Table of contents
- Key PI updates
- Unpicking fundamental dishonesty
- Occupational disease claims
- Exploring claim for ‘lost years’ in asbestos-related mesothelioma case
- Part 36
- Interest-exclusive Part 36 offers in detailed assessment proceedings
- What makes a Part 36 offer ‘unjust’?
- Novel Part 36 offer on hourly rates only, denied additional amount under CPR 36.17(4)(d)
- Costs
- CPR 3.14 sanction—client remained liable for costs and so to recovery of same from opponent
More sections of this document available when you sign-in to Lexis+ or register for a free trial.
Article summary
This week’s edition of Personal Injury highlights includes analysis of the High Court decision in Patel v Arriva Midlands, which provides helpful guidance within the judgment as to when oral evidence of witnesses and expert evidence should be tested before a finding of fundamental dishonesty can be made. We have our usual round-up of other key cases and news as well as webinar dates for your diaries.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial