November 2024 Contents
 Welcome to the November 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 | |
 Tindall and another v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33 - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers The Supreme Court has handed down an important decision on the duty of care in negligence. Tindall revisits the vexed question in English tort law of liability for omissions and whether a party can be found liable for making matters worse (and the evidential issues that any claimant making such an allegation will typically face). The assumed facts were that Mr Kendall skidded on a patch of black ice on 4 March 2013 in the late afternoon and his car rolled into a... |
 BJB, In the Matter of [2024] EWCOP 59 (T2) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers In BJB, In the Matter of [2024] EWCOP 59 (T2) the Court of Protection considered a seriously injured party's application to be released from a 'Peters undertaking'. As Hilder J noted, this is one of a growing number of applications for release from such undertakings, perhaps reflective of the 'natural evolution of the circumstance of persons bound by them' (§50). The underlying case arises from a hypoxic brain injury sustained by BJB at birth in 1994, causing cerebral palsy. Now in her thirties, BJB uses a... |
 Senay & Anor v Mulsanne Insurance Company Ltd [2024] EWCC 12 - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers How does a finding of fundamental dishonesty in respect of a claimant's personal injury claim impact their right to recover damage for property damage to their vehicle? This was the question before Charman J in Senay. The case arose from a road traffic accident. The Claimant was a taxi driver. There was a collision between his vehicle and that of the Defendant's insured. Liability was in dispute. The Claimant brought a claim for personal injury. He also claimed for damage to his vehicle, its recovery and storage, and in respect of credit hire... |
 Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies [2024] UKSC 34 - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers This significant costs judgment concerned when a client can apply to have their solicitor's bill of costs assessed under section 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Supreme Court was asked to construe the meaning of 'payment' under subsection 70(4) which sets a 12-month time limit following a 'payment' within which a client must apply for such an assessment. Mr Menzies was unfortunately involved in a road traffic accident and suffered serious injuries. Oakwood Solicitors were instructed to pursue his claim for damages under a Conditional Fee Arrangement. The CFA provided that the solicitors would... |
| Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin | |
 Why Experts Must Not Use GenAI - Dr Mark Burgin Dr Mark Burgin warns against using GenAI in expert reports particularly generating text, data analysis and making decisions. There is little clear advice to experts on the use of Generative AI in their reports. The courts take a neutral view arguing that they may put weight on evidence from AI. This optimistic view comes from an ignorance of the way that Generative AI works. The limitations on any benefits and the profound downside risks that are... |
 Medical Experts for Litigants in Person (LiP) - Dr Mark Burgin Dr Mark Burgin explains that Litigants in Person need a special type of expert who has expertise in their particular needs and has wide experience. Litigant in Person (LiP) struggle to find medical experts because they try to copy lawyers. Lawyers will instruct a specialist expert who can only deal with a specific issue. The specialist needs precise instructions and is not prepared to engage after writing the report. When instructed by a lawyer who fully understands the case this is the best choice. For a Litigant in Person this approach will lead to... |
![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)
