Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson Solicitors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TOMLINSON
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around procedural complications in serving a Claim Form for compensation due to hand-arm vibration syndrome (VWF). Despite procedural errors by the court and communication lapses between the parties, the court relied on various provisions in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to deem the service as valid. The Court of Appeal found there was a good reason under CPR 6.15(2) to consider the steps already taken to serve the Claim Form as adequate, leading to the claim being pursued to trial.
Lord Justice Tomlinson :
This depressing litigation reflects no credit on our civil justice system. It is yet another example of wasteful satellite litigation unconcerned with the merits of the underlying claim. The Claimant alone escapes censure.
From 1966 to 1979 the Claimant was employed by the National Coal Board. During the course of his employment he was required to use vibrating tools as a result of which he developed hand-arm vibration syndrome, which for convenience I will call VWF, vibration white finger. In due course he became entitled to be compensated under a statutory compensation scheme “the Scheme”, sometimes described as the HAVS Claims Handling Arrangement, administered by AON/IRISC Claims Management, “IRISC”, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Scheme came into existence in the late 1990s.
In or about 1999 the Defendant Solicitors, Meloy Whittle Robinson, “MWR”, were instructed to act on behalf of the Claimant in the conduct of his claim for compensation pursuant to the Scheme.
MWR investigated the claim, obtained medical evidence and registered the Claimant’s claim with IRISC. The Claimant’s claim was compromised on 28 January 2000 by the Claimant’s acceptance of £6,771,60 in full and final settlement of his claim.
That sum represented an award for pain and suffering and handicap on the labour market. It made no allowance for what is conventionally described as a “services claim” – a claim dependent upon demonstrating that in consequence of his being affected by VWF, rather than by any other preceding or supervening medical condition, the Claimant required assistance with routine domestic tasks such as gardening, DIY, car maintenance, car washing and so forth.
The Claimant alleges that MWR negligently failed to investigate and pursue a services claim on his behalf. The cut-off date for presentation of such claims was 31 March 2005. It is the Claimant’s contention that a claim for services on his behalf, if pursued, would have been settled in or about October 2005 in the sum of £27,947.34, net of interest payable pursuant to the Scheme on sums paid for relevant assistant prior to the date of settlement. With interest the claim first intimated against MWR in May 2009 by letter from the Claimant’s current solicitors, Mellor Hargreaves, was I think of the order of £33,000.
As will be apparent the primary limitation period applicable to this claim, whether brought in contract or in tort, expired on 28 January 2006.