LAW5011 Dispute Resolution Assignment Answers

• Type Assignment
• Downloads528
• Pages14
• Words3580

Answer 1: Letter to Dr. Salome Durant for guidance on Funding and Pre-Action Protocol

Arden LLP

Arden House, Middlemarch Park

Coventry, CV3 4FJ

Date:

Dr. Salome Durant

16, Castle Road

Coventry, CV3 7YN

Re: Public Liability Claim - 30^th March 2024

Respected Dr. Durant

Let us thank you for having contacted our law firm concerning your public liability claim. As a client, you may be worried about the time that this case will take and the monetary cost of the process. We aim to provide clear[1] guidance on the two key aspects you’ve raised: funding procedures and pre-action protocol conditions.

Methods of Funding

Issue

In the case, you have this valid worry on how the case will be funded and which potentials are within your category.

Rule

Specific to the UK, personal injury claims such as yours can be sourced through something known as conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) and after the event (ATE) insurance[2]. These options are often utilised to manage the measure of risk faced by the claimant.

Application 

1. Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA):

The particular agreement, commonly known as a CFA, is sometimes described as being “no win, no fee”. Under this arrangement: 

• The firm would only take our legal fees from you if the claim has been a success.
• If the claim is not successful, you don’t pay our legal fees; however, you are responsible for other charges like filing fees or expert witnesses charges.
• If the case is successful, an issue fee may be taken from which a success fee may be charged which should not exceed 25% of the general damages awarded under the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013.

This funding method should suit your situation as it allow accessing justice where one cannot afford the initial cash outlay.

LAW5011 Dispute Resolution Assignment Answers

Liked This Answer? Hire Me Now

George Clark 9 Years | LLB

2. After the Event (ATE) Insurance:

As for possible costs, ATE insurance can be obtained for expenses for disbursements and any other costs of the case in the event of an unfavorable result[3]. A CFA is often used hand in hand with this insurance to minimize your risk. 

• For instance, in the case of Callery v. Gray (No. 1) [2001] EWCA Civ 1117 the court has pointed out that the ATE insurance is a reasonable measure in personal injury actions.
• ATE insurance is usually paid monthly, at the end of the case and are generally recoverable from the defendant in the event of a winning claim.

Conclusion

In light of this, a funding solution that a CFA would more than likely work in conjunction with is an after-the-event (ATE) insurance. Please, we would like to arrange a meeting which we can hold in order we can talk about this in details and make arrangements of the final decision. 

Pre-Action Protocol

Issue The query is what has to be done before starting trials, especially how the claim should be brought and handled. Rule Due to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), all personal injury claims fall under the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims[4]. This protocol is designed and employed to facilitate orderly processing of claims, encourage settlement if possible as well as containing expenses. Application 

1. Letter of Claim:

• For this reason and as a formal way of making our first communication, we shall write and send a Letter of Claim to Mr. Adams at his postal address.
• This letter will contain details of the accident and your injuries, estimated value for the claim at £23000.
• Adams will have 21 days to respond that he has received the letter and another three months respond to the investigation.

2. Disclosure of Evidence:

• Each side is obliged to produce material in support of the case they are arguing.
• For example, you will need your medical records, a statement that narrates the events of the accident, and report from an impartial clam specialist[5].

3. Efforts to Settle:

• Litigation is discouraged by the protocol with this emphasis on settlement. This ranges from exploring ways of utilising the forms of ADR to seek the agreement of Mr. Adams.
• The case of PGF II SA v. OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288 emphasise that one must consider the use of ADR so that one does not incur the costs of the proceedings.

4. Court Proceedings:

• If Mr. Adams turn down his right to pay or if he rejects liability, we will file a claim at the County Court.
• Following Jackson v. Minister of Defence [2006] UKHL 9 show how effective compliance with the pre-action protocol cannot be neglected since non-compliance thereof may expose the claimant to cost-sanctions even if the claim is otherwise sound.

Conclusion

The Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims must be followed and advisable, as it raises the chances of bringing your case to a resolution outside of court[6]. This is a lot of work, but our firm will manage this process, including dealing with all the issues that may arise in order to protect your assets. Next Steps:

1. Schedule a meeting to discuss your financing arrangements in its final stage. 
2. Enclose any and all other documents and whatever else that might support your claim. 
3. Afterward, when you approve, we shall draft and forward the Letter of Claim to Mr. Adams.

