0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Jameson v Lovis and Morris

31 July 2001
The issues

Civil Procedure Rules – Case Management Decisions – Renewed Applications

The facts

The claimant claimed damages for personal injuries following RTA. The Quantum only was in issue. At a CMC in May 2000 the District Judge made certain orders and in particular ordered the appointment of a single joint Neuropsychologist. He refused the application by the claimant for permission to call an expert in Neuropsychiatric Rehabilitation and appointed a joint care expert. The claimant appealed to the High Court Judge who dismissed the appeal. In March 2001 the CMC was reconvened when the District Judge heard applications from the claimant for the appointment of his own Neuropsychologist expert and an expert in Neuropsychiatric Rehabilitation and his own expert in care. These applications were refused on the grounds that the High Court Judge had dealt with these matters in the appeal. The District Judge had found that there was no change in circumstance what justified going behind the decision. The claimant appealed.

The decision

Litigants should not be allowed to air arguments over and over again because this would undermine the aim of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The Civil Procedure Rules were flexible and the flexibility allowed for a review of the interlocutory decision where there had been a change in circumstances.

There had been no such change here.

The applications were in an attempt to circumvent the appeals process. The appeal was misconceived.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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