Defendant’s mud-slinging backfires


A letter of claim including a request for earnings details was sent on 13 August 2004. Liability was admitted on 20 October 2004. On 21 March 2005 we served our medical report with notification of intention to issue proceedings, and again requesting earnings details to quantify losses. On 14 July 2005 an amended medical report was served with notification of intention to issue proceedings.

The proceedings were served on the 30 September 2005. Earnings details were provided on 13 October 2005. A schedule of special damage was served on 3 November 2005.

The defendants then applied to the court for a stay of three months alleging that there has been a breach of the Pre Action Protocol by the claimant in failing to provide a schedule of special damage. The schedule served with the proceedings stated “specials to follow”. The Defendants alleged that the claimant had issues and served proceedings prematurely and unnecessarily.

In a lengthy statement in support of their application, the defendants referred to the claimant’s conduct as “unnecessarily aggressive and certainly unacceptable”.

The District Judge was having none of it and dismissed the defendant’s application. In answer to their allegation that we had issued proceedings unnecessarily, he said: “and what about the claimant’s right to this information in good time, and his compensation?”

Bardini -v- Pirelli UK Tyres Limited. Newcastle County Court, 23 December 2005.

Jet ski is not a “sea-going ship”

Confirmation from the Court of Appeal in a criminal case that a jet ski is not a sea-going ship used for navigation within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 gives further support to the view that an accident on a jet ski would have the normal three-year limitation period for pursuing proceedings, rather than the two-year limitation period for accidents at sea.


Regina -v- Goodwin. Court of Appeal, 4 January 2006. Times Law Reports.