header-logo header-logo

Under surveillance

05 May 2011 / Lisa Sullivan
Issue: 7463 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

The court’s decision in Noble v Owens illustrates why judgments are and should be final, says Lisa Sullivan

Once the trial is over and time for appeal has expired, judgment is final and parties to litigation, winners or losers, can get on with their lives. Or can they? In Noble v Owens [2011] EWHC 534 (QB), Direct Line tried, for the first time, to use surveillance evidence obtained after trial to overturn the damages award made at trial. It failed. Other than the obvious interest in the outcome of the trial as a test case for this sort of litigation, the decision is interesting in that it illustrates why judgments are and should be final.

Background

In September 2003, Mark Noble suffered serious injuries to his pelvis, left leg, both arms and spine in a motorcycle accident. In March 2008 he was awarded damages of £3.397m following a trial lasting nine days. Field J found that Noble could not walk unaided outside the house. With crutches, he could walk about 75–80 feet. Otherwise he was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll