DOLMANS INSURANCE BULLETIN

Transcription

1 DOLMANS INSURANCE BULLETIN Welcome to the October 2017 edition of the Dolmans Insurance Bulletin In this issue we cover: REPORT ON The pre-action protocol for low value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents and low value personal injury (employers liability and public liability) claims - stage 3 procedure FOCUS ON Vicarious liability for torts of foster carers RECENT CASE UPDATE Civil procedure - non-party costs orders - referrals Dishonesty - measure of damages Employers liability Failure to pay interlocutory costs - debarring orders Personal injury - fixed costs - RTA s Relief from sanctions If there are any items you would like us to examine, or if you would like to include a comment on these pages, please the editor, Justin Harris, Partner, at justinh@dolmans.co.uk 1

2 DOLMANS REPORT ON THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND LOW VALUE PERSONAL INJURY (EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND PUBLIC LIABILITY) - STAGE 3 PROCEDURE The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims (the EL / PL Portal ) describes the behaviour the Court expects of parties prior to the commencement of proceedings where a Claimant claims damages valued at no more than 25,000 in an employers liability ( EL ) claim or in a public liability claim ( PL ). With some exceptions, the EL / PL Portal applies to all such claims arising from an accident occurring on or after 31 July 2013 or, in a disease claim, where no letter of claim has been sent to a Defendant before that date. The most frequently encountered exceptions to the EL / PL Portal are, in the case of disease claims, where there is more than one Defendant or for mesothelioma claims. The EL / PL Portal (and the CPR) recognises that compliance with the terms of the EL / PL Portal might not be possible before the expiry of the limitation period. In such circumstances, the EL / PL Portal provides that a Claimant may commence proceedings using the procedure set out under CPR Part 8 and in accordance with Practice Direction 8B (Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents and Low Value Personal Injury (Employers Liability and Public Liability) Claims Stage 3 Procedure). The procedure permits Claimants to apply to Court for an Order to stay (ie suspend) the CPR Part 8 proceedings while the parties take steps to follow the EL / PL Portal. The majority of Practice Direction 8B is concerned with the situation in a claim where the parties have followed the EL / PL Portal, but are unable to agree the amount of damages payable at the end of Stage 2. Quite properly, the Practice Direction provides a mechanism whereby the parties can bring the quantum issue before the Court whilst keeping the claim in the EL / PL Portal. However, paragraphs 16.1 to 16.7 contain a self-contained code relating to limitation, where compliance with the EL / PL Portal is not possible before the expiry of a limitation period (para 16.1). In such circumstances, a Claimant may start proceedings under CPR Part 8, stating that a stay of proceedings is sought in order to comply with the EL / PL Portal (para 16.2). The costs benefit to Defendants in enabling claims running up to limitation to continue in the EL / PL Portal is obvious in that it removes the need for Claimants to exit the EL / PL Portal in order to issue CPR Part 7 proceedings. 2

3 DOLMANS REPORT ON In such cases, a Claimant must send to a Defendant the CPR Part 8 Claim Form together with the Order imposing the stay. No time limit for doing so is explicitly imposed in the CPR, but the standard Court text, the White Book, suggests that such notification must be immediate. The requirement to file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service is disapplied. The terms of para 16.2 are not mandatory and, as such, there is an obvious risk that a Claimant might make use of the procedure without having notified a Defendant that they have done so. Where a stay is granted by the Court, and the parties have complied with the EL / PL Portal and the Claimant wishes to start the Stage 3 Procedure, a Claimant must then make an application to Court to lift the stay and request directions (para 16.5). Where the claim exits the EL / PL Portal during Stage 1 or Stage 2, and a Claimant wishes to start proceedings in the normal way under CPR Part 7, they must make an application to the Court to lift the stay and request directions (para 16.7 again no time limit is imposed for doing so, but should, presumably, be immediate). It is this second scenario that can give rise to problems through abuse of the procedure. In Jim Bebbington v RWE Generation UK Limited [2017], Dolmans were instructed in a Noise Induced Hearing Loss ( NIHL ) claim in circumstances where it became apparent to the Defendant s insurers that the Claimant had started proceedings under CPR Part 8 (due to perceived limitation problems) more than 2 months before the claim was submitted through the EL / PL Portal. The Claimant s Solicitors, on their own admission, had been instructed on 30 April 2014 and had requested copy medical records on 25 June The Claimant underwent an audiogram at his home on 17 December Thereafter, nothing further appears to have happened until 25 April 2017, when the EL / PL Portal Claim Notification Form ( CNF ) was incorrectly submitted to Capita, the incorrect claims handlers for the claim (who promptly rejected the same). Unbeknownst to the Defendant, a CPR Part 8 Claim Form was issued on 27 April 2017 (3 days before the third anniversary of the Claimant s Solicitor s instruction) and, on 11 May 2017, the County Court at Manchester ordered that the proceedings be stayed until 20 November On 2 June 2017, the Claimant resubmitted the CNF to the correct claims handler who, on 30 June 2017, advised the Claimant s Solicitors that the claim was statute barred (by reference to the aforesaid initial date of instruction and the time elapsed to the anticipated date of first notification, 2 June 2017). On 3 July 2017, the Claimant served a copy of the Order and CPR Part 8 Claim Form on the Defendant (ie some 6 weeks or so late), claiming that proceedings had been issued in time. The claim was formally rejected under the EL / PL Portal on 5 July The Claimant s Solicitors were invited to apply to lift the stay pursuant to para 16.7, but refused to do so on the ground that they were not ready to start proceedings under CPR Part 7. 3

