0370 270 6000

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

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