On 10 April 2024, the High Court handed down its decision in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB). In that judgment the presentation of the Claimant’s claim for personal injury was considered fundamentally dishonest and so was dismissed under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”). In considering whether…
Ropewalk
Personal Injury Blog
08 Jan 2024
After the introduction of the reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules in 2013, you may recall some judges becoming, at least initially, excited about the prospect of experts giving evidence concurrently (so-called “hot tubbing”). Since that early flush of excitement, I have been involved in only one trial in which it was used and I…
30 Nov 2023
The Supreme Court has handed down its highly anticipated decision in TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal of the Claimant, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal. The judgment can be accessed here. The decision of the Court of Appeal is discussed in the author’s blog…
Ropewalk Chambers has a market-leading reputation in the field of personal injury. Its Members are known for providing robust advocacy, close attention to detail and comprehensive, practical advice at every stage.
Members of Chambers deal with the full breadth of personal injury claims, whether arising out of road traffic accidents, employers’ liability, public liability, occupiers’ liability, product liability, sporting accidents or accidents involving animals. Claims at all levels of severity are accommodated. Our barristers are experienced in dealing with limitation, liability, causation and quantum in personal injury claims.
Work is distributed within Chambers to enable Members of Chambers to represent both Claimants and Defendants in this field.
To find out more about our Personal Injury barristers, click here.
Subscribe for UpdatesRecent Posts
07 Dec 2023
Provisional damages operate as an exception to the general rule that damages are assessed on a once-and-for-all basis. Where a claimant finds themselves at a risk of developing a disease or deterioration in their physical or mental condition in the future, the general rule would require the court to assess that risk and compensate the…
28 Jul 2023
On 26 July 2023, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the case of FXF v English Karate Federation Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 891, regarding the correct approach to dealing with applications to set aside default judgments. Specifically, the court addressed the issue whether the well-trodden criteria from Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR…
25 May 2023
On 9 May 2023, Ritchie J sitting in the High Court handed down judgment in Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB) which addressed the question of whether the police had a duty to warn the Claimant that her violent ex-partner was lurking outside her home. A link to the judgment…
Find barristers with expertise in Personal Injury cases
More updates
-
23 May 2023Read more
This is the first in a series of blogs that I shall be authoring on the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) and some of the current trends that I am seeing with claims brought against landlords under s. 4. Introduction Claims under s. 4 of the DPA have, as a basic ingredient, notice as a…
-
16 May 2023Read more
In the recent Northern Irish case of Carberry (Deceased) v Ministry of Defence [2023] NIKB 54, McAlinden J delivered an impressive and lengthy judgment arising from the shooting of the Deceased on 13 November 1974. The circumstances of the case stretch back to the period identified by the judge at [208] as ‘the darkest days…
-
2 May 2023Read more
On 26 April 2023, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2023] UKSC 15. Having reviewed all the leading authorities of the House of Lords and Supreme Court on vicarious liability from the last twenty or so years, the judgment set out five principles a court should…
-
26 April 2023Read more
E-scooters, much like Marmite, split opinions. Well, it seems our Parisian friends have spoken, and the answer is non! Not to Marmite, although one suspects the answer might be the same, but to e-scooters. On 2 April 2023, the inhabitants of Paris were asked for their view and, with almost 90% of the vote, e-scooters will be…
-
25 April 2023Read more
In Jenkinson v Hertfordshire County Council [2023] EWHC 872 (KB) (judgment here), Andrew Baker J has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons on the question of when medical treatment following a tort can break the chain of causation. The orthodox approach to this issue had been to follow the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Webb v…
-
20 April 2023Read more
The appeal decision of Julian Knowles J in Après Lounge Limited v Wade [2023] EWHC 190 (KB) (judgment here) provides a useful reminder that the courts must not impose a counsel of perfection on defendants, who are required only to exercise reasonable care. The First-Instance Decision The Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant for…
-
31 March 2023Read more
In Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB), the Claimant, an amateur rugby player was tragically rendered paraplegic and wheelchair-dependent for the rest of her life. She claimed damages in negligence against the Defendant, who carried out the tackle which caused this injury. Participation in sport raises particular issues in the context of legal duties…
-
31 March 2023Read more
The Claimant in Doyle v M&D Foundations & Building Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 927 was injured on a construction site in May 2014. His claim was, in the usual way, entered on the MoJ’s EL/PL Portal and dropped out when no liability response was received within the prescribed time limit. Proceedings were subsequently issued…
-
30 March 2023Read more
I blogged on law and practice in relation to fundamental dishonesty in January 2021, and now update that blog with further dispatches from the front line. The Incidence of Fundamental Dishonesty: An Unscientific Snapshot of 2022 In order to have a sense of how my own experience was mirrored by colleagues in Ropewalk Chambers, I conducted a…
-
15 March 2023Read more
In Fawcett v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB), Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered an application by the Claimant to exclude the Defendant’s expert evidence in a personal injury trial. The application was dismissed. Background The Claimant sued the Defendant as administratrix of the estate of her late husband Mr…
-
14 March 2023Read more
Litkraft Ltd v (1) Cottrell (2) Williams (3) Goldsmith [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) has touched upon, but not decided, whether certain fee sharing arrangements could amount to a probited referral fee under section 56 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The court did however decide that a contractual claim for unpaid…
-
7 March 2023Read more
This blog reviews the forthcoming changes to the QOCS regime which will reverse the effect of Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43 and other recent cases. The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023/105 (for brevity, ‘the Amendment Rules’) are about to amend the CPR’s QOCS provisions in an apparent attempt to negate the effects of various recent authorities,…