4 DOLMANS REPORT ON Quite naturally, the Defendant was aggrieved that the Claimant appeared to have done nothing to progress his claim for some 22 months, but had, through what it considered an abuse of the CPR Part 8 procedure, obtained in effect a Court sanctioned limitation moratorium whilst he assembled a case. Dolmans were instructed (on 6 July 2017) to apply to set aside the Order and/or to lift the stay, with costs. At a hearing on 10 August 2017, the District Judge set aside (with costs) the Order granting the stay (ie that dated 11 May 2017) on the grounds that the claim was not in the EL / PL Portal when the CPR Part 8 proceedings were commenced and / or the stay was granted. The District Judge stopped short, however, from striking out the whole of the CPR Part 8 proceedings as an abuse of process. Subsequent to this, the Claimant obtained, ex-parte, an Order converting the existing CPR Part 8 Proceedings to CPR Part 7 Proceedings and for a transfer of the case out of the County Court Money Claims Centre in Salford to the County Court at Swansea. In response, the Defendant issued a further application to strike out this (effectively second) set of proceedings on the grounds that this would constitute an abuse of process. Those proceedings are currently extant and our latest application for strike out is due for hearing in early November We may find the proceedings are discontinued in advance of that hearing. Comment L I M I T A T I O N The self-contained procedure set out in paragraphs 16.1 to 16.7 of Practice Direction 8B works well in those situations where both parties wish to deal with the claim under the EL / PL Portal to conclusion and are aware that a CPR Part 8 Claim Form has been issued, and a stay obtained, for that purpose. The further one moves away from that ideal, the more susceptible the self-contained procedure becomes to abuse. We have seen a number of instances recently, albeit the above case is perhaps the most obvious, where it would appear that the CPR Part 8 procedure is being used (arguably in an abuse of process) to circumvent earlier inactivity by the Claimant and/or his Solicitors. As is perhaps obvious from the comments above, this was never the intention of the procedure which, used properly, fulfils a useful and necessary purpose in terms of containing costs with reference to Portal Claims which cannot be resolved before the limitation guillotine comes down. 4

5 DOLMANS REPORT ON In that context, it is perhaps disappointing that the District Judge stopped short of striking out the claim as an abuse of process. An appeal was considered in this context, but, ultimately, not considered reasonably necessary. As touched upon above, the Claimant is now seeking to circumvent the Order made by subsequent issue of CPR Part 7 Proceedings, ignoring the obvious limitation issues inherent with the same. Thus, the stage is set for yet further argument as to abuse of process and we will keep readers advised. Jamie Mitchell Associate Dolmans Solicitors For further information regarding this article, please contact Jamie Mitchell at jamiem@dolmans.co.uk or visit our website at 5

