This site uses cookies.

June 2022 Contents

Welcome to the June 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
Hill v Ministry of Justice [2022] EWHC 370 (QB) - Rochelle Powell, Temple Garden Chambers
The case concerned an appeal against the order of Recorder Bright QC dismissing a claim for personal injury suffered by Mr Hill ("the appellant") in the course of his duties as a probationary prison officer. The appellant was instructed to escort two young offenders when one of the prisoners ("DB") assaulted him, causing the appellant to sustain a spinal injury...
Uncertainty In The Law: When Actionable Damage Arises In Mesothelioma Cases - Nicholas Dobbs, Temple Garden Chambers
In Brooks v Zurich Insurance, the Claimant had worked as a maintenance engineer at a paper mill in Enfield. His work brought him into contact with asbestos and, around 30 years later in March 2020, he began to suffer from the first symptoms of mesothelioma. He was formally diagnosed in April 2021. When examined in October 2021, his life expectancy was in the range of 6 to 18 months. His wife suffered from dementia and he wished to progress the claim as quickly as possible so that there would be funds available for her on his death...
PI Practitioner: Ex Turpi Causa Oritur Actio - Nicholas Dobbs, Temple Garden Chambers
In Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors, the First, Third, and Fourth Defendants applied for an order striking out the claim against them on the grounds of illegality, 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio' (out of a dishonourable cause no action arises). The Claimant had killed three men in their homes whilst suffering delusional beliefs about them. He made numerous allegations of negligence against each of the Defendants, in essence arguing that they were...
Knowledge of the specific injury or disease? - Jim Hester, Parklane Plowden Chambers
Does the specific injury or disease which a claimant sustained need to be reasonably foreseeable for liability to be established? Or is reasonable foreseeability of a risk of any injury or disease sufficient? The date of 'guilty' knowledge is a frequent topic which arises in industrial disease litigation. This is when a defendant ought to have known that a particular form conduct could reasonably foreseeably cause injury...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
How to Write a CV for an Expert Report - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains what a court is looking for in an expert's CV and how even senior experts can keep their CVs looking fresh. Courts need to be able to see in the medical report why they should consider this expert witness should be seen as an expert in this case. Although anyone can say that they are an expert it is the court that determines whether the practitioner is an expert...
Addressing Inconsistencies in PI reports - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains why inconsistencies are a sign of a good personal injury report and the expert's skill is in addressing them. Inconsistencies can arise from an internal error in a report, a mistake by a claimant or a biopsychosocial phenomenon. Errors in the report can occur when the claimant said that they had no previous neck pain and then said that they had whiplash following a previous RTA...

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.