Report comment

"Then with evidence, which was available to them at the time, but later offered they sought to re-open the case."

Looks like they got the conclusive evidence in 2005. So after the settlement.

It's even worse, as the Court of Appeal had already decided the principle of re-opening the settlement when Hayward tried to strike it out. And Underhill had to turn considerable intellectual somersaults to avoid that pretty obvious finding.

The upshot of this decision is that all defendants facing big PI claims will delay, delay and delay again to try to get their evidence perfected, as they're now not allowed to use post-settlement evidence. Or they will take everything to trial so they can use Ladd v Marshall. Resulting in extra costs, extra judicial time being pointlessly taken up, extra delay for everyone else, extra time for genuine claimants to receive their just due...

I reiterate. Cretinous decision. One can only hope Zurich takes it to the Supreme Court.