0370 270 6000

F (A Child) v Allott, Bradford County Court

11 March 2002
The issues

Child Settlement Approval Hearings.

The facts

A personal injury claim involving injuries to a child after a road traffic accident was settled. Before the Approval Hearing, Defendant’s Solicitors wrote to Claimant’s Solicitors asking them to ensure that the child agreed with the medical evidence that was to be presented to the Judge. At the Hearing, the child gave evidence which was inconsistent with the report.

The decision

The terms of the letter were clear. The Claimant was ordered to pay wasted costs to be deducted from damages. (The report appears to assume that there was a consequent adjournment of the Hearing and nothing in the report indicates why the Order was made against the child and not the Solicitors).

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