This site uses cookies.

September 2020 Contents

Welcome to the September 2020 issue of PI Brief Update Law Journal. Click the relevant links below to read the articles.


Note that there are no new monthly CPD quizzes since the SRA and the BSB have both updated their CPD schemes to eliminate this requirement. Reading PIBULJ articles can still help to meet your CPD needs. For further details see our CPD Information page.


Personal Injury Articles
Clinical Consent: Where Are We Now? - Ruwena Khan, Park Square Barristers
Clinical negligence litigation continues apace; the doctor-patient relationship ever-evolving, medical professional guidance adapting and incremental changes to the common law running in tandem. Who knows how the law will change, if at all, following what we hope will eventually be a swift and safe conclusion to the current global pandemic. Will there be significant numbers of cases brought in relation Covid-19 medical treatment: inadequate facilities and staff being...
Griffiths v TUI UK Limited [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB): The Court may not depart from uncontroverted expert evidence - Sam Way, Devereux Chambers
In a judgment which will have wide-ranging implications across lower value personal injury claims, Martin Spencer J has confirmed that where a court is presented with uncontroverted expert evidence which complies with the requirements for admissibility under CPR Part 35, the Court cannot depart from that evidence. Although the judgment does not break new ground, it provides valuable resistance against arguments aimed at undermining expert evidence which often find favour with District Judges...
Medical Protection Society successful with fundamental dishonesty ruling - Louise Jackson, Browne Jacobson
In Simpson v Payne, the Defendant Applicant (Defendant) was successful before His Honour Judge Murdoch in their application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant resulting in an enforceable costs order against the Claimant directly...
The White Book must not be thrown out of the window! - Mark James, Temple Garden Chambers
Nearly 600,000 personal injury cases valued at less than £25,000 are commenced in the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents ("the PAP") each year. Many are settled or drop out of the PAP (e.g. because liability is disputed). However, a significant minority are stayed under paras. 5.7 and/or 7.12 of the PAP, using the Part 8 procedure under CPR 8BPD, to stop time running under the Limitation Act 1980 and/or to allow the claimant time to obtain expert reports...
What is the test of breach of duty in pure diagnosis cases? - Paul Sankey, Enable Law
When it comes to treatment, the test of breach of duty is the Bolam test. A different test applies to providing information to patients since Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board[1]. What is the test for pure diagnosis?
Summary of Recent Cases, September 2020
Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month...
PI Practitioner, September 2020
Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. This month: Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
The Impact on PI Law of The New Sentencing (Equality) Guidelines - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains how the move to Disability Analysis Reports (DAR) in The New Sentencing Guidelines will change Equality Act 2010 issues in PI law...

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.