August 2021 Contents
 Welcome to the August 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 | |
 Dishonest claim or dishonest claimant? The correct application of section 57: Michael v Hurford Ltd (t/a Rainbow) [2021] EWHC 2318 (QB) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers The Claimant brought a successful claim for damages for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident. However, it appeared that certain elements of the claim were pursued inaccurately on the claimant's behalf. The Defendant appealed on the grounds that the Recorder had been wrong not to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty... |
 Third-Party Disclosure in Asbestos case - Jim Hester, Parklane Plowden Chambers This Judgment concerned an appeal from the Claimant's unsuccessful Third Party disclosure Application: Sparkes (as personal representative of Pauline Sparkes, deceased) v London Pension Funds Authority and Leigh Academies Trust [2021] EWHC 1265 (QB), per Murray J. Neither Defendants nor the third party appeared at the Appeal hearing... |
 What Has Been the Impact of the Pandemic on Paralegals? - Amanda Hamilton, NALP Within the legal profession it has long been regarded that paralegals are the support staff to solicitors, since many are graduates who are seeking to become solicitors at the end of day. Arguably, they accept the role of paralegal within the firm to gain experience and with the hope that eventually they will be offered that very important training contract. Unfortunately, evidence indicates that... |
 Unreasonable non-use of the Portal means fixed costs apply: Harford v Music Store Professional UK/DV247 Ltd [2021] EWHC B17 (Costs). - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers The Claimant brought a claim for damages against his employer following an accident at work. He was initially diagnosed with a potential inguinal hernia. Subsequent investigations revealed that he had also sustained two lumber sacral prolapsed discs in his spine. A letter of claim was sent on his behalf stating that the claim was not suitable for the Portal... |
 A reply must be consistent with the pleadings: R5 Capital Ltd v Mitheridge Capital Management LLP [2021] EWHC 2316 (Ch) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers The Defendant applied for security for costs and an order to strike out aspects of the Claimant's statements of case. Both applications were successful. In relation to the pleadings, the Defendant argued that parts of the Reply were incompatible with the claimant's pleaded case. Deputy Master Raeburn agreed, highlighting that the rules require a reply to be consistent with an earlier statement of case... |
 Failure to Remove Claims and Section 20 Accommodation: YXA v Wolverhampton City Council - Paul Stagg, 1 Chancery Lane Since the beginning of the year, three decisions have been handed down in favour of defendants in relation to how the decision in N v Poole BC [2019] UKSC 25, [2020] AC 780 affects claims in negligence against social services. The decision of Deputy Master Bagot QC in HXA v Surrey CC [2021] EWHC 250 (QB) was the first, and was discussed in an article that I wrote and circulated in February when the decision was handed down... |
 Increases in hourly rates amount to 'special circumstances': Raydens Ltd v Cole [2021] EWHC B14 (Costs) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers The Claimant solicitors acted for the Defendant in matrimonial proceedings between 2013 and 2018. The proceedings concluded, in the course of an ancillary relief hearing with an order which incorporated agreed terms of settlement. The order provided required the Defendant's ex-husband to pay to the Defendant a lump sum of £800,000. Of that sum £290,000 was to be applied in the first instance to clearing the Defendant's incurred costs... |
 How Two Law Firms Have Adapted to the PI Reforms - Brian Rogers, Access Legal From 31 May this year, the personal injury claims process changed for people who suffer from what is categorised as low-value injuries in road traffic accidents or RTAs. Essentially, the changes have impacted the amount of compensation claimants can receive and it means RTA cases valued up to £5,000 will now be treated as small claims. In theory, claimants are now less likely to seek legal representation as they will have to pay for their legal costs out of reduced damages... |
| Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin | |
 Fitness for Court: The Medical Examination - Dr Mark Burgin Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains that the basis of a medical examination assessing the fitness for court is disability... |
 How the Seven Principles of Public Life Conflict with a Doctor's Duties - Dr Mark Burgin Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP considers how expectations about public figures cause perverse behaviour and make them ineffective in their work... |
![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)
