Charlotte has a strong personal injury practice, regularly representing both Claimants and Defendants. She has experience of road traffic accidents, including issues of fundamental dishonesty, accidents at work, occupiers’ liability claims, public liability, Criminal Injury Compensation appeals and inquests.
Charlotte regularly advises on issues of liability and quantum on paper and in conference. She is happy to consider matters on a Conditional Fee basis where appropriate.
Diminution in Value
Charlotte has particular experience of acting in claims where diminution in value of a damaged vehicle is claimed over and above the cost of repair. Arguments include as to the quality of expert evidence adduced in support of the claim, the nature of the vehicle involved and the recoverability by a Claimant when the vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement.
Lex Autolease v Tweddle (Lawtel Document AC0145165)
30/05/2014 Charlotte acted for the Defendant in a collision where liability was admitted and damages for the cost of repair had been paid. She successfully argued that the Claimant’s evidence that they had suffered a diminution in value of the vehicle over and above the cost of repairs was inadequate to prove any loss was in fact suffered.
Rice v Rouse (Lawtel 2/11/16)
Incorrectly referred to as a solicitor as opposed to counsel, in this case Charlotte represented the Defendant when disputing diminution of a vehicle purchased under a hire purchase agreement. The Claimant failed to recover damages for diminution in value as District Judge Stewart found that the hire purchase agreement allowed him to return the vehicle without incurring any penalties (including for diminution in value if the vehicle had been subject to repairs) and to not avail himself of this provision would be failing to mitigate his loss.
C (Unreported and involving a protected party)
Charlotte prepared an advice on quantum for the purposes of an approval hearing in a complicated case involving a gentleman who contracted Legionnaire’s disease after entering a shop. Several days thereafter he suffered a stroke, and later went on to develop dementia, rendering him a protected party. There was a significant dispute as to whether the Legionnaire’s had caused the stroke, or as the Defendant contended, had increased the risk of stroke, but not such as to satisfy the test for legal causation.
“Careless Caring?” APIL
On care home negligence
‘An Article of Practical Application’ Personal Injury Law Journal