0370 270 6000

Murrell v Healey

8 May 2001
The issues

To what extent documents relating to the s ettlement Of An Action For Damages Following A Personal Injury Action Were Admissible As Evidence In A Subsequent Action Relating To Further Injuries Resulting From A Second Accident.

The facts

The Claimant had had two road traffic accidents in 1995. At first instance the Judge who assessed the loss of earnings resulting from the second accident admitted in evidence details from the tort feesers insurers who had settled the first claim. The documents were in part the Claimant alleged a record of without prejudice negotiations and were inadmissible or irrelevant.

The decision

Following Muller -v- Linsley (C.A. 1996) documents produced from the insurers file were relevant to an enquiry as to what injury the Claimant had suffered in the first accident and were admissible.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up