Sentences with phrase «point for claimants»

It seems that an essential starting point for claimants is now (if it were not already) to seek out firm evidence of the applicable local standards or firm evidence of acceptance of international standards in the jurisdiction where the accident happened.

In the case you've heard about earlier where Sheriff Kinloch had to make an award for Mrs Valentine he mentioned as a starting point for a claimant who had suffered pain and discomfort for seven months the case of Symington v Milne 2007 Rep LR 63.

Not exact matches

However, Labour has pointed out that there will be much lower in - work benefit payments for new claimants put on universal credit — the system championed by the work and pensions secretary, Duncan Smith.

will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

Meanwhile, for «health and safety reasons» all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

In January, Bickle's claim for the mobility benefit — which can vary from # 21.55 to # 138.05 per week depending on the points awarded to the claimant during their assessment — was refused.

These are only a handful of the things that we hear after extensive and persistent follow up attempts with claimants that were, at some point (and for an extended period of time), unreachable.

[11] The claimant uses $ 395,000 as a starting point for her submission as to the respondent's income for support purposes.

Of course, as the Law Commission pointed out, a claim for compensation for detention as a result of the claimant's crime is but one of several scenarios which can give rise to the illegality defence.

Various options are proposed to tackle the issue: rehabilitation vouchers - these address the point of «phantom» attendance for rehabilitation, but may be complex to administer; all rehabilitation arranged and paid for by defendants - the MoJ notes that this would help speed up access to treatment and increase independence and transparency; no compensation payment towards rehabilitation in low value claims - the claimant would need to fund this and primary legislation would be needed to achieve this as at present there is no intention to restrict recovery of special damages; expand MedCo to include rehabilitation providers; and introducing fixed recoverable damages for rehabilitation treatment - the MoJ notes that this could be difficult and invites comment as to whether this would be achieved via a fixed cost per session or by fixing an upper value limit that can not be exceeded.

The claimant would be required to wait for 6 months before obtaining the medical report, as an examination at that point would enable the expert to determine whether the claimant is still suffering symptoms.

An extreme example of this for a defendant was where all of the claimant's evidence pointed to a lack of mental capacity, a view shared by three out of four experts instructed of the defendant.

Whilst third party funding may often be the obvious starting point for lawyers and their clients considering alternative litigation finance, Litigation Insurance should not be overlooked as a complimentary or potentially alternative way to hedge litigation risk, which when used creatively can significantly improve the overall litigation finance deal cost and maximise the claimant's net recovery from successful litigation.

Although point (iii) does not go as far as to say that a respondent - paid adviser always acts for the claimant as a matter of law, it does go a long way in practice to giving strong legal backing to this common employer technique for achieving valid compromise agreements, and will come as a relief to employers» representatives.

It was recognised that there was a realistic risk that at some time in the future the Claimant's condition would advance to the point where immunotherapy (or biological therapy) was deemed suitable for him;

Moreover, the wide construction made sense from a practical point of view in this case: given the allegations of forgery made by the claimant, the judge hearing the claimant's I (PFD) A 1975 claim might exercise the court's power to call in the grant of its own motion under the Supreme Court Act 1981, s 121 — which could result in further, and potentially unnecessary, expense for a modest estate.

The point of the resulting trust is that the claimant is asking for his or her own property back, or for the recognition of his or her proportionate interest in the asset which the other has acquired with that property.

He agreed with the Claimant's arguments stating that although there were some points that were clear enough for the Claimant to respond to, there were many more which were impossible to plead to.

Concomitantly, if and when a blogger or reporter responds to a release with a request for additional information, perhaps a claimant's quote, or clarification of a point of law, respond.

To start a witch hunt on an entire industry on the back of a small number of fraudsters misses a point — what about the large majority of honest claimants who would be forced to soak up prohibitively costly small claims proceedings, or else represent themselves, without the expertise required to develop a convincing case for the court?

This was not because the shares were at that point worth less than the claimants paid for them, but because the purchase of the shares would not give them the result that the defendants had assured the claimants it would.

This point was then further considered by Slade J in Ashby where, although again a strike out was refused, she looked for a wider principle in these cases and purported to find it in the conflict of laws area of forum non conveniens, namely that an important factor in deciding whether to strike out under s 2 (3) is why the claimant did not bring tribunal proceedings in time; on such an approach, the reasonableness of the claimant's actions could be tested and if necessary the common law claim struck out even if that left the claimant with no remaining cause of action.

