This site uses cookies.

February 2022 Contents

Welcome to the February 2022 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
Fundamental Dishonesty: Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust - Nicholas Dobbs, Temple Garden Chambers
Practitioners may find the appeal judgment of Cojanu v Essex Partnership University NHS Trust of interest for its consideration of fundamental dishonesty. In Cojanu, a clinical negligence claim had been dismissed following a trial in the Norwich County Court as a result of a finding of fundamental dishonesty (under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015)...
A reminder of the consequences when a witness statement does not comply with the rules: Prime London Holdings 11 Ltd v Thurloe Lodge Ltd [2022] EWHC 79 (Ch) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers
In this case, Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) considered the appropriate response where several excerpts of a witness statement did not comply Practice Direction 57AC of the Civil Procedure Rules ('the Practice Direction')...
Justified medical reports: A matter for costs not exclusion. Marva Greyson v Ryan Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers
This High Court appeal decision confirmed that the 'draconian reading' of 8BPD6 in Mason v Laing was incorrect and unwarranted. The sanction for simultaneous rather than sequential disclosure gave rise to the risk of not recovering costs at the end of the process, not the exclusion of the evidence...
The Common Law Doctrine of Mistake & Part 36 Offers: O'Grady v B15 Group Ltd [2022] EWHC 67 (QB) - Nicholas Dobbs, Temple Garden Chambers
In O'Grady v B15 Group Ltd,[1] by way of background, the Claimant's husband had been killed following a collision with a lorry, driven by an employee of the Defendant. Prior to the issue of proceedings, the Defendant's solicitors put forward a Part 36 offer whereby they offered to apportion liability on the basis of a 60/40 split in favour of the Claimant. At that stage the Defendant had not made any formal admission in relation to primary liability...
Case Report: H v P - Mary Kay, Spencers Solicitors
On 31 October 2019 the Claimant (aged 50) had been driving along the M60 on his way home, when a settee cushion flew over the central reservation from a vehicle travelling in the opposite carriageway. The vehicle in front of the Claimant's vehicle managed to stop, as did the Claimant. However, the vehicle behind the Claimant (the Defendant) did not stop in time and collided heavily with the rear of the Claimant's vehicle; shunting it into collision with the central reservation and the vehicle in front...
Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch
Legal Mind Case and Commentary No. 37: Legal Mind Cases on Dishonesty - [Koch, H.C.H., Jansen, F.; Savage., J; Aldridge, M. & Nokling, K. February, 2022]
There have been several cases recently summarised in legal professional journals exploring the concept and issue of Fundamental Dishonesty. As such, these cases address the often complex legal ramifications of evidential unreliability...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
'15 out of 10!': Making Sense of Pain Scores - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains how to resolve inconsistencies in the pain score given by claimants in PI assessments...
Showing Independence When Giving Evidence - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP discusses the challenges that face an expert who wishes to demonstrate independence when giving evidence...

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.