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?

Hempstead v Devon County Council, Exeter County Court, 26 July 2004

3 August 2004
The issues

Infant Approval – Hearing Adjourned Because Medical Evidence Incomplete – Whether Costs Should Be Ordered Against Claimant At Resumed Hearing

The facts

The Claimant’s claim for personal injuries was concluded subject to approval by the Court. The Hearing was listed for 9th March 2004. The prognosis in the medical evidence in the Claimant’s solicitors possession was that the Claimant’s headaches would have resolved by that time. The Defendants who attended the settlement were told on the morning of the hearing that the prognosis had not been met. Accordingly the District Judge felt unable to approve a settlement.

At the resumed settlement the Defendant’s solicitors made an Application for costs.

The decision

1. To be told on the morning of a hearing that the prognosis had not been met was too late. The Court would have expected the Claimant’s solicitor to have questioned the Claimant or the Claimant’s parents in the lead up to the Hearing as to whether she had recovered as expected and a prudent and cautious solicitor in such a situation would take a view as to whether any further investigation was necessary and whether the agreement figure remained sufficient in these circumstances.

2. It was perfectly appropriate for a defendant to attend an Infant Approval Hearing.

3. Costs had been wasted. Formal application was not necessary. The Defendant’s costs of the initial hearing would be set of against the Claimant’s costs.


For further information please contact Kate Winston at katewinston@veitchpenny.co.uk.

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