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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll