Event and Time
Event Description
- The plaintiff, a minor, commenced proceedings against the defendant (Top Shop's public liability insurer) after sustaining injuries from a heavy marble bench that fell on him in November 2016.
- The original statement of claim was filed on October 11, 2019, with an amended statement submitted on December 14, 2021.
Application and Claims
- The plaintiff sought a separate determination of liability from damages, citing concerns over the potential loss of evidence and witness memory as he aged.
- The defendant opposed the motion, asserting that liability could ultimately be determined based on current evidence (including CCTV footage) and that their case on liability was not adequately prepared.
Judicial Decisions
- The application for a separate hearing of liability was refused.
- The defendant was ordered to serve a report in response to a plaintiff expert report within nine months.
- The defendant was also required to notify the plaintiff's solicitors of any potential third parties or insurers within the same timeframe.
- The costs of the notice of motion were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff's Argument:
- Seeks a separate hearing on liability to address concerns related to evidentiary issues arising from the minor age of the plaintiff. - Argues that early determination of liability could prevent the loss of records or witness availability, thus saving time and costs. - Relies on cases like *Thomas v Oakley* to support the argument that minors require special consideration regarding damages assessment.
- Defendant's Argument:
- Opposes the motion, contending that there is no risk to the evidence reliability due to existing CCTV footage and that the occurrence of the incident is undisputed. - States that the plaintiff has not identified witnesses apart from the expert reporting on liability. - Claims their defense on liability is not prepared, and thus a separate hearing is not justified.