News Category 3
Why it’s important to #RepairTheRightBody - Qamar Anwar, First4Lawyers
29/05/18. We recently launched a campaign called #RepairTheRightBodywhich urges the PI community to take action against the Civil Liability Bill.
At the centre of the campaign is ‘Jane’, who suffers painful injuries as a result of an accident caused by a ‘boy racer’ but is left totally exposed by the government’s reforms. If you’ve not watched our animation yet, please take a look to see the stark reality for innocent road traffic victims. The message is clear: the government should not be allowed to get away with prioritising repairing damaged cars over the health of injury victims.
The bill, which has just completed committee stage in the House of Lords, would see the compensation paid to someone who suffers neck and back injuries for up to three months, inhibiting their everyday activities, fall to just £235. At present, the average award, recognising the pain and inconvenience of such an injury, is £1,750.
The new tariff goes up in stages, but at each stage the sum is significantly lower than the current level of compensation. For an injury that lasts for a year, for example, what is now an average award of £3,100 will be slashed to £1,250.
However, when it comes to what are called ‘special damages’, such as the cost of repairing a damaged car, there is to be no cap.
Further, by changing the Civil Procedure Rules and classing all road traffic accident claims below £5,000 – which is almost all of them – as small claims, most injured people will have to pursue their cases without legal help, even though they will be up against lawyers instructed by the other side’s insurer.
During the second reading of the bill I was heartened to hear some of the concerns raised by peers in the House. Labour’s justice spokesman Lord Beecham said: “The question arises: why should comparable injuries not attract comparable awards, and comparable recovery of the cost of a claim, whether they are incurred in a road traffic accident or any other accident for which a defendant is deemed liable?”
He also raised multiple questions about where the evidence was to underpin the reform. Something we’ve long been questioning.
Yet Lord Keen, the Ministry of Justice spokesman for the House of Lords, did not change his tune. The debate saw general agreement that action was needed to curb fraudulent or exaggerated claims. Which we of course agree with, but we maintain that innocent road traffic accident victims should not be the ones to suffer as a result of any clampdown.
In fact, a few days later in a letter from Lord Keen to his fellow Lords, he made a bold demand stating an expectation that ‘lawyers will continue to adapt and be fully capable of providing cost-effective services to genuinely injured claimants following the implementation of these reforms’.
This is an area of the legal system that has constantly adapted to reform, and cuts to legal funding. This statement highlighted how truly wide the gap is between those who spend their days fighting for justice for people who need it the most, and those who spend their days discussing it.
The letter also included a concession made by the House of Lords to exempt cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users from the bill which is welcome news, but in reality this is a very small concession, and a fairly predictable one. It’s an easy concession to give to look good, but doesn’t do anything to fundamentally tackle the unjust nature of these reforms. Innocent motor accident victims will still remain penalised and ostracised by the justice system under the proposed terms of the bill.
We feel that we can’t just stand by and quietly let this pass. Talk is cheap and we’re now entering a crucial time if we’re to get the government to row back on this, which is why we have launched our #RepairTheRightBody campaign encouraging consumers to contact their MPs about these unfair reforms.
Look out for the hashtag #RepairTheRightBody across social media and if you haven’t already, visit our campaign pages to find out more about the campaign.
Find out how you can support the campaign and help to stop the unfair changes.
Qamar Anwar
managing director
First4Lawyers
Image cc flickr.com/photos/buggolo/2097137765/
Running The Risk: Hannah Pook v Rossall School [2018] EWHC 522 (QB) - Colin Richmond, Zenith Chambers
28/05/18. When I was young, running in the corridor at school was essentially considered a capital offence, particularly if committed whilst carrying scissors.
For the modern student-about-school, many things have changed since my day. It would seem ludicrous to a modern twelve-year-old to find that their school owned only one computer. The idea of being unable to complete a piece of homework electronically might seem equally unreasonable.
But what is the modern view of running in school? That was one of the issues considered by Mr Justice Martin Spencer QC when he heard the appeal in Pook v Rossall School earlier this year.
