News Category 2
Brexit and Accidents Abroad - Paul Lewis, George Ide LLP
25/09/19. Many of us know that, if we have an accident in the UK that to some extent was the fault of another driver, we may be able to make a claim against the insurer of that vehicle or driver. But what is the current process for making such a claim if we have an accident abroad, and will that change if we leave the EU as planned on 31 October?
Currently, if you have an accident in another EU or European Economic Area (EEA) country and wish to make claim, you can do so in the UK, under English law. If or when the UK leaves the EU on 31 October we will almost certainly be withdrawn from the ‘Fourth Directive’, which allows victims of road traffic collisions in EU or EEA countries other than their own country of residence to make compensation claims in their own country and in their own language. If we leave this system, UK victims of accidents abroad may have to approach the foreign insurer directly with any claim; in the event of an accident with an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, they may need to apply directly to the foreign equivalent of UK’s Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB). This would make bringing such claims far more difficult and time-consuming than is currently the case. Each member country obviously has its own laws and, crucially, different time-limits for bringing claims may apply. Understanding those laws and any rules specific to compensation claims is likely to prove difficult.
In some EU and EEA countries the MIB equivalent only pays compensation to its own residents, EU residents or nationals of other EEA countries. To enable continued access to compensation for UK victims, the UK MIB is working to sign agreements with other EU and EEA countries but these will not replace the current system. The agreements require other countries to confirm they will continue to pay compensation to UK residents after the UK leaves the EU. Depending on which countries sign these agreements and the local rules in those countries, access to compensation could vary from country to country.
Anyone thinking of driving abroad after we have left the EU would be well-advised to ensure they understand the prevailing accident claims legislation and any cross-border agreements that are applicable at that time.
For more information and further advice on making claims for road traffic accident compensation please contact the George Ide team on 01243 78668 or email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Paul Lewis. Partner and Head of Accident Management
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Ramberg
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 ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
Case Report: C v Weeks - Steven Barke, Spencers Solicitors
10/09/19. Case Name: C v Weeks
Accident Date: 8th May 2014
Settlement Date: 12th June 2019
TOTAL GROSS SETTLEMENT: £1,117,684.02 (inclusive of interim payments totalling £115,500.00 and deductible CRU benefits in the sum of £2184.02).
Background
The Claimant (age 43 at time of accident) was the driver of a motor vehicle when it was involved in a head on collision with another vehicle on 8th May 2014. Her 2 youngest children were back seat passengers in the vehicle. The claimant was 6 months pregnant at the time.
The emergency services attended the scene and the Claimant together with her children were all taken to hospital. The Claimant suffered multiple injuries, the most significant being a severe injury to her left foot and ankle, fractured left wrist, soft tissue injuries to the neck and right shoulder, rib fractures and psychological injury in the form of PTSD.
Liability
The Claimant was travelling from home to school with her two young children. They were in a steady queue of traffic on a single-track lane. The Defendant was travelling on the opposite side of the road, travelling at speed, and as he approached a sweeping corner, he lost control of his vehicle and collided head on with the Claimant's vehicle.
Liability was admitted by the Defendants.
Quantum
The Claimant's suffered a severe and complicated injury to her left foot and ankle including:
In the ankle - a hairline fracture in the talus extending into the subtalar and talonavicular joints, fractures of the distal calcaneum and probable capsular avulsion.
In the midfoot - an intra-articular fracture of the navicular involving the talonavicular joint and a comminuted cuboid fracture extending into the calcaneocuboid joints and the 4th & 5th TMT joints.
In the forefoot - multiple fractures to the neck and head of the 4th & 5th metatarsals, including a fracture extending into the TMT joint.
The Claimant had surgery to stabilise her fractures and checks were made to make sure her unborn baby was healthy, remaining in hospital until 23rd May 2014. The metalwork was removed in November 2014 with the claimant having further surgery to her left foot, including straightening her little toe, in May 2016. Unfortunately, the surgery brought little long-term benefit.
