Kerry Underwood

£2.6 MILLION CLAIM SHOULD NOT GO ON THE PORTAL: CLAIM STRUCK OUT

leave a comment »


The matters dealt with in this piece are examined in great detail in my three volume, 1,300 page book Personal Injury Small Claims, Portals and Fixed Costs – price £50 and available from Underwoods Solicitors here.

Kerry Underwood offers consultancy services in relation to this and other matters and details are here.

In

Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited, Liverpool County Court – Case number D34BI037

the Circuit Judge, hearing an appeal from a District Judge, upheld the District Judge’s decision to refuse to lift a stay on Part 8 proceedings, and the consequent striking out of the claim, in a case placed on the portal and “parked” there.

Here, the claimant issued Part 8 proceedings in a case which the claimant himself maintained at a value of £2.6 million as compared with the portal limit at £25,000.

The judge said that this was a case that “never, ever at the time they issued the claim form could it be said would have a value of £25,000 or less. That to me is an abuse of process and the abuse comes from using the procedure that is available to portal claims in a case that could not be said, on any stretch of the imagination, to be a portal claim….”.

Here, the claimant was injured in a road traffic accident in September 2014 and the solicitors placed the matter on the portal, and initially the claim was said to be low value but a medical report indicated that the claimant was still absent from work.

The defendant sought further information but got little response and the claimant engaged in what the District Judge called “radio silence”.

In July 2017 the claimant’s solicitors issued a Part 8 Claim Form and a stay was granted until August 2018, with the court ordering that a copy of the order be sent to the defendant by August 2017, although it was not in fact sent until February 2018.

In August 2018 the claimant’s solicitors told the defendant that the case was substantial with the claimant losing £130,000 a year through being unable to work.

The claimant applied to lift the stay and for the matter to proceed on a Part 7 basis and that application was granted without notice to the defendant, who then applied, and succeeded, in having that order set aside.

The District Judge refused to allow the matter to proceed by way of Part 7, and struck the claim out, and that decision was upheld by the Circuit Judge.

Advertisements

Written by kerryunderwood

August 14, 2019 at 8:07 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: