Crown Chambers

NEWS & INSIGHTS

Civil case law update by Billy Torbett

 

C v Oldham [2024] EWCC 1

A pioneering judgment was handed down on 22nd May 2024, following a two-day hearing that commenced and concluded in February 2024. The presiding County Court that heard the case disapplied the exclusionary provisions set out in the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 and held that the dependent family member of an EU citizen, who arrived in the United Kingdom under EU law, was granted Pre-settled Status (PSS) by the Home Office prior to Brexit on 31st December 2020. This member also continued to reside lawfully in the United Kingdom afterwards and it was therefore concluded that this member was eligible for homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and in turn it has caused amendment to the Respondent Council’s review decision.

The Appellant alleged that she fell within the personal and material capacity of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2018 and therefore she could rely on the Agreement’s non-discrimination and equal treatment protection provisions. Aside from the PSS holders, the 2006 Regulations discriminated against her in comparison to British citizens and should be disapplied under the 2018 Act so that she became eligible for homelessness assistance. This was the view of the County Court, and they accepted the Appellant’s submissions.

However, in the alternative the Appellant also argued that in order to ascertain whether she was eligible for homelessness assistance, the Respondent, should have assessed the Appellant’s personal circumstances to see whether assistance was necessary to avoid a breach of rights protected by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental rights. Again, the County Court agreed and accepted the Appellant’s submissions. This case is vitally important not only for individuals who were dependant family members prior to Brexit but also for those who seek to rely on Article 17 of the Withdrawal Agreement. It has essentially opened the door for all those who were granted PSS prior to Brexit to argue that they meet the requirements under the personal and material scope of the Withdrawal Agreement. And that those can rely on the rights to non-discrimination and equal treatment to secure homelessness assistance.

 

Colizzi v Coulson and UK Insurance Ltd [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB)

This case concerns a Claimant who in November 2015 was hit by the First Defendant’s vehicle (a car) as she was attempting to cross the road. As a result of the collision, the Claimant sustained very serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. The accident transpired approximately 25 metres from a roundabout where the Claimant was crossing from right to left in relation to the Defendant’s direction of travel, the Defendant was travelling away from the roundabout.

The carriageway consisted of two lanes of slow moving/stationary traffic and the Claimant needed to cross the other carriageway first to get across the road. Traffic was moving freely away from the roundabout which was the case for the Defendant. Given the significant injuries sustained, the Claimant could not give evidence as to the result of her injuries. The Defendant simply said that the accident occurred before he had any time to react. However, the main witnesses were a driver and a passenger of a car queuing in traffic, they were boyfriend and girlfriend. The Claimant crossed directly in front of their car before she was struck by the First Defendant’s vehicle. The driver gave evidence in favour of the First Defendant and the passenger gave evidence for the Claimant.

The key issue in the case was whether the Claimant paused at all before moving from the carriageway into the First Defendant’s carriageway. It was agreed between the experts, Dr. Andrew Ninham for the Claimant, and Mr. Stuart Blackwood for the First Defendant, that if the Claimant did not pause, then there was not sufficient time for the Defendant to be able to react. However, if the Claimant did pause and was sufficiently far out into the road to no longer be obscured by the queuing traffic then there would have been time to react.

The Judge found discrepancies in both of the witnesses’ accounts albeit the drivers’ account regarding the Claimant not stopping was preferred over the passengers’ account. The Defendant’s driving standard was not condemned, and it was not suggested that he was not driving sensibly or within the speed limit, but it was found that since the Claimant did not stop, then there was simply no time for the Defendant to react. The Judge found that the driver witness had been watching the incident unfold with continuity and was closer to the incident whereas the passenger witness had initially been looking at her phone and it was only when the driver witness drew her attention to the Claimant that she began observing.

The driver’s evidence had consistently been that the Claimant had not stopped yet there were inconsistencies between the passenger’s witness statement and with her later statements. The Judge found that there was insufficient evidence in any event to conclude that the Claimant had paused in the road, and so the claim would have failed on the balance of probabilities. The Judge also found that regardless on whether the Claimant paused, the court would be unable to find that the Claimant paused in a position that would have given the Defendant the necessary time to react.

As a result of the findings the case was dismissed. This case in my view clearly highlights and recognises what is very common in Road Traffic Accident (RTA) cases. The evidence of witnesses can often differ, even when the witnesses are viewing the incident from almost identical positions.

News & Insights

Practice Areas

Family Law

Fearless family law barristers

Court of Protection

Highly skilled and understanding court of protection barristers 

Criminal Law

Effective and successful criminal law barristers

Court of Protection

Highly skilled and understanding court of protection barristers 

Regulatory Law

Leading barristers in regulatory law matters

“Paul Storey KC is a real master of oral and written advocacy with an incredible understanding of the medicine and personal dynamic of cases. A real champion of disadvantaged and underprivileged clients.”

Legal 500

"Naomi Madderson is an exceptional advocate with the ability to comprehend complex medical issues and to convey issues in an understandable way."

Chambers and Partners

"Instructing Gaynor Hall is a joy – she is the perfect combination of tenacity and grit with a down to earth, no nonsense approach. She is an engaging and clever advocate."

Client Testimonial

"Olivia Bennyworth is a powerhouse of knowledge and a highly skilled and competent advocate. We instruct Olivia on some of our most complex and challenging cases due to her ability to work swiftly and efficiently."

Legal 500

"Patrick Taylor is one of the best mediators I have worked with. He always sees the bigger picture; and even when the parties are entrenched in their positions, he finds a way through the impasse – a top-quality mediator‘.

Client Testimonial

“Nigel Edwards KC is as a persuasive advocate, who builds a rapport with witnesses, clients and judges”

Legal 500

WHY CROWN CHAMBERS?

Our client testimonials and legal directory recognitions support and evidence our values of excellence, integrity and respect.

About Us

Crown Chambers is a set of regionally and nationally renowned barristers, dedicated in their pursuit of excellence. Crown Chambers is a young set with an exciting future.

Contact Us

Crown Chambers
93-95 Alfred Gelder Street
Hull
HU1 1EP
T: 01482 014658
E: info@crown-chambers.com

© Crown Chambers

Copyright 2020 Crown Chambers
All rights reserved
Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board
Policies & Procedures
Website by Ghost Digital