I also acknowledge the points made by counsel for ICBC and counsel for the claimant as to the need to under the new Rules to have regard to proportionality.

We take each one on its merits and work closely with legal teams to satisfy the precise needs and risk pressure points that help maximise the chances of a successful outcome for the claimant.

On the margin point, the trial Judge made the observation that most claimants seemed to contend that all valuations were «standard»; clear reference to the analysis of the authorities on the issue set out by Mr Justice Coulson in K / S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis and the tendency for those bringing claims to argue for the lowest possible margin; but accepted that this valuation was in the exceptional category but at the lower end of such — a firm steer that in the right case a higher margin would be achievable.

Chambers & Partners describe him as «a real star junior... excellent and knows stacks about community care... he knows the field inside out, and has the extra advantage of experience acting for both claimants and local authorities», «he remains a go - to for both local authorities and claimants», «a force to be reckoned with», «covers all the bases, and if he raises a point, you need to look into it».

Tables B and D, it will be recalled, often use as a starting point significant discounts to allow for contingencies other than mortality, even in claims involving employed claimants educated to degree level (or equivalent).

He pointed out that in all of those contexts harassment is now specifically defined, in a way which focuses on three elements: unwanted conduct; having the purpose or effect of either violating the claimant's dignity or creating an adverse environment for her; and on the grounds of (here) race or ethnic or national origins.

In setting out the justification for exercising the discretion in favour of Mrs A, Coulson J, said, «fundamental matters arise for consideration at the outset», namely, «the starting point for any consideration of this case must be the serious nature of the underlying tort; the absence of any dispute about liability simpliciter; and the consequences of that undisputed wrong on the claimant's ability to recover substantial damages from the defendant.»

He points out that, in previous recessions, «no win, no fee» agreements and third party funding were not available, which made claims against professional advisers risky since the claimant could be left liable for costs and that this time round, however, businesses and individuals may be willing to «take a gamble» on claims in an attempt to recoup some of their losses.

The matter was remitted to the magistrates for the penalty points to be adjusted in respect of the offence for which the claimant had pleaded guilty.

Given that, although the claimant had argued for a causal link between his sub-letting and his (mental) disability, the trial judge had ruled against any such connection, the claimant lost on this point too.

Auld LJ points out the important difference between the Art 8 right to respect for family life and the putative right of a claimant at common law to a duty of care:

For example, there might be a simple counterclaim on a related, or unrelated, matter; or it might be possible to challenge the validity of the right in some way — for registered rights there are usually well defined ways in which this can be done; however, for unregistered rights the terrain is often more uncertain and so more unusual points will often have to be contemplated, (eg, challenging whether or not the claimant exists as a matter of law, and so has a locus standi to bring the proceedings: this last suggestion might seem farfetched, but it has been used successfully on more than one occasioFor example, there might be a simple counterclaim on a related, or unrelated, matter; or it might be possible to challenge the validity of the right in some way — for registered rights there are usually well defined ways in which this can be done; however, for unregistered rights the terrain is often more uncertain and so more unusual points will often have to be contemplated, (eg, challenging whether or not the claimant exists as a matter of law, and so has a locus standi to bring the proceedings: this last suggestion might seem farfetched, but it has been used successfully on more than one occasiofor registered rights there are usually well defined ways in which this can be done; however, for unregistered rights the terrain is often more uncertain and so more unusual points will often have to be contemplated, (eg, challenging whether or not the claimant exists as a matter of law, and so has a locus standi to bring the proceedings: this last suggestion might seem farfetched, but it has been used successfully on more than one occasiofor unregistered rights the terrain is often more uncertain and so more unusual points will often have to be contemplated, (eg, challenging whether or not the claimant exists as a matter of law, and so has a locus standi to bring the proceedings: this last suggestion might seem farfetched, but it has been used successfully on more than one occasion).

On 23rd May 2012, the claimant made a request for additional disclosure which was in respect of the counter claim for damages made by the respondent based on alleged misrepresentations and on the constructive trust point raised by the claimant.

Monitored out - going claims for accuracy and mentored analyst, addressed analyst inquiries utilizing 3 - point contact with claimant treating sources for difficult claims handling processes.