The Claimant was worried about the effect the accident had on her unborn baby. Fortunately the claimant gave birth to a healthy baby boy in August 2014 although she struggled to provide some of the basic care for her baby due to physical restrictions.
The Claimant has been left with constant pain and swelling in her left foot aggravated by even limited activity. She has hypersensitivity in the foot which together with a widened shape of the foot makes wearing most types of footwear very uncomfortable. Her search for suitable outwear continues. The Claimant generally has to walk with a crutch when away from the house and is severely limited in the distances she can walk. There is a chance the Claimant will require further surgery to her left foot and ankle with a 5% chance of requiring a left below knee amputation.
She also has secondary hip pain from her altered gait and use of the crutch.
The Claimant's husband was in the latter stages of his medical training when the accident happened. He had to take 9 months off work to care for his wife and children, delaying his qualification as a doctor. In September 2016 the Claimant and her family moved to Australia. The Claimant's husband now works for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The Claimant worked as a paramedic from age 24. She intended to return to work following her maternity leave but was unable to do so following the accident and was retired from the ambulance service on the grounds of ill health in September 2015. The Claimant has not been able to work since the accident and is at a significant disadvantage in the open labour market.
The Claimant has required a significant amount of care since the accident and continues to do so. The claimant and her family loved the outdoor lifestyle prior to the accident and a move to Australia would have been ideal had she been fit to enjoy it. Unfortunately the claimant's mobility and pain levels prevent her from taking part to the extent that she would like.
Settlement was agreed between the parties at a joint settlement meeting, in the gross sum of £1,117,684.02 inclusive of interim payments and CRU. Settlement included awards for past and future care, loss of earnings, future orthotics and accommodation needs.
Solicitors for the Claimant: Steven Barke, Spencers Solicitors
Solicitors for the Defendant: Paul White, Shakespeare Martineau
Counsel for the Claimant: Michael Jones, Cobden House Chambers
Counsel for the Defendant: Catherine Peck, 12 King's Bench Walk
Image ©iStockphoto.com/RobertCrum
How to choose the right Paralegal Course for you, and what to look out for if you are a PI Firm wishing to sponsor your Paralegal Employees - Amanda Hamilton, NALP
30/08/19. With the paralegal profession emerging as the fastest growing in the legal sector, and the fact that many PI Firms see the potential in employing paralegals, it’s so important to choose the right course – one that is bespoke, fit for purpose and robust.
Many PI firms are keen to pay for their paralegal staff to gain paralegal qualifications or take CPD courses. However, there are many providers who see a potential market for offering courses, and it is becoming a bit of a minefield, so here are a few tips about what you should be aware of before you, or your PI employer, take the steps to pay for any ‘paralegal’ course:
- Are the Paralegal Courses expressed to be specifically ‘paralegal’ or are they general legal courses? This is important because if they are described to be ‘paralegal courses’ in the marketing, but the name of the course does not have the term ‘paralegal’ in the title, then they have probably not been developed specifically for paralegal professionals. It’s most likely that they relate to other general legal studies or are geared towards another profession.
- Once you have ascertained that the courses on offer are specifically aimed at qualifying as a paralegal, then you should ascertain whether they are accredited by an official qualification regulator, such as the Office of Qualifications and Examinations (Ofqual). This is the government body that accredits national qualifications in England and has statutory powers under various Acts of Parliament. Because of the strength of regulation behind the qualifications that they recognise, and the reputation of these regulators, qualifications which hold an Ofqual brand are accepted worldwide. Once you establish this, then you know that an awarding organisation that has gained recognition by Ofqual is offering qualifications which are of a very high standard and are ‘fit for purpose’. You also know that the people who hold an Ofqual certificate have all attained the same level of skills, knowledge and understanding for the same qualification. In other words; they can be relied upon.