If you have any further questions or if the above has left any questions in your mind please do not hesitate to contact us[7]. We would also like to work with you to generate a satisfactory result that will be beneficial to both of us. Yours Sincerely, [Name] Litigation Assistant, Arden LLP

Answer 2: Draft of Claim Form (N1)

In the Country Court at Coventry

Claimant's Name and Address

Dr. Salome Durant

16 Castle Road

Coventry, CV3 7YN

Defendant’s Name and Address

Mr. John Adams

334 Factory Road

Coventry, CV4 9PB

Brief Details of Claim

The claimant, named Dr. Salome Durant, wants compensation arising from a personal injury that happened which was caused by the defendant, Mr. John Adams, in a public park on 30 March 2024. On that day, the defendant, while using a ball launcher for his dog, caused a firm rubber ball to strike the face of the chairman. The impact was unexpected, and because of this impact the balance got lost of the chairman, and she fell, hitting her head against a nearby bench.

Because of this incident, major injuries happened, including fractures to many vertebrae in the back of the chairman, which were exacerbated by her pre-existing brittle bone disease. This condition is characterized by fragile bones, and this made her vulnerable specifically to major injuries. Following the fall, immediate medical attention was needed by the claimant, who was taken to the hospital by ambulance.

The injuries of the claimant have long-term implications. The fracture has reduced her mobility by 10% approximately, which affects her life quality.

Statement of Value 

The chairman wants to recover damages that are crossing £10000, but not more than £25000. This amount includes compensation for pain, loss of amenity, and suffering. It also includes the costs related to modifications of the home.

Preferred County Court Hearing Center

The request was made by the claimant that the case be heard at the Coventry County Court Hearing Center, which is the most convenient location for the involved parties.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts mentioned in this claim form are true

Signed

Claimant/Solicitor for the Claimant

Date:

Answer 3: File Note - Application for Summary Judgment – Dr Durant v. Mr Adams

Issue 

The defendant, Mr. Adams has offered the bare denying to the allegations of the plaintiff that he was the person who launched the ball that caused Dr. Durant[8]. The question arises as to whether the claimant the Dr. Durant is entitled to the summary judgment under CPR Part 24, on the background that the defendant – Mr. Adams has provided no substantial evidence and/or defense[9]. 

Rule

Under CPR 24.2, the court may grant summary judgment if: 

• (a) The claim, and the evidence supporting it, against which the defendant has no realistic chance of defending the case.
• (b) There is no other reason the case should go to trial[10].

Further provisions within CPR 24 detail the procedural requirements and conditions: 

• CPR 24.3(a) and (b): To substantiate grounds of summary judgment, no real defence or basis for trial has to be established.
• CPR 24.5: The application notice must also state reasons and the defendant no later than 14 days prior to the hearing.
• CPR 26.1 and 26.3(a): This is likely to be categorized under fast track since claim value is ($ 23,000).
• CPR 26.8(1)(a) and (b): It tries to take into account the seriousness and the size of the case at hand.

To the same effect are the cases in Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, where the Court of Appeal has done an excellent job of explaining the role of summary judgment for ‘precarious’ or ‘shadowy’ defences that are mere hollowness.

Application

1. Grounds for the Application:

No real prospect of success (CPR 24.3(a)): 

Indeed, bare denial of the defendant does not satisfy the standard necessitated by CPR 16, because the defendant was supposed to give clear reasons for his/her claim and a detailed account of the same. Mr. Adams has not disputed the specific events, including his verbal admission: “Sorry I did not plan for this to occur[1].” The absence of evidence that Mr. Xu can put across to refute these facts means that he cannot have any real chance of defending the above claim.

No compelling reason for trial (CPR 24.3(b)): 

The case is a clear and simple one based on objective evidence and records: From Dr. Durant’s statement, and her records. Levin presents a contribution of $33 billion for the costs of going to trial and exacerbating the problem of delay in the delivery of justice. 

