasmadeagainsttheclaimant.

The claimant submitted that the fact that themeeting ofexperts did not take place was not his fault. He arguedthat his expert had been instructed and knew to attendthe meeting. He said that he had since approached 67alternative experts, none of whom were able to take onthework.Thedefendantsubmittedthatthetrialwasonlya

03

fewweeksaway,andthatthemeetinghadnottakenplacebecausetheclaimanthaddisagreedwithhisexpert,andnotpaidtheexpert’sfees.

Refusingtheapplication,theHighCourt judgeheldthat itwasnotappropriatetoaccedetotheclaimant’sapplication:theproblemswereofhisowndoing.Hehadturnedagainsthisownexpert.Hehadallowedfeestogounpaidandhadengaged in a highly critical manner. While the claimantwasentitledtopointoutareasofdisagreement,itwasnotappropriatetoindicatethatintheeventthatthecourtweretoawardhimalessersumthanhesought,hisexpertshouldhave to make up the shortfall. That, combined with thefailuretopaytheexpertandtorespond,madeitclearthattheclaimantonlyhadhimselftoblame.

‘…it was in the public interest to stick to court-approved directions...’Thefactthattheclaimanthadfailedtofindareplacementexpertmadelittledifference,wheretheclaimanthimselfwasresponsibleforhisexpertceasingtoact.Itwasnotrightthatheshouldbeallowedtoderailthetrialsetforthefollowingmonth. The litigation had been on-going for some time,anditwasinthepublicinteresttosticktocourt-approveddirections. The court also had regard to Denton (2014): althoughitwasnotanapplicationforrelieffromsanctions,whereapartywasa litigant inperson, itwasappropriatetokeepthoseprinciplesinmind.Therehadclearlybeenaseriousandsignificantfailuretocomplywithacourtorder,asanexperts’meetingwasintegraltotheproceedings.Theclaimant’s expert hadbeenput in a verydifficult positionandcouldnothavebeenexpectedtohavejustgoneaheadwiththemeetingwheretheclaimanthadnotpaidfeesandhadmadeclearhisdissatisfaction.FollowingDentonitwasalsonotfair,justandreasonabletovacatethetrial.

At the court’s discretion, it was not appropriate to maketheunlessordersoclosetotrial.Theamountunpaidwasmodest,andtheclaimantwasresidentinthejurisdiction.

04

From Plexus Law ScotlandSecondaryvictimandlossofsocietyAt a time when claimant lawyers in England and Walesareagitating foran increase in theawardofdamages forbereavement, theScottishcaseofYoung v MacVean isofwider interest. It also relates to a claim for damages forpsychiatricinjurybyasecondaryvictim.

Inthisfataldamagesclaim,thepursuer (claimant)passedtheaccidentsitebutonlylaterrealisedher26yearoldsonhad been involved. At proof (first instance) the pursuerwas awarded total damages of £249,600. The defendersreclaimed(appealed)arguing:

• Thejudgewaswronginholdingthepursuerwasasecondaryvictimentitledtodamagesforpsychiatricinjury

• The£80,000awardedforlossofsocietywasexcessive.ThisistheequivalenttobereavementinEnglandandWales.

BackgroundThe general rule at common law is that someone cannotrecover damages arising from the death of another, butthereisanexceptionatcommonlawforasecondaryvictim

• Torecoverdamagesforpsychiatricinjuryasasecondaryvictimtheremustbereasonableforseeabilityofthewrongcausingthelossandalsotheremustbeproximityofrelationship

• Theexceptionappliestocases,suchasthepresentcase,wheretheaffectedpersonhassufferedpsychiatricinjury(conventionallyreferredtoas‘nervousshock’)byreasonofthecontemplationofthedeathoforphysicalinjurytotheprimaryvictim.Inaddition,itisnecessaryforthesecondaryvictimtosuffertheshockbybeingimmediatelyanddirectlyconfronted,throughsightorsound,withtheprimaryvictim’sdeathorinjury

• Thescopeoftheexceptiontothegeneralrulecannotbeidentifiedbylogicorbytheapplicationofsomeprinciple.Rather,itsparametersaredeterminedbywhatthecourtshavebeenpreparedtoallowinpreviouscases.Theexceptionisproductiveofanomaliesandartificialdistinctions.