- If you are sponsoring your PI Paralegal employees to be trained and qualified, watch out for training providers that claim to be ‘approved’ by another body. Any organisation can say that they ‘approve’ a course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the courses are robust or fit for purpose. It could be that ‘approval’ is expressed because money has changed hands for that approval. Undertake due diligence on any training provider by contacting them and asking questions. Ensure that if a course has been ‘approved’ by another organisation, that the organisation itself is well-established, long-standing and not just a fly-by-night short lived unregulated body. Some organisations make claims of being ‘the only such body in England and Wales or the UK’ or ‘the longest established in the UK’. Such claims are easily made, but a bit of research and a few questions may establish a different picture.
- Take your time and be absolutely sure before you part with any fees. Phone or email the training provider and ask relevant questions. Check how long it has taken them to respond to you and how confident you feel after their response. You should not only be asking about what body accredits the courses, but also what is included in the course fee cost e.g. are course materials/workbooks included or paid for separately? Does the fee include assignment/exam fees? If not, then how much extra will you have to pay? It is difficult to assess how much on average a Paralegal Qualification should cost, since most providers are private training companies and will use their own fee structure. Organisations charging outrageous fees (for example, in the thousands) may ring alarm bells if they do not appear to be accredited by a recognised body. However, alarm bells may also be ringing if the cost of the courses appears to be too low.
- There are also different ways to study: online/distance learning/home study or class attendance. You may need to assess which is the best method for you and/or your PI employer. For example, not everyone can attend a class because of family/job commitments, and so distance learning/home study may be just the right fit. Others may not be able to manage their time effectively on their own, and therefore, class attendance may be what is required. Some courses will be assessed by examination – others by continuous assessment. Questions should also be raised about the kind of support and advice you will attain if it is not a class attendance course.
- These days, to secure professional status each year, some professional membership bodies insist that their members keep up with the law through taking CPD accredited (Continuous Professional Development) courses. The CPD accreditation Service was established in 1996 as the leading independent CPD accreditation institution operating across industry sectors to complement the Continuing Professional Development policies of professional institutions and academic bodies. If this applies to you, then you should ensure that those providers offering CPD have the CPD Badge of Approval by checking the listings on the CPD website.
Training as a paralegal can lead to a rewarding and fulfilling career. Paralegals are becoming the go-to legal service providers for most organisations. Some paralegals obviously work with PI solicitors but mostly, these days, prospective employers of paralegals come from outside of the conventional legal sector. Most companies have an element of legality to what they do, and therefore require the services of paralegals to fill that role. It is clearly more cost effective to employ a paralegal than a solicitor in house. Furthermore, the prospect of being able to offer legal advice and assistance to the consumer as a licenced paralegal practitioner, offers a very real and worthwhile career option for qualified paralegal professionals.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Amanda Hamilton is Chief Executive of the National Association of Licenced Paralegals (NALP), a non-profit Membership Body and the only Paralegal body that is recognised as an awarding organisation by Ofqual (the regulator of qualifications in England). Through its training arm, NALP Training, trading as National Paralegal College, accredited recognised professional paralegal qualifications are offered for a career as a paralegal professional.
See: http://www.nationalparalegals.co.uk and https://www.nalptraining.co.uk/
Twitter: @NALP_UK
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NationalAssocationsofLicensedParalegals/
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-hamilton-llb-hons-840a6a16/
Image ©iStockphoto.com/vm
PI Practitioner, August 2019
16/08/19. 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 focus on the recent clinical negligence case CXB v North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2053 (QB), which provides guidance as to the evidential value of witness evidence from recollection, when this is inconsistent with or unsupported by contemporaneous written records.
On 22 November 2008, the Claimant and her twin brother were born at the Defendant's hospital. The birth involved complications which both parties accepted could have been avoided if the Claimant's mother had chosen to deliver by way of elective caesarean section. It was the Claimant's case that her mother had chosen to have the caesarean section. The Defendant maintained that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