2. Evidence Supporting the Application:

To succeed in the application, the following evidence must be prepared and submitted: 

Witness Statements: Dr. Durant then narrates when Mr. Adams was admitted and the consequential effects of the injuries on her. 

Medical Reports: Medical records of the injuries arising out of the accident, the prognosis (reduced mobility by at least 10%), and the need to modify the home by obtaining a stair lift. 

Supporting Scene Evidence:  Testimonies in person of the events and the photographs of the park or bench involved.

3. Procedural Requirements for the Application:

We put the emphasis on the procedural requirements of the application as they are relevant to other studies as well.  The application must adhere to the following procedural steps: 

• Submit an application notice that indicates CPR 24.2 grounds for completing the case through judgment without further trial.
• Support documents must be filed to the application notice.
• Put the application and evidence before Mr. Adams no later than 14 days before the hearing as per the Civil Procedure Rules 24.5.

4. Allocation of the Case:

Since the claim value is £23,000 it will most probably fall under the fast track cases according to CPR 26.1 and 26.3(a). By the practice direction CPR 26.8(1)(a)(b), the court will engage an evaluation of the proportionality as well as the complexity of the case.

5. Potential Outcomes and Orders:

If the court grants summary judgment: 

Judgment for the claimant: Dr. Durant may be entitled to £23 000 for general damages for her injuries together with the costs in the action. 

Costs Order: She also said that the court might direct Mr. Adams to compensate the legal costs that have been made for filing the application as well as claiming. 

If the application is unlikely to succeed when the trial is fixed, the court may invite the parties to file for case management directions under CPR 3.2 to define the areas for trial.

Likelihood of Success: 

The application for summary judgment is highly likely to succeed for the following reasons: 

Strength of the Claimant’s Case: From the evidence presented by Dr. Durant, Mr. Adams verbally confessed to cause the defendant harm and the medical reports put into evidence establish a chain of causation between the defendant and her injuries. 

Weakness of the Defence: To the above averment, Mr. Adams has not furnished sufficient evidence in direct opposition and lacks clarification as per the rules expounded under CPR 16.5[4].

Relevant Case Law Analysis:

In Swain v. In Hillman [2001], the court stated that there is likely to be a need to refuse summary judgment where the defence has insufficient evidence or no real prospect of success[5]. In the same way as in Three Rivers District Council Case Vs. As stated in Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1, the mere bare denial or airy defence should in fact attract summary judgment so as not to occasion trial. 

Conclusion 

Consequently, an application for a summary judgment under the CPR 24 should follow since Mr. Adams failed to provide a proper defence. The claimant’s argument is based on the facts that are very credible and the delay seeking a trial is not justified. 

Next Steps: 

• Write the application note and documents to back it, including witness statement and medical and legal reports.
• File and serve the application on Mr. Adams in compliance with the CPR 24.
• Ask the court for a date to set for hearing of the summary judgment application.

If these steps are met adequately and on time, we will be in a position to see the case move on as it should be and Dr. Durant gets what she deserves. 

Answer 4: Letter to Client - Enforcement Options for Unpaid Judgement

Dear Dr. Durant, Please find enclosed the response in regards to the unpaid judgment sum of Mr. Adams.

Issue

This is now eight weeks after the judgment was made and yet Mr. Adams is in contempt of the court order. The matter in dispute is to find out what type of enforcement procedure would best yield the £23,000 judgment amount along with other costs[16].

Rule 

In the UK civil procedure there are a number of remedies which can be pursued in the event that a judgment debtor has not complied with the court order. These include:

Warrant of Control (CPR Part 83): Permits court-officer’s agents (bailiffs) to seize and sell the debtor’s property to recover the debt.

Attachment of Earnings Order (CPR Part 89): He/she is able to reduce the said amount right from the wages of the debtor if the debtor is earning.

Charging Order (CPR Part 73): Anns a legal attachment with the debtor property and can be sold under the order for sale by the court.

Third-Party Debt Order (CPR Part 72): Gets a freeze and transfers of the amount due to the debtor by a third party like the debtor’s bank.

Order to Obtain Information (CPR Part 71): Makes the debtor to accompany the court and make an affirmation of his/her financial situation.

