When making an order under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975), the court has wide powers to direct how the award to the claimant should be made, for example by way of periodical payments, a lump sum payment, transfer of specific property, variation of trusts on which the deceased’s estate is held etc. The court also has power, under I(PFD)A 1975, s 2(4), ‘to make such consequential and supplemental provisions as the court thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the order or for the purpose

In Qader v Esure Services Ltd, Grant J found that the fixed costs regime applied to a claim removed from the protocol and pursued as a fast track matter. At para [2] of the judgment in the Qader case, Grant J stated: ‘The key issue raised in the appeal is whether, on a proper construction of the relevant provisions of the CPR, a fixed recoverable costs regime now applies to low value personal injury claims arising out of a road traffic accident, which start under the RTA Protocol but no longer continue under that Protocol or the Stage 3 Procedure, and instead proceed on the multi track.’ The District

An award of compensation for unfair dismissal generally consists of a basic award and a compensatory award. The compensatory award is intended to compensate the employee for financial losses suffered as a result of the unfair dismissal. It may be subject to various increases or deductions. The compensatory award is such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the loss sustained by the employee as a result of dismissal and in so far as that loss is attributable to actions of the employer. It is intended to compensate the employee rather than to punish the employer or give a gratuitous benefit to an employee for whom the tribunal feels sympathy. No account should be taken of any period

The Part 36 regime is a self-contained code which allows parties to make offers of settlement that are without prejudice save as to costs. Such offers are commonly used after the commencement of proceedings but, as set out in CPR 36.7(2), they can be made in pre-action correspondence to avoid incurring additional costs. The general rule is that, where a Part 36 offer is accepted, the recipient party is entitled to the costs of the ‘proceedings’. The costs of the ‘proceedings’ expressly includes recoverable pre-action costs. The Court of Appeal confirmed the scope of the predecessor rules to CPR 36.13 (which did not expressly provide for recovery of pre-action costs) in Solomon v Cromwell Group plc; Oliver v Doughty. The Court of Appeal held that the effect of accepting a Part 36 offer made before a claim had been issued was that the claimant was entitled

There is a special limitation period for claims against public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). It is set out at HRA 1998, s 7(5) which provides that: ‘Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of— (a) the period of one year

Where a person who had an interest in a claim has died and that person has no personal representative, the court may order the claim to proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased or may order a person to be appointed

1 April 2013 is the date on which provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 came into force. The reforms are not retrospective and there are still many conditional fee agreements (CFAs) containing provisions for recovery of success fees from the losing party (generally the defendant) which remain valid. Where a claimant wishes to be able to recover its success fee arising under a CFA entered into with their legal representative, that party must provide a notice of

In this Q&A, the claim brought against the two defendants is for the same loss and they are jointly and severally liable. If the Part 36 offer is accepted, then it is open to the first defendant to pursue the second defendant for recovery. The question does not state whether the first defendant has already made a claim pursuant to CPR 20 as part of their defence. A Part 20 claim is any claim other than a claim by a claimant against a defendant, so includes a counterclaim by a defendant against the claimant as well as a claim by one defendant against another. If a Part 20 claim has already

It is important to establish the assets of a trust as when assessing capital for means tested benefits and care in a residential setting, ‘a payment made in consequence of personal injury’ that is held in trust is disregarded under paragraph 12 of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987(IS(G)R 1987), SI 1987/1967 (IS(G)R 1987, SI 1987/1967, Sch 10, para 12). That disregard carries over into the other means tested benefits. The 52 weeks runs from the first payment so the client has 52 weeks from the date of the interim

The limitation period will not stop running automatically, however, section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) provides for a discretion for a personal injury claim time limit to be extended. The court is required to balance the prejudice to the parties of extending or not extending the time limit in these circumstances. The factors the court is to have regard to at LA 1980, s 33(3) include (a) the length of, and reasons for, the delay; (b) the extent to which the delay causes the

Employers duty of care An employer is under an overriding duty to take reasonable care of its employees' health and safety. The common law duty is a personal, non-delegable duty and cannot be discharged by entrusting the safety of one employee to another or to an independent contractor. To satisfy the common law duty an employer must provide: • safe premises and a safe place to work • safe plant, materials and equipment • a safe system of work and safe working practices • competent staff as colleagues For further information, see Practice Note: The employer's duty of care. Vicarious Liability An alternative route to liability may often be available—that of vicarious liability of the employer for the act or omission of its employee or agent.

Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) states: ‘An application for an order under section 2 of this Act shall not, except with the permission of the court, be made after the end of the period of six months from the date on which representation with respect to the estate of the deceased is first taken out [(but nothing prevents the making of an application before such representation is first taken out)].’ Accordingly the permission of the court is required to commence a claim more than six months after the date of the grant. The power to extend time under I(PFD)A 1975 belongs to the court. The claimant(s) will make the application for leave to apply out of time in the Part