This site uses cookies.

PI Practitioner, September 2019

16/09/19. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.

In this month's practitioner update, we consider the suitability of litigation friends, in light of the recent case of Lorna Jamous v Alexander Mercouris [2019] EWHC 1746 (QB).

Mr Jamous had been taken into care by a local authority as a teenager, when his mother was sectioned. He made a claim, through his mother, Mrs Jamous, for damages for psychiatric injury whilst under the local authority's care. The Defendant had advised Mr Jamous in relation to this case. He had been called to the Bar, but had never practised as a barrister. He was alleged to have made various false statements, which included that he was fully qualified and could represent Mr Jamous. On the Defendant's advice, Mr Jamous refused an offer of £5,000 from the local authority. In March 2012, at the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court, the Defendant's admissions included that he had purported to obtain a statement from Lady Justice Hale that was not a true document, and that he had instructed Mr and Mrs Jamous not to attend the Appeal hearing in relation to the compensation claim because he was negotiating with the local authority. Mr Jamous and his mother brought claims for professional misconduct against the Defendant.

The claims were struck out in December 2018, for...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...