6 DOLMANS FOCUS ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR TORTS FOR FOSTER CARERS Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 Findings at the Original Trial and the Court of Appeal Those of you who attended the Dolmans Keynote Seminar this year will recall the concerns that were raised by us in relation to the long awaited Supreme Court Judgment in NA v Nottinghamshire County Council; or Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council as it can now be referred to. Judgment was handed down on 18 October 2017 and bears out some of those concerns that we had identified. The Supreme Court has decided that it is fair, just and reasonable for a Local Authority to be vicariously liable for the intentional acts of its foster parents towards a foster child, notwithstanding the absence of any fault on the Local Authority s part and the absence of any formal employment relationship between the two. At the original Trial, it was accepted that the Claimant had been physically and sexually abused by foster carers with whom she was placed by the Local Authority between 1985 and The statutory framework during the relevant period was the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Boarding Out Regulations The Judge decided that there was no negligence in relation to the placement and the supervision of the placement, and there was no evidence that the Local Authority had known about the abuse. Further, the Judge found that, in the absence of any fault on the Local Authority s part, liability for the abuse should not be imposed on the Local Authority and the claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Claimant s appeal on the issues of non-fault liability. Supreme Court Essentially, the issue that the Supreme Court had to consider was whether a Local Authority could be liable for the intentional acts of its foster carers, on the basis of either: (a) (b) Vicarious liability or; Non delegable duty. 6

7 DOLMANS FOCUS ON Non-Delegable Duty A non-delegable duty is one that cannot be discharged by the exercise of reasonable care in the selection of a third party to whom the function is delegated. Was the duty arising under the relevant statutory framework at the time, in relation to the welfare of the child, one that could not be delegated to foster carers? The Supreme Court decided that the required Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2013] UKSC 66 criteria were not met. The statutory framework did not impose a duty on the Local Authority to provide day to day care, but, rather, it imposed a duty to arrange and monitor that function, to be performed by the foster carers. It was too wide a responsibility to impose a duty on a Local Authority to ensure that reasonable care was taken for the safety of children in the care of foster parents. Therefore, the Supreme Court decided that the duty was delegable and that liability did not attach to the Local Authority for a failure by the foster carer to take reasonable care of the child. Vicarious Liability The doctrine of vicarious liability can only apply where the relationship between the Defendant and the Tortfeasor has particular characteristics. The Supreme Court applied the principles set out in Cox v Ministry of Defence [2016] UKSC 10 to the relationship and found that it did have the required characteristics. The Supreme Court identified that the torts, against the Claimant by the foster carers, were committed in the course of an activity carried out for the benefit of the Local Authority. It was not possible to draw a sharp distinction between the activity of the Local Authority and that of the foster parents. Children in foster care were vulnerable to abuse by foster parents as they were in a position of trust. The Local Authority had significant control over the foster parents. It was identified that the process of becoming a foster carer involved extensive assessments, safeguarding and reference checks and attendance at preapproval training. Further, the foster placement was monitored. Foster parents usually have insufficient means to meet a substantial award of damages, whilst Local Authorities can more easily do this. 7

8 DOLMANS FOCUS ON Current Statutory Framework Impact of Judgement The Court did restrict the impact of the Judgment as follows: Parents Torts At the Dolmans Keynote Seminar, we had raised concerns about the potential impact if there was vicarious liability for torts committed by parents and other family members with whom a child is placed by a Local Authority. The Court specifically identified that extension of the doctrine of vicarious liability to such placements was unlikely due to the different type of relationship that a Local Authority has with foster carers and family members. The Court has restricted their decision to the statutory framework and practice in place at the time (mid 1980 s). The Court was not prepared to identify that vicarious liability would apply under the current statutory framework of the Children Act It remains to be seen the extent to which cases arising during either later or earlier periods could be successfully distinguished; although it is difficult to see why the Judgment would not apply to such cases as the relationship has not significantly changed. Notwithstanding the restrictions identified above, the impact of the Judgment is nonetheless likely to be significant insofar as: Amendment of Existing Negligence Claims As pre-empted at the Dolmans Keynote Seminar, this Judgment is likely to lead to Claimants Solicitors reviewing their existing negligence cases against Local Authorities relating to abuse by foster carers with a view to amending pleadings to include vicarious liability allegations. Such allegations will be much easier for a Claimant to prove as it will not be necessary for a Claimant to prove any fault on a Local Authority s part. Review of Old Cases Claimants Solicitors are likely to review their old foster care cases to consider whether, in fact, there is now a case against a Local Authority under vicarious liability, when previously the case was not proceeded with as negligence could not be proved. 8