These rules must serve the bases that a judgment creditor has many lines of approach to recover the amount. The following case laws such as Thompson v. Barratt Homes Ltd [2010], points to the fact that, it is important to consider the debtor’s take and resources before selecting the mode for enforcement.

Application

1. Assessment of Mr. Adams’s Circumstances:

According to the information to be produced, shall we select the best enforcement procedures that will be suitable for implementing in reference to Mr. Adams’ solvency level. If Mr. Adams has a steady source of income the best remedy may be an Attachment of Earnings Order. If he possesses other property, the Warrant of Control or Charging Order may be a way to obtain the judgment.

2. Recommended Enforcement Method: Warrant of Control:

Practical at the beginning of the case because of its simplicity and absence of the data on Mr. Adams’s income/ assets, the most effective preliminary measure would be the Warrant of Control. It allows the court enforcement agents to confiscate properties of Mr. Adams that would be sold to recover an amount borrowed. And it is even more effective if the debtor owns tangible personal property.

Advantages: Quick enforcement, high possibility of getting a payout if the debtor owns some valuable property, and transparency of enforcement threats.

Process: We will then approach court for warrant to ask enforcement agents to go to the residence of Mr. Adams and confiscate goods to the value of the debt.

3. Alternative Options:

In the event that the Warrant of Control does not yields fruitful results we may apply for a Charging Order specifically if Mr. Adams owns an asset. This will protect the amount of judgment against his property and can be executed by an Order for Sale[18]. On the other hand, there is an Order to Obtain Information, in accordance with which we can make a decision about the further action and, for instance, find out the financial assets of Mr.Adams.

Conclusion

For expert guidance on dispute resolution and legal case management, explore our comprehensive resources and secure your success with our cheap assignment help. Check out our detailed LAW5011 Dispute Resolution Assignment Answers to understand key legal processes and protocols.

Our best advice therefore is that we proceed with a Warrant of Control as our first enforcement method because it is immediate and there is likelihood of recovery. If this approach does not work we can always reconsider options and try some form of enforcement mechanism. Kindly indicate to us how else you would want to continue, so we will move faster and set in motion the enforcement process.

