This site uses cookies.

News Category 2

The Impact of Mitchell - David Johnson, President of FOIL and Large Loss Partner at Weightmans LLP

16/12/13. The case of Mitchell v NGN is already being described as the case of the decade although it is perhaps more accurate to describe it as the case of a decade and a half as its roots go straight back to Woolf. Case management was a central theme behind Lord Woolf’s proposals in 1999: he blamed lawyers for the delay in the system and aimed to tackle it by transferring more of the responsibility for progressing cases from lawyers to judges. Ten years on, Lord Justice Jackson picked up the baton, aiming to finish the job with new rules on costs budgeting and a greater emphasis on adherence to the rules. Mitchellis the final jigsaw piece: fail to deliver and the consequences will be severe...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/liveostockimages

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

 

Claim for Development of Partial Cauda Equina Syndrome Fails - John Mead, The NHS Litigation Authority

12/12/13. Bryce v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust (Newcastle County Court, 22nd August 2012 – Judge Walton). From 2004 Mrs Bryce suffered serious ill-health, including cervical cancer. An MRI scan of her pelvis in early 2006 excluded any recurrence of the cancer.

However, at this time she was also experiencing leg pain and was referred by her GP to the neurology department at the defendant trust. Professor Turnbull saw her on the 25th April 2006 and noted that the pain was causing quite a lot of discomfort. He observed that she had very limited straight leg raising on the right, and that “when she lifts her left leg she also gets pain on the right side”. This is a phenomenon known as crossed Lasegue’s sign, and...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/selimaksan

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Lecture to The Society of Clinical Injury Lawyers - Bill Braithwaite QC, Head of Exchange Chambers

10/12/13. I gave a lecture recently to the Society of Clinical Injury Lawyers in Birmingham. They had a very impressive turnout, and it was a pleasure to talk to specialists. As always, lecturing does concentrate my mind, and it made me realise how many different types of clinical negligence claim I've done over the time I've been in silk (21 years). I picked six recent cases, three which I had been considering last week, and chose three topics which I think are essential to pursuing successful claims...

Image cc flickr.com/photos/16848914@N05/2057231177/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

 

Fraudulent Claims and Contempt of Court: if You Can't Do the Time... - Rhiannon Lewis, 1 Chancery Lane

 

07/12/13. Regular readers will have come across several articles dealing with allegations of fraud or exaggeration. Indeed, allegedly fraudulent accidents appear to be occupying an ever increasing proportion of the court’s time. The recent decision of Spencer J inHomes for Haringey v Barbara Fari and Piper Fari therefore serves as a stark and welcome warning to any budding fraudsters.

Mrs Fari brought a claim for personal injury after tripping outside her home, seeking compensation of £750,000. According to her witness statement, Mrs Fari was left with severe pain and significantly limited mobility, such that everyday tasks were difficult for her to...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Kuzma

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

Ramifications of the Mitchell Costs Appeal - Charles Bagot, Hardwicke

04/12/13. There have been lots of sound bites from the costs and CPR compliance judgment dismissing the appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited[2013] EWCA Civ 1526. It is the most far-reaching decision in civil litigation since the introduction of the CPR in 1999. Here we look at the consequences (and unintended consequences) for litigators, the Courts and civil litigation generally. My initial tweet was: “Mitchell costs appeal dismissed. Check your insurance policies litigators. The CPR alligators are coming and this time they're hungry!” Here are my views...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.