9 DOLMANS FOCUS ON Extension of the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability Generally To what extent will the doctrine be extended to other non-employer/employee relationships? Provision of Social Care Will the decision have an impact upon how social care for children is delivered? As will be seen, this decision is an important one for Local Authorities with a widening of the floodgates. Claimants now only have to prove the fact of the abuse by the foster carers to succeed, leaving limitation as the only possible defence in cases if they are historic. Consideration of the merits of any Limitation Defence will, therefore, be key to any potential Defence. Clare Hoskins Partner Dolmans Solicitors For further information regarding this article, please contact Clare Hoskins at clareh@dolmans.co.uk or visit our website at 9

10 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE Civil Procedure - Non-Party Costs Orders - Referrals Nitin Trehan v (1) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (2) Asons Solicitors (3) Haroom Karim [2017] Nottingham County Court - Lawtel The Claimant had been involved in two road traffic accidents. The Third Defendant, a claims referral company, offered to make insurance claims on his behalf. The first claim was settled, but no settlement was reached on the second claim. The Second Defendant s Solicitors issued proceedings on the Claimant s behalf, corresponding with the claims referral company to obtain the Claimant s signature on various documents. The Claimant had no direct contact with the Solicitors and did not attend the Trial, having advised the Solicitors that the claims company was dealing with his claim. At Trial, the Claimant s claim was struck out and a Costs Order was made against him. The Claimant applied to set aside the Costs Order on the basis that the personal injury claim had been made without his knowledge or authority, as he had told the claims company to drop the claim. Handwriting analysis indicated that the Claimant s signatures on a number of documents, including the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim and Schedule of Loss, had been forged. It was found that the signatures had been forged by the Third Defendant. It was held that the proceedings had been commenced without the Claimant s knowledge. The later realisation of what had happened (when he was contacted by the Second Defendant s Solicitors) did not amount to his adoption of the proceedings or make him liable for costs. The Solicitors had no direct contact with the Claimant. They did not obtain any authority or signature to any funding arrangement and took no steps to obtain evidence of their client s identity in breach of the Money Laundering Regulations Their gross failures made it wholly just for them to be liable for the costs of unauthorised litigation. In addition, they had deliberately dated letters incorrectly to generate a false trail. The Solicitors should not be relieved of the consequences of their own impropriety because the Third Defendant was independently dishonest. The Third Defendant had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the claim. He bore responsibility for the commencement and continuance of the claim. Non-party Costs Orders under r.46 2 were exceptional and required more than merely funding litigation, but the forging of documents and the initiation and continuation of the proceedings for personal gain justified the making of such an Order. It was determined that the Solicitors and the Third Defendant were liable to the First Defendant insurer for all of the costs of the litigation on a joint and several basis, with responsibility being apportioned one third to the Solicitors and two thirds to the Third Defendant. 10

11 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE Dishonesty - Measure of Damages Carl Fletcher v Anthony Keatley (By His Father and Litigation Friend) [2017] EWCA Civ 1540 The Respondent was a passenger in a car who suffered a mild head injury. At Trial there was an issue as to whether the Respondent was exaggerating his symptoms. Neurologists agreed that his injury had led to a post-concussional syndrome which would last until late 2008 and that neurological effects would not have lasted beyond that time. Both parties called evidence from a Neuropsychiatrist and a Neuropsychologist. The Judge drew conclusions from the evidence of the Respondent s Neuropsychiatrist, which he said was supported by that of the Appellant s Neuropsychologist. The Appellant s Neuropsychiatrist disagreed with the diagnosis made. The Judge found that by May 2009 there was an overlay of deliberate behaviour and had the Respondent s family acted reasonably in getting him neuropsychological support in 2012, he would have recovered by late On assessment of damages, the Judge reduced the Respondent s award for general damages by 50% to reflect the Respondent s deliberate behaviour. He reduced his damages for past loss of earnings by 40% for the same reason. The Appellant appealed and argued that the Judge had been plainly wrong to accept the opinion of the Respondent s Neuropsychiatrist over that of the Appellant s Neuropsychiatrist and that he had been wrong not to have struck out the claims for damages after The Court of Appeal held that the Judge s conclusion was one that he had been entitled to reach on the evidence. The Judge s analysis was not defective and the balance of the expert evidence favoured the Respondent. In relation to the damages awarded for the later periods, the Judge had reached an entirely proper conclusion. He had considered the matter precisely in line with the approach set out in Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd [2012] UKSC 26 and his decision could not be faulted. The Respondent had proved to the Judge s satisfaction some genuine adverse consequences of the accident in the 2009 to 2013 period and the Judge had reached a pragmatic conclusion within the Summers guidance. Appeal dismissed. 11

