European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
It seems that big changes to data protection as we know it are on their way to the UK as after several years of preparation and lobbying, the European Parliament has finally adopted the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [Directive 95/46/EC]. So what is the GDPR you ask? Well it will officially replace the basis behind the Data Protection Act 1998 and will become law in all EU member states from May 2018. The GDPR will also affect any businesses who process the personal data of EU citizens, even if they are based outside of the EU. The document lays out compliance measures that each member state will need to meet before they take over for good in the summer of 2018 but what are the main changes…
To QOCS or not to QOCS?
I imagine that all of us in the world of PI litigation have been patiently waiting for the raft of satellite litigation to hit the already clogged up courts following the Jackson changes, but has that really happened as yet? Currently not to the extent that some predicted, perhaps due to the courts being so busy, but no doubt we will see more in the coming months and years as more cases with QOCS protection come before Judges. One issue that has been considered recently however, is will QOCS apply where there are two CFA’s in place: one signed and dated after 1st April 2013; and one signed and dated before 1st April 2013. So what is the answer? Well, this came before Master Howarth (Senior Costs Judge) to…
Success Fees and Noise Induced Hearing Loss – Say that Again?
Judgment has now been handed down by Mr Justice Phillips in conjoined cases, Dalton and Others –v- British Telecommunications plc [2015] EWHC 616 (QB) At stake was the preliminary issue as to whether NIHL/tinnitus is to be treated as an injury or a disease, for the purposes of calculating fixed success fees under the former part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendant submitted that the court had to consider the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the word “disease”. The CPR contains no definition therefore the word simply had to be applied in the context of a claim for NIHL/tinnitus. The Claimant submitted that the court should consider a considerable body of material in order to construe “disease” more widely to include the condition of…
It’s Fundamentally Dishonest (or is it?)
The new rule on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury actions came quietly into force on the 13th April under s57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Little has been said by the judiciary about this new rule and Claimants and their lawyers may well be carrying on their business as before. “Fundamental dishonesty” first arose in the new CPR 44.16, so that Claimants who were found to be ‘fundamentally dishonest’ lost the protection of QOCS. But what exactly has changed under the new rule? The court can now find that a Claimant has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to “the primary claim or a related claim”. Where such a finding is made, the court must dismiss the primary claim, unless it can be satisfied that the Claimant…