This site uses cookies.

December 2022 Contents

Welcome to the December 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
A Reminder That Interlocutory Cost Orders Can Be Made Against QOCS Protected Claimants - Grace Corby, Temple Garden Chambers
Atmani & Ors v Royal Borough of Kensington & Ors [2022] EWHC 2618 (KB) - The court considered the costs consequences of the decisions made in a CMC. The court ordered 'defendant's costs in the case', following some of the claimants' unsuccessful applications. In doing so, the court affirmed that the QOCS regime did not prevent such interlocutory orders, it just prevented their enforcement...
Court's Approach to Undertakings Given by Parties in the Settlement of a Claim - Anisa Kassamali, Temple Garden Chambers
Smith v Backhouse [2022] EWHC 3011 (KB) considers whether the Court can refuse to accept undertakings which a party has agreed to provide to the Court as part of the settlement of a civil claim. Nicklin J considered that "the consequences could be absurd" [28] if the Court had to accept any undertakings agreed between the parties and refused to accept certain of the undertakings in the parties' agreement on the basis that they were "too vague/wide" [29]...
The Importance of Discretion After Cable: Ahmed v Chojnowski [2022] EWHC 2863 (KB) - Sebastian Bates, Temple Garden Chambers
In Cable v London Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015, the Court of Appeal emphasised at [73] that '[h]aving established that there was an abuse of process, the second step for the court is the usual balancing exercise, in order to identify the proportionate sanction'. In this regard, the Court stressed that '[s]triking out the claim is an option, but [. . .] it is not the only, or even the primary, solution'...
Defective Witness Statement for Non-English Language Speaking Claimant Was Ruled Inadmissible Leading to Dismissal of His Claim - Grace Corby, Temple Garden Chambers
Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 - The judgment set out the approach to be adopted in relation to the admission of witness statements for witnesses who do not speak English, which have not complied with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules...
Judicial College Guidelines 16th Edition: Damages for Asbestos-Related Disease - Jim Hester, Parklane Plowden Chambers
This is my last article on the new (16th Edition) of the Judicial College guidelines, following earlier articles on Work-related Limb Disorders and Noise Induced Hearing Loss. This article covers Asbestos-Related Disease...
Case Summary: G v C - Stephanie Robinson, Spencers Solicitors Limited
G was aged 54 at the time of her road traffic accident. She was the driver of a vehicle that was involved in a severe rear end shunt. Following the accident, G was in shock and was unable to exit the vehicle for approximately 10 minutes. Her vehicle was not driveable and subsequently written off. She had to be collected from the scene. Liability was admitted...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
Understanding the Barrister's Role in Clinical Negligence - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains that a barrister's success in their role in clinical negligence depends on medical experts working with solicitors...
Does the DPA 2018 Protect the Patient? - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin argues that the DPA 2018 is a new source of revenue for legal practitioners and both claimants and defendants should ensure that they have the best advice...

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.