Professional negligence claim – Law Society cause of action. The Law Society's cause of action in negligence against accountants in respect of negligent reports on a solicitor's practice accrued when it first received a claim on the Solicitors' Compensation Fund from a client whose money was misappropriated by the solicitor, because until such a claim was actually made no loss or damage had been sustained by the fund.
|
Limitation Act 1980 – Date of knowledge. The requisite knowledge for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 s.14A(8)(a) was knowledge of the facts constituting the essence of the complaint of negligence. In the circumstances the relevant date was not when the claimant first knew that he might have a claim for damages but the earlier date when he first knew enough to justify setting about investigating the possibility that the defendant's advice was defective.
|
Reinstatement of claim which had been struck out. Where a blameless absent litigant whose case had been struck out was seeking its reinstatement, and where there had been no delay and there was no likelihood of prejudice to the other parties, it was for the other parties to show that the case had no chance of success. Prima facie justice required that the case be reinstated.
|
Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law (Jamacia): The Supreme Court of Jamaica was not deprived of jurisdiction to set aside a judgment in default of defence under s.258 of the Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) Law (Jamaica), even though damages had been subsequently assessed and a final judgment had been entered. Further, it was held that where an order to set aside a default judgment had been made without jurisdiction, a judge of a co-ordinate jurisdiction had no power to set it aside.
|
Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence: It was incorrect that similar fact evidence was only admissible in a civil case if it was likely to be reasonably conclusive of a primary issue in the proceedings or, alternatively, if it had enhanced relevance so as to have substantial probative value. The correct test was whether the evidence was potentially probative in the proceedings.
|
Fresh evidence which related to the question of whether the respondent had lied at trial and deliberately inflated his claim for loss of earnings was an insufficient basis for an appeal against the trial judge’s conclusive finding against the appellant for assault and battery. Even if the appellant had been able to demonstrate to the requisite standard of proof that the respondent had deliberately inflated his claim, it would not have been right to set aside the entire judgment. As far as liabil ...
|
| 1 |