Jim Hester Logo

For his latest case analysis, Jim Hester considers the decision in Colizzi v Coulson and UK Insurance Ltd [2024] EWHC 1956 (KB), a case involving a pedestrian claimant who was seriously injured after being struck by a vehicle.

This case highlights what is so often the case in RTA cases, and indeed in many personal injury cases, that witnesses’ evidence may differ, despite having been in a near identical position when viewing the same events. This is most starkly set out at paragraph 154 of the Judgment:

“Where this leaves me is with two witnesses who were literally sitting side by side witnessing the same incident, and who have then given different evidence on a central and crucial matter.”

To read more, visit: https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/colizzi-v-coulson-and-uk-insurance-ltd/

More Articles

Feature article published in the Solicitors Journal (5th June 2024) – Looking back in time: the duty of employers to protect their employees from the dangers of asbestos

In my latest article, published in the Solicitors Journal on 5th June 2024, I dissect the decision in the conjoined appeal of White v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Cuthbert v Taylor Woodrow [2024] EWCA Civ 244 which deals with the duty of employers to protect their employees from the dangers of asbestos.

Read

Holmes v S & B Concrete - voluntary liquidation and limitation

In Holmes v S & B Concrete [2020] EWHC 2277 (QB) a novel argument was raised in relation to limitation for companies which had entered into voluntary liquidation.

Read

Occupational Deafness as a Prescribed Disease

Occupational Deafness has been a prescribed disease since 1975.

Read
How to instruct Jim
Parklane Plowden Chambers

If you would like to instruct Jim to help you with your case, you can do so by getting in touch with Parklane Plowden Chambers.

Find Out More