The Appellant was a ten-year-pupil, attending the Defendant’s school. Having changed for a PE lesson she, along with other pupils, ran from the changing room along a footpath with the intention of reaching the Astroturf sports field to play hockey.
According to the Appellant, pupils were instructed by teachers not to “dawdle” when moving from the changing room to the pitch and were, in fact, encouraged to run. On this occasion, the teacher supervising the pupils was making her way to the pitch some way behind them, carrying the necessary hockey equipment. She was assisted by a post-graduate student.
As the Appellant ran towards the pitch, she left the footpath and cut across a muddy patch of grass. In doing so, she fell and fractured her elbow.
The Appellant’s case was that the Defendant had breached its duty of care in failing to properly supervise her by encouraging her to run and allowing her out of sight of the teacher.
A factual dispute arose regarding the...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/clubfoto
Springer v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust - Alexander Hutton QC
17/05/18. This case was concerned with the requirements (and the consequences of not complying with such requirements) to notify another party pre-action that a client has “additional liabilities” which are potentially recoverable from that other party or parties, i.e. where there is a conditional fee agreement with a success fee (“CFA”), and/or an after the event insurance (“ATE”) premium. It is to some extent historic, because, as a result of the Jackson reforms, in most areas of litigation, success fees and ATE premiums are no longer recoverable between the parties where the relevant CFA and/or ATE policy was entered into on or after 1 April 2013. However, it is relevant in a significant number of cases still ongoing (most usually large multi-track claims) where the CFA and/or ATE was entered into before that date (in all types of claim), and also potentially in claims where additional liabilities remain recoverable, including publication (defamation and privacy) claims.
This was a fatal accidents clinical negligence claim solicitors were first instructed and entered into a CFA with success fee in June 2010. A letter notifying the defendant of the existence of a CFA and ATE (the latter obtained in March 2012) was not given until the letter of claim was finally given on 28 September 2012...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
Summary of Recent Cases, May 2018
15/05/18. Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month. 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.
Summary of Recent Cases - Substantive Law
Wright v Satellite Information Services Limited [2018] EWHC 812 (QB)
In an accident at work claim, the High Court upheld the first instance judge's finding that the claimant was not fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The claimant had pleaded a significant future care claim in excess of £73,000, but only recovered £2,100. Whilst His Honour Judge Pearce accepted that there were "real inconsistencies" in the claimant's case and found that there was no real need for continuing care other than minimal support, the Judge held that the claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest in presenting this aspect of his claim. On appeal, the defendant argued that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/spxChrome
Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey PLC [2018] UKSC 18 - Andrew Horner, Pupil Barrister, Trinity Chambers
01/05/18. The Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthew plc. The judgment addressed the correct interpretation of “damage” in the context of occupational platinum salt sensitisation (PSS), an asymptomatic condition contracted in response to exposure to platinum salt. Whilst itself asymptomatic, PSS is a precursor to platinum salt allergy which can produce physical symptoms comparable to those provoked by hay fever (i.e. running nose and eyes, skin irritation and respiratory tract problems). Workers affected by PSS are immediately required to cease exposure to platinum salt to avoid developing an allergy. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the acquisition of PSS amounted to actionable damage.
1. Factual background
The Appellants were employed by the Respondent company to work in the production of catalytic converters. In the course of their employment, the Appellants were exposed to chlorinated platinum salts and were discovered during routine testing to have developed PSS. Once PSS was identified in the Appellants they were prevented by the Respondent from continuing to work around platinum salts. For the Appellants, this resulted in a loss of income either through termination of employment or reassignment to a poorer paid position within the Respondent company.
At first instance, medical experts were asked to distinguish PSS from the development of pleural plaques following exposure to asbestos. The experts offered the following distinctions...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/AlexRaths
More Articles...
- Countdown to GDPR - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
- Some Practical Aspects of Chronic Pain - Pankaj Madan, 12KBW & Exchange Chambers
- Can a claim be made for becoming sensitised to an industrial chemical despite being asymptomatic? - Simon Anderson, Park Square Barristers, Leeds
- Summary of Recent Cases, April 2018
![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)
