Frank Perry v Raleys Solicitors - Elizabeth Jones, Parklane Plowden Chambers
25/09/17. The Claimant was a miner who many years ago brought a claim, supported by medical evidence, for VWF (Vibration White Finger). In the current action the Claimant was pursuing his former solicitor for professional negligence in failing to advise him about making a claim for services (which were similar to claims for care and assistance).
At first instance the claim was dismissed on the basis the Claimant could not prove he needed assistance with tasks due to the VWF; this was overturned on appeal. From the perspective of a personal injury practitioner the case considers some relevant issues.
DISHONESTY – The Defence put the Claimant to proof. The implication of the Defendant’s case was the Claimant would never have made a claim for services, even if he had been properly advised, as the Claimant did not need assistance. Lady Justice Gloster formed the view “if serious allegations of dishonesty were being made, it should have been made absolutely clear to Mr Perry in cross-examination that such was the case”(see paragraph44). The Court formed the view the Claimant should be given the opportunity to address the allegations of dishonesty that were being made. Can the same analogy be drawn in a case in which the Defendant is...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/
![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)
