This site uses cookies.

April 2025 Contents

Welcome to the April 2025 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
Multi Track allocation remains decisive to the disapplication of the Fixed Costs rules - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
This claim arose from unremarkable circumstances: a claim for personal injury consisting of what at first appeared to whiplash injuries arising from a road traffic accident on 9 March 2018. The issue which the High Court grappled with, on appeal from the County Court at Southend, was whether the Claimant who had accepted a valid Part 36 offer was entitled only to fixed costs or costs on the standard basis up to the point of expiry of the relevant Part 36 offer?...
Wagatha Costie - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers
The judgment in Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) arose from an appeal concerning the costs associated with the highly publicised defamation proceedings between Rebekah Vardy (Claimant / Appellant) and Coleen Rooney (Defendant / Respondent). The Claimant's original claim was unsuccessful, resulting in an order for her to pay 90% of the Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge, Steyn J, erred in declining to find that the Defendant or her solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably as per CPR 44.11(1)(b)....
Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers
In Mather v Basran, the High Court addressed several issues surrounding an adjournment request made by the Defendant, Mr Rattan, on medical grounds during a trial involving allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial commenced on February 10, 2025, and Mr. Rattan, who was appearing as a litigant in person, reported suffering from Bell's Palsy, a condition that caused facial weakness...
The 'Relevant Period' in a Part 36 offers means what you think it does - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
This case is an illuminating decision on the construction of alleged defects in a party's Part 36 offer in relation to timing. The underlying claim concerned a claim by a litigation funder, the Claimant, for a breach of confidence against the First and Fourth Defendants. The Claimant was awarded damages in the sum of a little over £2 million after an eight day trial. A number of consequential issues then arose including the validity of the Claimant's Part 36 offer and were it were found valid, whether the judge should award the usual Part 36 consequences...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
What Every Claimant Should Know - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin explains the very high standards that are now expected of a claimant following the case Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB). 1. Provide Full and Accurate Disclosure: It is a high standard to expect a layperson to ensure "every detail" is correct but claimants should make a genuine effort to be truthful and complete...
Disability or Diagnosis? - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin considers the implications of a recent case where the judge found that the precise diagnosis was less important than the disability. Finegan v McDonald [2025] NIKB 14 is a Road Traffic Accident case where the psychiatric experts were in disagreement. Both indicated that there were mental health problems that were moderately severe but disagreed with the diagnosis. One expert stated that there was PTSD the other stated that there was an adjustment reaction...

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.