This site uses cookies.

January 2021 Contents

Welcome to the January 2021 issue of PI Brief Update Law Journal. Click the relevant links below to read the articles.

CPD

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
Godfrey v Automotive Products Limited (unreported, 17 December 2020) - Paul Erdunast, Temple Garden Chambers
Can a Claimant who is required to take out a loan in order to fund litigation disbursements recover interest on the loan from the Defendant? DJ Baldwin, a regional costs judge, decided that the answer was 'yes' in theory, but he declined to exercise it where there was no evidence of the Claimant's finances or the loans market...
FREE CHAPTER AND FOREWORD from 'A Practical Guide to the Small Claims Track - 2nd Edition' by Dominic Bright
A litigant in England and Wales is most likely to come into contact with the civil courts, principally the county court, in connection with a claim proceeding on the Small Claims Track which, despite the name, is the track to which nearly all the cases worth up to £10,000 are allocated, a very significant number of cases every year...
Devonshires Solicitors LLP v Elbishlawi and Lam Developments Ltd [2021] EWHC 173 (Comm) - Harry Peto, Temple Garden Chambers
This was an application for summary judgment in respect of a claim for fees against the Defendants, who were former clients of the Claimant. The First Defendant was the beneficial owner of the Second Defendant property investment company...
Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB) - Paul Erdunast, Temple Garden Chambers
This case is a helpful reminder that if a party wishes to rely on prejudice against it, it should provide evidence of such prejudice. This applies in numerous situations, such as applications for relief from sanctions, arguments about resiling from admissions, and in this case, which concerned whether to extend limitation to allow a claim being issued roughly 20 years out of date...
Asbestosis: assessing damages on a provisional basis - Jim Hester, Parklane Plowden Chambers
Hamilton v NG Bailey Limited [2020] EWHC 2910 (QB) provides a useful view of how a court might approach quantum in an asbestosis case when considering damages on a provisional basis rather than as a full and final settlement. Those who deal regularly with such cases would be well advised to read the judgement in full...
Case Summary: M v W - Helen Reynolds, Spencers Solicitors
The Claimant, aged 9 at the time of the accident, was riding his bike through the local park when he hit a tree stump, which was disguised by overgrown grass, causing him to fall from his bike. The Claimant suffered a fracture of his left arm with bruising to his face and leg...
Landmark Ruling Clarifies Accommodation Claims - Claire Burnell, Higgs & Sons
The long-awaited Swift v Carpenter ruling gives solicitors some welcome clarity on how to assess accommodation claims for those suffering serious injury in the wake of an era of low interest rates...
Case Summary: W v UHD - Karen Cawood, Spencers Solicitors
This is a clinical negligence claim. W was diagnosed with breast cancer in February 2016. It was a Grade 3 invasive carcinoma of the left breast. A biopsy also confirmed metastatic cancer to the left lymph nodes...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
Final Report from The President of the Family Division Working Group on Medical Experts in the Family Courts - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains how low fees, poor quality instructions from solicitors and criticism by courts is causing a perfect storm...
What Information should GPs record? - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains that GPs can record too much information and cause breaches of confidentiality...

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.