12 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE Employers Liability Johnson v University of Bristol [2017] CA (Civ) The Claimant, J, was employed by the Defendant university as a carpenter. He was required to attend a self-catering student flat to repair part of a kitchen unit. As J opened the door of a cupboard, it collapsed and utensils fell out injuring J. J brought a claim for damages against the university alleging breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations At first instance the Judge held that the kitchen unit was not work equipment within reg. 2(1) of the 1998 Regulations as it had not been provided for a work purpose, as it was just for storage in the flat, and that being repaired did not make it work equipment. Further, the flat could not amount to a work place within reg. 2 (1) of the 1992 Regulations because it was domestic premises. Accordingly, neither the 1998 nor the 1992 Regulations applied and the claim was dismissed. J appealed submitting that the Judge should have applied a wide, purposive construction of work equipment, use at work and work place within the Regulations. He submitted that the university s function was not just to provide education services, but included its role as a landlord of student accommodation, and that there was a sufficient connection between that latter function and the provision of the kitchen unit to bring it within the Regulations. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Whilst the university clearly provided student accommodation as part of its function, the kitchen unit had not been equipment supplied to its workforce or equipment its workforce had to use in the course of their employment, other than, on occasion, to repair it. Simply working on repairing an item did not make that item work equipment within reg. 2(1) of the 1998 Regulations. The kitchen cupboard was in private student accommodation and was not used in the course of work. Determination of whether the kitchen in the student flat amounted to domestic premises, and was thereby excluded from amounting to a work place under reg. 2(1) of the 1992 Regulations, was a mixed question of fact and law for the Judge, and the Court could only interfere with his decision if it contained an error of law or mistake on the facts. It was not possible to say that the Judge had been in error in concluding that the kitchen, as an integral part of the student flat, amounted to domestic premises and was not, therefore, a place of work for J to which the 1992 Regulations applied. 12

13 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE Failure to Pay Interlocutory Costs - Debarring Orders Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Others [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm) In ongoing litigation, in which there had been several applications and appeals, some of the Defendants were ordered to pay interlocutory costs totalling 1,173, The Defendants failed to pay and the Claimants sought an order that unless the Defendants paid the sums due within 14 days, they be debarred from defending the claim. The Defendants submitted that it would be unreasonable and unfair for the Court to make a Debarring Order. The Judge laid down the principles which he considered were applicable when dealing with an application that a party to ongoing litigation should be debarred from continuing to participate in the litigation by reason of having failed to pay an order for costs made during the proceedings as follows: (1) The imposition of a sanction for non-payment of a Costs Order involves the exercise of a discretion pursuant to the Court s inherent jurisdiction. (2) The Court should keep carefully in mind the policy behind the imposition of Costs Orders made payable within a specified period of time before the end of the litigation, namely, that they serve to discourage irresponsible interlocutory applications or resistance to successful interlocutory applications. (3) Consideration must be given to all the relevant circumstances including : (a) the potential applicability of Article 6 ECHR; (b) the availability of alternative means of enforcing the Costs Order through the different mechanisms of execution; (c) whether the Court making the Costs Order did so notwithstanding a submission that it was inappropriate to make a Costs Order payable before the conclusion of the proceedings in question; and where no such submission was made, whether it ought to have been made or there was no good reason for it not having been made. (4) A submission by the party in default that he lacks the means to pay and that, therefore, a Debarring Order would be a denial of justice and/or in breach of Article 6 of ECHR should be supported by detailed, cogent and proper evidence which gives full and frank disclosure of the witness s financial position, including his or her prospects of raising the necessary funds where his or her cash resources are insufficient to meet the liability. (5) Where the defaulting party appears to have no or markedly insufficient assets in the jurisdiction and has not adduced proper and sufficient evidence of impecuniosity, the Court ought generally to require payment of the Costs Order as the price for being allowed to continue to contest the proceedings, unless there are strong reasons for not so ordering. 13

