UK Legal Latest: Key cases and updates from the Eversheds Sutherland Corporate Claims Team

Liability:

A local authority is generally not liable for injuries caused by hazards created by third parties, even where it regulates or oversees the activity, unless it created or assumed responsibility for the hazard itself.

• If a public authority does not properly carry out its duties, this does not usually mean it can be held responsible where the injury was actually caused by someone else.
• Local highway authorities are not generally responsible for removing obstacles from roads or pavements if those obstacles have been put there by a third party.
• More complex personal injury cases are typically dealt with by more senior judges, and it may be possible to challenge which court the case has been assigned to if it seems inappropriate.

Eva Cobija Sintes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 752 confirms that a local authority, such as a council, will not usually be held legally responsible for injuries caused by someone else, even if it regulates or oversees the activity in question. In this instance, the claimant was injured after tripping over items left on the pavement by a market trader. Although the trader operated within a council-controlled market, the court found that the council was not at fault, as it had not created the hazard itself or taken responsibility for it. As a result, the negligence and nuisance claims against the council failed. In practical terms, this means that where an accident is caused by a third party, it will generally be that party – rather than the council – who is legally responsible.

This decision reinforces the position that public authorities do not owe a general duty to prevent harm caused by third parties. It provides important authority for defendant local authorities facing tripping/public place claims where the hazard is created by a third party operating under the authority's regulatory oversight. The case also emphasises that public nuisance claims against highway authorities face significant hurdles.

Sintes (Respondent/Claimant) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Appellant/ Defendant) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: exaggeration or poor recollection does not amount to fundamental dishonesty 

• Fundamental dishonesty under s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
• Whether an overstated or unsuccessful claim amounts to fundamental dishonesty.
• An appeal is a review, not a rehearing: there is a high burden to interfere with findings of fact.

The claimant in AXA Insurance Plc v David Maher [2026] EWHC 1365 (KB) was involved in a road traffic accident on 11 July 2018. He brought a personal injury claim which was valued between £50,000 and £70,000. At trial, the County Court awarded only £3,609.83 plus costs. The trial judge accepted that the claimant suffered several months of left hand, arm, shoulder, and neck pain but found that later symptoms were not causally related to the accident. AXA Insurance (the insurer) appealed, arguing that the judge should have made a finding of fundamental dishonesty under s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court held that the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong and that the appellate threshold for interfering with such findings was not met. On fundamental dishonesty, the Court confirmed that an overstated or largely unsuccessful claim does not equate to dishonesty. The trial judge was entitled to find that the claimant genuinely believed in his claim even though the evidence did not support the full extent of his symptoms.

AXA Insurance Plc v David Maher 

Mass product liability and personal injury claims: proportionate management of mass torts using Group Litigation Orders 

• Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) help the court manage large numbers of similar personal injury or product-related claims together, making the process more efficient and cost-effective for everyone involved.
• In group claims, the court can allow some flexibility so that each individual does not need to include every detailed point in their claim at the outset.
• If a party wishes to change or expand their claim, they will usually need to support this with expert evidence. If the case is not yet fully developed, the court may refuse the request for now but allow it to be revisited later.
• In complex group cases, the court often deals with the main issues in stages, focusing on common questions first before moving on to more individual matters.

Janet Fuschillo & Ors v Johnson & Johnson & Ors [2026] EWHC 1403 (KB) involves a large number of people bringing claims against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that long-term use of its talc-based baby powder caused serious illnesses, including cancers. Because so many individuals are affected and the claims raise similar issues, the High Court has decided that the cases should be managed together under a Group Litigation Order (GLO). This allows the court to deal with common questions – such as how the product was made, whether it was safe, and what the company knew about any risks – in a more efficient and consistent way.

The Court has also made clear that, in a case of this size and complexity, a practical and flexible approach is needed. Claimants are not expected to set out every scientific detail or full medical explanation at the very start of the case. Instead, further detail can be provided as more evidence becomes available, including expert reports. This approach helps keep the process proportionate and manageable, while still allowing all parties a fair opportunity to present their case as the evidence develops.

Janet Fuschillo and others -v- Johnson & Johnson and others - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Contributory negligence is fact-specific - severity of injury does not equal a higher finding.

• The courts will usually assess these types of cases using an established legal test, which helps ensure a fair and consistent approach to deciding responsibility.
• Where there are failings in an employer’s working systems or safety procedures, the employer is often seen as more responsible than an individual worker’s actions.
• Even if a worker is experienced and expected to take reasonable care, this does not mean they will automatically be blamed to a greater extent than is fair.
• If a defendant argues that the injured person was partly responsible for what happened, those arguments need to be realistic and proportionate, as overly high claims of blame may not be accepted by the court.

Robert Geoffrey Richardson v William Beech Skip Hire Limited [2026] EWHC 1341 (KB) involved a serious workplace accident in which the claimant suffered life-changing injuries after being crushed by moving machinery. It was accepted that the accident was primarily caused by an employee of the company, who accidentally activated the controls. As a result, the company admitted responsibility for the accident itself. The only issue the court needed to decide was whether the claimant should share some of the blame for what happened.

The court found that, although the claimant had put himself in a position that was not entirely safe, his level of responsibility was limited. While this did contribute to the accident, the judge considered that the company’s failure to maintain a safe system of work was the main cause. For that reason, the claimant’s compensation was reduced by 20%, rather than the much higher reduction argued for by the defendant. This decision highlights that, even where an injured person is partly at fault, the employer will usually bear the greater responsibility if there are clear shortcomings in workplace safety.

Richardson v William Beech Skip Hire Ltd [2026] EWHC 1341 (KB) (11 June 2026)

Costs: An hourly-rate retainer that indicates rates is not a Contentious Business Agreement under s.59 Solicitors Act 1974.

• Chamberlain v Boodle & King [1982] confirmed that there is an important difference between a clear agreement on fees and simply giving an indication of likely costs, and this distinction still applies today.
• It is important for law firms to ensure that their client agreements are clearly drafted and compliant with legal requirements, so that there is no uncertainty about how fees will be calculated.
• How a fee agreement is categorised can affect how any dispute about costs is dealt with, including which legal rules apply.
• Disputes between solicitors and clients over legal fees continue to arise regularly, particularly in personal injury cases, so clear agreements at the outset are essential.

This case concerned a dispute between a solicitor and their former client about legal fees of around £75,000. The key issue was whether the agreement between them about if the fees would be charged met the legal requirements of a Contentious Business Agreement. If it had done so, the fees would need to be assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office rather than simply being recoverable as a debt. The court ultimately decided that the agreement did not meet those requirements.

In reaching this decision, the court explained that simply setting out hourly charging rates is not, on its own, enough to create a binding costs agreement of this type. This is because hourly rates do not clearly show what the total cost is likely to be. Instead, they are only an indication of how the final bill will be calculated. As a result, the solicitors were not able to rely on that specific legal framework, and the agreement was treated more as a general indication of costs rather than a fixed or clearly defined fee arrangement.

Broadfield Law UK LLP v Emily Barnes

Updates:

Commencement of The Online Procedure (Rules and Practice Directions) Rules 2026 in September 2026.

The new Online Procedure Rules, coming into force in September 2026, will introduce a digital-first system for certain court cases, starting with possession claims. However, there is suggestion that this may extend to wider litigation in the future. Most cases will be handled online, with a focus on efficiency, early issue resolution, and settlement, while ensuring support is available for those who need help accessing digital services. It is intended that digital proceedings will become the default and carried out via the HMCTS digital services website.

The Online Procedure (Rules and Practice Directions) Rules 2026