How can a defendant harass a plaintiff? By bringing a motion to court. The motion will seek orders within the terms of Section 10. Under Section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/2004/0031.html#partii-sec14 a plaintiff must swear, serve and file an affidavit of verification of the pleadings served. This implies that no insufficiency of pleading, if it exists, can be defended. After all, what was pleaded must be true. Is the plaintiff playing fast and loose with […]
Prior to 2004, for not less than fifty years, plaintiffs were not required to give any further details on the issue of proceedings. The plaintiff was, however, obliged to give the details to the defendant before the trial. It was, (and still is), in the plaintiff’s interest to find out those details and to communicate them to the defendant. Only when the defendant knows these things can the defendant readily agree to settle the claim. Settlement is the best outcome of personal injury litigation; there are insufficient judges to adjudicate on all or most claims for personal injury.
Legal practitioners have a solution to that; plead every conceivable item of loss and, later, waive those that do not apply. Section 10 prevents this; it requires that “full” particulars be pleaded. This implies that the plaintiff cannot issue proceedings until all these losses are accrued and known, or, as mentioned, that items not pleaded cannot later be claimed.
Litigation needs an engine; that is, something must drive the process forwards. For a personal injury victim that engine is, normally, the persistent fact of the injury. From the medical point of view this will imply difficulty coming up with a prognosis. A prognosis is a doctor’s estimate of the progress (or lack of it) expected of the patient.
To be useful, on issuing the proceedings, it is essential that the Statute of Limitations period not have expired. That period, for personal injury, is two years, measured from the date of the cause of action. Generally, there is no difficulty ascertaining the date of the accrual of the cause of action. For a road accident victim, say, it is the date of the accident.
Accidents are confusing. Meeting the unexpected (or just the unwelcome) is disturbing. Many personal injury victims have difficulty orienting themselves after an accident. For some, the difficulties are greater than others. Some accidents are more unexpected than others. Road accidents are relatively common, whereas to be hit by an object falling from a defective building is very unusual.
The main problem with defective DePuy hips is the design failure. The hip will fail mechanically. This is a serious matter. Instead of ease of movement, the hip will hinder movement. Movement will be painful, probably noisy, and anything but smooth.
“Since concerns were first raised in March 2010 regarding the issue of breast implants, provided by the now defunct French company Poly Implant Prosthese (PIP), the clear priority of the Department of Health has been to try and ensure that the three treating clinics involved in the issue provide professional and appropriate care to their affected clients. However despite intensive efforts, by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, such appropriate care on the scale required has not been forthcoming. […]
“It has become a growing practice for solicitors acting for parties in cases before the courts (and, I would venture to suggest, in particular, the Commercial Court) to copy correspondence to the court. Some lay litigants have adopted the same course.”