Yours Scencierly,

[Name] Litigation Assistant, Arden LLP

Reference List Journals

• King, 'Global Civil Procedure' (2021) 62 Harv Int'l LJ 223.
• Y. Anidjar, O. Katz, and E. Zamir, 'Enforced Performance in Common Law Versus Civil Law Systems: An Empirical Study of a Legal Transformation' (2020) 68(1) American Journal of Comparative Law 1.
• Beebeejaun and A. Faccia, 'Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution, Smart Contracts and Equity in the Energy Sector' (2022) 15(2) J World Energy Law & Business 97.
• Rule, 'Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice' (2020) 16(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 277.
• Peers, 'So Close, Yet So Far: The EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement' (2022) 59(1) Common Market Law Review.
• Gautam, P. Kulshrestha, and M. A. K. Goswami, 'Mediation and Family Dispute Resolution Mechanism: A Case Study on Clinical Legal Education' (2021) 20(3) Elementary Education Online 2490.
• I. Tahir, 'Arbitration System in Commercial Disputes in Pakistan and Enforcement of Foreign Awards' (2023).
• Geradin and D. Katsifis, 'The Use and Abuse of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Litigation: Is There a Way Forward?' (2022) 71(7) GRUR International 603.
• Velicogna, 'Cross-Border Civil Litigation in the EU: What Can We Learn from COVID-19 Emergency National E-Justice Experiences?' (2021) 10 European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities (EQPAM).
• Dylag and H. Smith, 'From Cryptocurrencies to Cryptocourts: Blockchain and the Financialization of Dispute Resolution Platforms' (2023) 26(2) Information, Communication & Society 372.
• A. Brand, 'Comparative Method and International Litigation' (2020) J Disp Resol 273.
• Gurbuz Usluel, 'Mandatory or Voluntary Mediation? Recent Turkish Mediation Legislation and a Comparative Analysis with the EU's Mediation Framework' (2020) J Disp Resol 445.
• Van Rhee, 'Towards Harmonised European Rules of Civil Procedure: Obligations of the Judge, the Parties and Their Lawyers' (2020) Access to Just E Eur 6.
• K. Dahlan, M. H. Md Said, and R. Rajamanickam, 'Mediation: Practice in the Corporate World' (2021) 12(1) UUM Journal of Legal Studies 51.
• Shi, T. Sourdin, and B. Li, 'The Smart Court-A New Pathway to Justice in China?' (2021) 12 IJCA 1.
• Chaisse and J. Kirkwood, 'Smart Courts, Smart Contracts, and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution' (2022) 5 Stan J Blockchain L & Pol'y 62.
• Abdullah and T. Arifin, 'Analysis of Sociology and Anthropology of Sharia Economic Law on Murabahah Dispute Settlement at the Cirebon Religious Court' (2023) 1(2) Strata Law Review 118.
• D. Aritonang and M. R. A. Simanjuntak, 'Analysis of Important Factors in Choosing or Using Process Alternative Dispute Resolution of Construction Project from Contractor’s Perspective (Case Study in XYZ Company, Ltd’s)' (2020) December IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 012084.
•  S. King, 'Global Civil Procedure' (2021) 62 Harv Int'l LJ 223.
• L. Y. Anidjar, O. Katz, and E. Zamir, 'Enforced Performance in Common Law Versus Civil Law Systems: An Empirical Study of a Legal Transformation' (2020) 68(1) American Journal of Comparative Law 1.
• Z. Beebeejaun and A. Faccia, 'Electronic Alternative Dispute Resolution, Smart Contracts and Equity in the Energy Sector' (2022) 15(2) J World Energy Law & Business 97.
•  Rule, 'Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice' (2020) 16(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 277.
•  S. Peers, 'So Close, Yet So Far: The EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement' (2022) 59(1) Common Market Law Review. 
• R. Gautam, P. Kulshrestha, and M. A. K. Goswami, 'Mediation and Family Dispute Resolution Mechanism: A Case Study on Clinical Legal Education' (2021) 20(3) Elementary Education Online 2490.
• M. I. Tahir, 'Arbitration System in Commercial Disputes in Pakistan and Enforcement of Foreign Awards' (2023).
• Geradin and D. Katsifis, 'The Use and Abuse of Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Litigation: Is There a Way Forward?' (2022) 71(7) GRUR International 603.
• M. Velicogna, 'Cross-Border Civil Litigation in the EU: What Can We Learn from COVID-19 Emergency National E-Justice Experiences?' (2021) 10 European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities (EQPAM).
•  M. Dylag and H. Smith, 'From Cryptocurrencies to Cryptocourts: Blockchain and the Financialization of Dispute Resolution Platforms' (2023) 26(2) Information, Communication & Society 372.
• R. A. Brand, 'Comparative Method and International Litigation' (2020) J Disp Resol 273.
• E. Gurbuz Usluel, 'Mandatory or Voluntary Mediation? Recent Turkish Mediation Legislation and a Comparative Analysis with the EU's Mediation Framework' (2020) J Disp Resol 445.
•  H. Van Rhee, 'Towards Harmonised European Rules of Civil Procedure: Obligations of the Judge, the Parties and Their Lawyers' (2020) Access to Just E Eur 6.
•  N. K. Dahlan, M. H. Md Said, and R. Rajamanickam, 'Mediation: Practice in the Corporate World' (2021) 12(1) UUM Journal of Legal Studies 51.
•  Shi, T. Sourdin, and B. Li, 'The Smart Court-A New Pathway to Justice in China?' (2021) 12 IJCA 1.
• J. Chaisse and J. Kirkwood, 'Smart Courts, Smart Contracts, and the Future of Online Dispute Resolution' (2022) 5 Stan J Blockchain L & Pol'y 62.
• D. Abdullah and T. Arifin, 'Analysis of Sociology and Anthropology of Sharia Economic Law on Murabahah Dispute Settlement at the Cirebon Religious Court' (2023) 1(2) Strata Law Review 118.
• D. D. Aritonang and M. R. A. Simanjuntak, 'Analysis of Important Factors in Choosing or Using Process Alternative Dispute Resolution of Construction Project from Contractor’s Perspective (Case Study in XYZ Company, Ltd’s)' (2020) December IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 012084.