Disclosure and inspection of documents Application for disclosure. The claimants and the applicant solicitors made unsuccessful applications for disclosure and inspection of documents, in the course of proceedings concerning alleged fabrication of evidence by a company providing forensic services regarding the cost of car hire.
Costs Indemnity costs. In considering the relationship between CPR 47.15(5) and CPR 36.17(4), the judge had been wrong to conclude that there was a material conflict between costs assessed on the indemnity basis and costs assessed on that basis subject to a cap. Consequently the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant company's appeal, deciding that there was nothing in any of the relevant rules to suggest that CPR 47.15(5) should be disapplied or modified in the case of an assessment of costs on the indemnity basis under CPR 36.17(4)(b).
Damages Personal injury. A further 1,9000,000 sought by way of interim payment, when added to a previously awarded 500,000, would be awarded to the claimant, B, in ongoing medical negligence proceedings against the defendant NHS Trust. Applying Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd All ER (D) 144 (Mar), the Queen's Bench Division, held that the total interim payment of 2,400,000 would by no means exceed the amount which the court should consider making having regard to all relevant considerations.
Limitation of action Public authority. The six-month limitation period in s 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act had no application where the obligation sued upon arose simply out of a relationship with the claimant which would be the same for any non-public person or body, and where there was no question of a public law challenge. Accordingly, the Privy Council, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the limitation did not apply to her claim against the government of the British Virgin Islands for personal injuries sustained during her employment as a nurse.
European Union Product liability. The proceedings concerned harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and a decision of the Safety and Chemicals Office, Finland, essentially prohibiting the applicant company from using the CE marking under standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 for four categories of construction products manufactured by it. In a preliminary ruling in the course of the proceedings, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 had to be interpreted as meaning that such products, intended to be fixed into concrete before they set, fell within its scope if they had a structural function, in the sense that their removal from a structure would immediately reduce its resistance.
Contempt of court Committal. The nine defendants' claims for losses following alleged road traffic accidents, including for personal injury, were challenged by the claimant insurance company, LVI, to which their claims were made. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendants had knowingly made false statements in their claim forms, particulars of claims, and in the schedules of loss and witness statements in County Court proceedings such that it had been established that each of them had been guilty of contempt of court.
Practice Summary judgment. The application of first defendant solicitors' firm, S&S, for summary judgment and-or the striking out of the claim against it was allowed. The Commercial Court held that there was no real dispute between the first defendant and the claimants, and that, in the circumstances, the appropriate relief was to grant summary judgment in favour of S&S in respect of the claimants' claim against it.
Limitation of action Period of limitation. The primary limitation period under of the Limitation Act 1980, would be disapplied under s 33 to allow the claimant to bring a personal injury claim against the defendant police force. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in so concluding found that there was no real prejudice to the defendant from the claimant's culpable delay.
Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust v McMenemy; Reynolds v Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Costs Assessment. It was still permissible for ATE insurance to be taken out as soon as a claimant entered into a CFA and the new test, including the provisions about proportionality, applied to post-April 2013 clinical negligence claims. In deciding two appeals, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division further held that it could not be right to say that the recovery of ATE insurance premiums under The Recovery of Costs Insurance Premiums in Clinical Negligence Proceedings (No 2) Regulations 2013, was not subject to the CPR at all.
European Union Insurance. of Council Directive (EEC) 72-166 should be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'use of vehicles', referred to in that provision, did not cover a situation in which an agricultural tractor had been involved in an accident when its principal function, at the time of that accident, had not been to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide sprayer. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings brought by the applicants following a court ruling ordering them to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the first respondent as a result of his wife's death following an accident involving an agricultural tractor, which had occurred on the farm on which she had been working.