14 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE (6) If the Court decides that a Debarring Order should be made, the order ought to be an Unless Order, except where there are strong reasons for imposing an immediate order. Applying those principles to the current case, the Judge held that the only effective sanction was to impose an order debarring the Defendants from defending the action unless they paid the monies due within 28 days. Personal Injury - Fixed Costs - RTA s Kathleen Whalley v Advantage Insurance Co Ltd [2017] Kingston-upon-Hull CC The Court examined in detail conflicting and diverse authorities concerning the recovery of costs in low value traffic accident claims, focussing particularly on the costs consequences of a Defendant accepting a Part 36 Offer out of time and whether the late acceptance of a Part 36 Offer entitled the Claimant to indemnity costs. The Court held that the late acceptance of a Part 36 Offer did not entitle the Claimant to indemnity costs. The conclusion in Sutherland v Khan (unreported) that indemnity costs could be ordered, even where there was no finding that the Defendant was guilty of inappropriate behaviour, was unsupported and could no longer stand. It was held that the fixed costs regime in CPR r.45.29a applied to the entire claim; McKeown v Venton (unreported) applied. In the instant case, the parties had negotiated quantum and damages had been paid. Save for the issue of costs, the action was concluded; the balance of the claim having been compromised outside of the Part 36 procedure. The availability of seeking Judgment was reserved to situations where payment remained outstanding. Part 36 was a self-contained code. It provided for the costs consequences of certain outcomes, but was silent as to the costs arising from the late acceptance of an offer made under the RTA Protocol. That silence was deliberate and meant that costs fell for determination under r.45.29b; Solomon v Cromwell Group Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 1584 followed. Unless there were exceptional circumstances or out of the norm conduct to justify indemnity costs, the fixed regime would apply and late acceptance of an offer did not constitute exceptional circumstances. 14

15 DOLMANS RECENT CASE UPDATE Relief from Sanctions (1) Chelsea Bridge Apartments Ltd (2) Ward v (1) Old Street Homes Ltd (2) Donnellan Ch D (Deputy Master Cousins) In a dispute concerning three property developments, the Claimants had been ordered to serve their draft Particulars of Claim by 6 January The Claimants did not comply and made an application for an extension of time / relief from sanctions on 22 March Draft Particulars of Claim were attached to the application and accompanying documents in support of the Particulars of Claim were served on 30 March Applying the principles set out in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014], the Judge found that the delay in serving the draft Particulars of Claim was a serious and significant failure. There was no good reason for the delay. Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Claimants had not conducted the litigation efficiently or at a proportionate cost. The Claimants had embarked upon the litigation with an ill thought out and precipitate application on a without notice basis attempting to seek a freezing order, which was not granted. A poorly drafted Claim Form was issued and served pursuant to the Claimants undertaking to the Court to do so and the Claimants then immediately sought a stay. The Claimants then refused to mediate. The Judge refused to grant relief from sanctions and refused the Claimants application for an extension of time. For further information on any of the above cases, please contact: Amanda Evans at amandae@dolmans.co.uk or Judith Blades at judithb@dolmans.co.uk 15

16 DOLMANS TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES At Dolmans, we want to ensure that you are kept informed and up-to-date about any changes and developments in the law. To assist you in this, we can offer a whole range of training seminars which are aimed at Local Authorities, their Brokers, Claims Handlers and Insurers. All seminars will be tailored to make sure that they cover the points relevant to your needs. Seminars we can offer include: Apportionment in HAVS cases Bullying, harassment, intimidation and victimisation in the workplace personal injury claims Conditional Fee Agreements and costs issues Corporate manslaughter Data Protection Defending claims the approach to risk management Display Screen Regulations duties on employers Employers liability update Employers liability claims investigation for managers and supervisors Flooding and drainage duties and powers of landowners and Local Authorities for drainage under the Land Drainage Act Common law rights and duties of landowners in respect of drainage Flooding and drainage duties and powers of Highway Authorities for drainage and flooding under the Highways Act Consideration of case law relating to the civil liabilities of the Highway Authority in respect of highway waters Highways training Housing disrepair claims Industrial disease for Defendants The Jackson Reforms (to include : costs budgeting; disclosure of funding arrangements; disclosure of medical records; non party costs orders; part 36/Calderbank offers; qualified one way costs shifting (QWOCS); strikeout/ fundamental dishonesty/fraud; 10% increase in General Damages) Liability of Local Education Authority for accidents involving children Ministry of Justice reforms Pre-action protocol in relation to occupational disease claims overview and tactics Public liability claims update If you would like any further information in relation to any of our training seminars, or wish to have an informal chat regarding any of the above, please contact our Training Partner, Clare Hoskins at clareh@dolmans.co.uk 16