Q&As

A defendant has made an application to amend their defence in an EL Multi-track Claim. The claimant has made a Part 18 request for information but has not consented to the amendments. A cross-application was made by the claimant for a response to the Part 18 request and an extension of time to file a witness statement. Statements are due to be exchanged in the extended directions in two weeks’ time. The court has adjourned the hearing of both applications to an unknown date in the future. What happens in relation to witness evidence? If exchange does not occur within two weeks, will the claimant be in breach of the directions? What if the extension is refused?

read titleRead full title
Produced in partnership with Jamie Gamble of No5 Barristers Chambers
Published on: 30 September 2020
imgtext

At the crux of the issue posed by the question is the position of a party who fails to comply with a direction of the court but who has made an application to extend time for compliance prior to the deadline for that direction. In the situation described, the claimant will be in breach of the court order with respect

Jamie Gamble
Jamie Gamble chambers

Jamie practices exclusively in the areas of personal injury and clinical negligence. He is ranked as a tier one leading junior for personal injury and clinical negligence (Midlands) in the 2016 edition of the Legal 500, which states that he is “a great all-round barrister”. He is also one of only 31 junior barristers in the country to be approved by the Spinal Injuries Association for catastrophic injury work.

Much of his work is now of substantial value (acting with or without a leader) and includes claims of the utmost severity and death.

Jamie has significant experience of all areas of personal injury work, including accidents at work, public liability claims, road traffic accidents (including claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau), industrial disease, CICA claims, and claims involving allegations of fraud.

Recent and ongoing cases that Jamie has been involved in have included: (i) cases of severe brain injury, including an ongoing case with a potential value in excess of £3 million and Re M (2014), a CICA claim where an award of £365,000 was obtained; (ii) Re G (2016), negligent abdominal surgery, settled for in excess of £500,000; (iii) Re B (2016), death caused by infection and necrotising fasciitis, settled for £425,000; (iv) Re A (2014), fatal road traffic case settled for £265,000; and (v) B v P (2013), above knee amputation following a motorcycle accident, settled for £1.6 million.

Jamie also regularly lectures to solicitor and insurer clients on legal developments and civil procedure.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Multi-track definition
What does Multi-track mean?

The appropriate track for claims for which neither the small claims track nor the fast track is appropriate.

Popular documents