This site uses cookies.

January 2024 Contents

Welcome to the January 2024 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
Another cautionary tale about service: Chehaib v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2 (KB) - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers
This case started life as a clinical negligence claim brought against three Defendants. The claim was issued just within time on 2 August 2021. The Second Defendant consented to an extension of time for service of proceedings, but simultaneously stipulated that they would not accept service via email. However, this was overlooked and service attempted on the Second Defendant via email on the final day that...
Secondary victim claims restricted by the Supreme Court alongside important clarification of the Alcock criteria - Nancy Kelehar, Temple Garden Chambers
Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1. Date of Judgment: 11/01/2024. In an important decision for personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners, the Supreme Court has addressed a question that has been live in the arena of secondary victim claims for over three decades. The 'critical question' [22] is whether a doctor owes a duty to close members of the patient's family to take care to protect them against the risk of psychiatric injury that they might suffer from witnessing the death or injury of their relative from an illness caused by the doctor's negligence...
Court of Appeal examines rules relating to the assessment of fees charged by solicitors - Nancy Kelehar, Temple Garden Chambers
Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 15. Date of Judgment: 18/01/2024. The Claimant/Respondent is the beneficiary of his mother's estate. He sought to challenge the fees charged by the solicitors and applied to the Court for an assessment under section 71(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 ('the 1974 Act'). He issued proceedings 8 months after the last invoice was delivered to the executor. The solicitors argued that it is not open to a beneficiary to challenge legal fees that have been paid from the proceeds of the estate.
Mini Review: The Government's Response to the Official Injury Claim Service Inquiry - Amy Lanham Coles, Temple Garden Chambers
The Official Injury Claim (OIC) service was developed to provide a free and accessible service for bringing low-value, road traffic accident personal injury claims. The online portal was designed to enable people to progress claims both with and without legal representation. First implemented on 31 May 2021, it is due a review. To that end, the government recently delivered their response to the Justice Committee's Ninth Report of...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
How Do GPs Treat Psychosocial Problems? - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP explains that GPs take the long view when helping patient with complex psychosocial problems. Complexity in medicine is less about the number of diagnoses and more about how chaotic the person's life is which why the Biopsychosocial Model can help complex patients. When a GP talks about a holistic assessment they really mean that they look at all the person's life for any area that one of the techniques they have will be effective...
Working with Emotional Teenagers - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr. Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP identifies the three main causes of emotional distress in teenagers and explains how generalists approach psychological work. The transition from childhood to adulthood is characterised by the changes in the way that their brains work due to neurodevelopment and hormonal effects. Although many neural pathways are present in children their function changes during puberty causing a dramatic increase in thoughts about s-x and disgust...

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.