Sunday 17 June 2007

Clean Shoes and P.I


I have just had confirmation that I am going to be spending a day observing a leading Q.C start a multi-million pound personal injury claim in the high court next month. In my email from him he requested that I meet him in chambers with "A suit, clean shoes and pen and notebook" I did not know how to address the shoe issue with him :) as I always wear clean shoes.

He advised me to read the following cases

1. Waseem Sarwar v MIB 2007 EWHC 275 (QB)
2. [2007] EWCH 1255 (admin)

Upon reading the cases it transpired that when looking at issues of Quantum, the barrister needs to possess the talents of both a fortune teller and a bookmaker. The main issue that struck me in relation to the above case was the assumption that the claimant would obtain professional qualifications in accountancy when it was clear it was a total slacker and in my humble opinion he would be lucky to hold down a job at McDonalds. In addition I could not believe some of costs that the claimant was seeking and some of the costs that the judge allowed. It would be interesting to hear your views on some of the costs that the judge allowed in this case.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hiya B2B,

Quantum is the pits isn't it? The Learned Head of BVC at my Provider once likened the process to "Backing Chambers Racehorse" (does this mean that ALL chambers own racehorses and have a sort of Bar Grand National at the end of the legal year??).
Your take on the issue is much better!

The Vinthusiast said...

I haven't read the cases you refer to above. However, I did spend a week marshalling a judge last year on a really interesting PI case (the total claim was for about £770,000) where the claimant was seeking damages for future loss of earnings on the rather tenuous premise that she would, but for the injury (and the consequential psychological effects), have gone on to obtain further qualifications which would have significantly enhanced her career prospects and enabled her to earn a much better salary. The judge was pretty sceptical and her final award reflected this, being substantially less that her claim (although luckily for her coming in at a few hundred pounds more than the Part 36 payment!).

I guess that it is our job as barristers to get as much as possible for our clients by way of damages and it is inevitable that we will try and claim under as many heads of damage as possible, no matter how tenuous, if we are pursuing a claim.

The judge I sat with last year did tell me after the event what was being claimed by way of costs (he had deferred judgment so I wasn't still there when the application was made) - it was about 3 times the ultimate award of damages - he said he was only grateful that he wouldn't be doing the costs hearing! Having seen at first hand a trial of quite a complicated PI case (which didn't even include issues of liability as the defendant had already been convicted under s20 OAPA, so was only about quantum) I am not surprised at some of the legal bills being claimed. Again, knowing that at a full costs hearing they are going to be scrutinised in detail, you are bound to start off claiming everything possible... L2B

Troubled barrister said...

"It is inevitable that we will try and claim under as many heads of damage as possible, no matter how tenuous, if we are pursuing a claim."

In my opinion, this is a classic mistake. Claiming too many heads of loss under special damages can cause your claim not to be taken seriously by the other side and the tribunal. When you are a Claimant special damages should be optimistic but not fanciful.

The Vinthusiast said...

This is why the claim in the case I was referring to resulted in an award of damages which fell a long way short of that which was claimed. Even though the award of damages exceeded the part 36 payment (marginally) the judge still said the claimant could only recover 90% of costs on the basis that he thought her claim was vastly over-inflated.

In order to claim under various heads of damage it goes without saying that there has to be some basis for such a claim - is it not sometimes the amount which becomes fanciful rather than the heads of damage themselves (although it is accepted in some cases these will also be over-optimistic). Mind you, if barristers hadn't been prepared to push the boundaries to some extent we possibly wouldn't have smith v manchester awards for example. I guess it's a question of getting the balance right...

Anonymous said...

Many workers suffer an accident at work in their professional lifetime. Unfortunately some are unsure of their rights and if they have a claim for compensation. Unfortunately many people attempt frivolous law suits attempting to get money out of their employer, while genuinely injured people who are out of work stay quiet. People should know their rights they may be eligible for compensation to cover medical bills or time out of work. Also if someone has a personal injury and it isn’t their fault the deserve reparations and explanations!