Theissuefortheappealontherightofthepursuertoclaimasasecondaryvictim

• Theissuewaswhetherthejudgeatfirstinstancewascorrecttoconcludethatthepursuerwasasecondaryvictimbyvirtueofherhavingbeenexposedtotheimmediateaftermathoftheeventwhichledtothedeathofherson

Thedefenderargued

• Thatthepursuer’sshockwascausedbybeingtoldaboutthedeath,notbywitnessingtheeventsoreventheaftermath.Althoughthepursuerdidwitnesstheaftermathinthesenseofseeingthedefender’swreckedmotorcar,shedidnotrealiseatthetimethatthewreckwastheconsequenceofaneventwhichhadinvolvedanyofhercloserelatives

• Asamatteroffact,thepursuerhadnotbeentraumatisedbywhatshehadseenatthescenebutbywhatshehadbeentoldlater

Decisiononthesecondaryvictimissue

• Ifnervousshockonexposuretotheaftermathofaneventistogiverisetoaclaimfordamages,theconditionsforrecoverywhichapplytonervousshockonexposuretoaneventmustalsoapplytonervousshockonexposuretotheaftermathoftheevent.Theseincludetherequirementthattherelevantinjurytothesecondaryvictimwascausedbyshockasaresultofwhatsheperceivedwithherownsenses

• ThepresentcasewasofthesamenatureasLordOliver’scharacterisationofAlcock (1991).Thepursuersawthewreckedcarbutdidnotimmediatelyassociate

05

itwithanyofherrelatives.Onlythereafterdidthatvisualimageprovide“thematrixforimaginedconsequencesgivingrisetograveconcernandworry,followedbyadawningconsciousnessoveranextendedperiodthattheimaginedconsequencehadoccurred,finallyconfirmedbynewsofthedeath”

• Ontheevidencewhenthepursuerviewedthewreckedvehicleshehadnoreasontoconnectwhatshesawwithherson.Indeed,asthejudgeatfirstinstancefound,herinitialreactionwasoneofreliefthatherownchildrencouldnotbeinvolvedashersondidnotdriveandherdaughterwasathome

• Thepursuerwasnotasecondaryvictimandaccordinglywasnotentitledtodamagesinrespectofherpsychiatricillness

Decisiononlossofsociety

• Thelargediscrepancybetweenthelossofsocietyawardinthiscase(£80,000)andthatinCurrie (2014) (£42,000)gavethecourtlongpauseforthought

• WhilstinCurrietheInnerHouse(appealcourt)didnotspecificallyendorseLadyWise’sawardinthatcase,itconfirmedthatshehadbeencorrectinunderstandingthattheLordPresidentinHamilton (2012)hadexpressedtheopinionthatthejury’sawardof£90,000tothefatherofthedeceasedThomson (2011)hadfallenfoulofthe100%ruleofthumb(inotherwordsthatareasonableawardwouldhavebeen£45,000orless)

• Buttheawardinthiscasewasnotplainlyandclearlyexcessivedespitethatdiscrepancybetweenthefigures,sothecourtdeclinedtoreverseit,forthefollowingreasons:

1.Theassessmentofdamagesisprimarilyforthejudgeatfirst instanceand isdiscretionary.Lossofsociety is likelytodependonimpressionandimponderableconsiderations.Thepurposeoftheawardisjustcompensation,nottofititintoatariff

2.Itwasopentothejudgetofindtherewasevidenceofaspecialrelationship

3. Therewas substantial evidence on her reaction to herson’sdeath(i.e.throughthepsychiatricevidence)

4. You cannot always assume there is a hierarchy ofrelationships between family members, especially wherethereisevidenceledontheactualrelationship

5.Thecourthadregardtothe‘continuingupwardpull’ofjuryawards

CommentAwards for loss of society at this level are bound to bepicked up by claimant lawyers (and the press) who areregularlyhighlightingtheperceivedinjusticethatthe‘valueofalife’inEnglandandWalesiscurrentlyfixedbylegislationat£12,908.

ForfurtherinformationpleasecontactStuartMackie

E: stuart.mackie@plexuslaw.co.uk

T: 0844 245 4805

JSCGuidelinesfortheAssessmentofDamagesforPSLAReaders should note thatwith effect from 17 Septemberthe13theditionoftheJSCGuidelineshascomeintoforce.Inevitablythishasproducedanacrosstheboardincreasein the figures set out in the previous edition. However,the increases are not uniform, with significant variationsbetweentypesofinjury.

The information and opinions contained in this document are not intended to be a comprehensive study, nor to provide legal advice, and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations. This document speaks as of its date and does not reflect any changes in law or practice after that date. Plexus Law and Greenwoods Solicitors are trading names of Parabis Law LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England & Wales. Reg No: OC315763. Registered office: 12 Dingwall Road, Croydon, CR0 2NA. Parabis Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the SRA.

www.plexuslaw.co.ukwww.greenwoods-solicitors.com

ContactUsFor more information please contact:

Geoff Owen, Consultant

T:01908298216E:gro@greenwoods-solicitors.com

PublicationsIfyouwouldliketoreceiveanyofthebelow,pleaseemailindicatingwhichyouwouldliketoreceive.

Weekly:

• LegalWatch:PersonalInjury

Monthly:

• LegalWatch:PropertyRisks&Coverage

Quarterly:

• LegalWatch:Health&Safety

• LegalWatch:ProfessionalIndemnity

• LegalWatch:Disease

To unsubscribe from this newsletter please email:

crm@greenwoods-solicitors.com