REUTERS | David Gray

In AIG Europe Ltd v McCormick Roofing Ltd and another, the High Court provided valuable guidance on how and when the court has jurisdiction to substitute one named claimant for another after the end of a limitation period. In so doing, it has suggested that CPR 19.5(3)(b) may occupy a more significant position than has hitherto been assumed. Continue reading

REUTERS | Mike Hutchings

Ever since the abolition of premium recoverability in April 2013, following the enactment of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), there has been a very thin after-the-event (ATE) insurance market for one-off personal injury claims. However, it appears that the market might well be coming back to life. This blog explores what is happening, why it disappeared, and why it may well become a thriving market again. Continue reading

REUTERS | Hannibal Hanschke

Where a primary tortfeasor is an individual, a lack of financial means with which to meet a judgment debt will often mean it is not worth pursuing them alone. Even employees in senior management positions are unlikely to be able to meet a substantial money judgment arising out of a tort committed in connection with their employment. Continue reading

REUTERS |

Won your case with costs? Good news, but what happens if you slipped up on the way and your opponent has succeeded in obtaining a costs order against you? That might have happened had you made a request to the court for permission to rely on an additional expert’s report, but your application to do so failed with costs. In such circumstances, it would be reasonable to suppose that the costs which your losing opponent is due to pay to you should be reduced by the costs you owe him or her for the failed application. Expressed in legalese, the costs would thereby be set off against each other, simple as that. Continue reading

REUTERS |

There have been a number of hearings in Jalla v Royal Dutch Shell in the last month. On 9 March 2020, Stuart -Smith J ordered on jurisdiction, and on 30 March he gave another ruling relating to the disclosure of the damages-based agreement entered into by the claimants on the matter.

On 2 March 2020, Stuart-Smith J gave judgment in relation to limitation issues. Continue reading