This site uses cookies.

June 2025 Contents

Welcome to the June 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
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and Another [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
The Divisional Court's judgment in these joined contempt cases following a Hamid hearing heard on 23 May 2025 has received wide-spread attention in both the legal press and national media. I want to highlight the unequivocal guidance that the Divisional Court has given as to the use of artificial intelligence by legal professionals and the salutary reminder of the regulatory responsibilities surrounding the use of emerging technologies.
JD Wetherspoon Plc v Burger & Risk Solutions BG Ltd [2025] EWHC 1259 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers
The Claimant sustained a serious hip injury after being forcefully restrained by two door supervisors outside a JD Wetherspoon (JDW) pub in August 2018. The supervisors were employed by Risk Solutions BG Ltd., which was contracted by JDW to provide security services. The Claimant initially sued both JDW and Risk Solutions for personal injury. However, Risk Solutions failed to participate in the proceedings, and so the case proceeded against JDW alone...
Mark Edwards & Ors v 2 Sisters Food Group Limited [2025] EWHC 1312 (KB) - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers
The case concerns an appeal by four former employees of 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd, who alleged that they contracted Covid-19 due to workplace safety failures in June 2020. The Respondent employer sought and obtained summary judgment in its favour, arguing the Claimants had no realistic prospects of success. At the initial hearing, the County Court Judge (HHJ Owens) ruled that the Claimants would not be able to establish a causal link between...
David Richardson & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Limited [2025] EWHC 1220 (SCCO) - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
This judgment concerned a group of 224 claims against solicitors, the Defendant, from which ten test claimants were identified. Senior Costs Judge Rowley was asked to determine nine preliminary issues in respect of conditional fee agreements entered into with the Defendant and the information provided orally and in writing when those agreements were entered into...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
Criminal Case Review - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin considers how a criminal case should be reviewed to fairly consider if there is material evidence that has not been considered. Any criminal justice system will inevitably put some innocent people in prison. This is not a society problem as long as there is a prompt system of Criminal Case Review to identify those wrongly imprisoned and fairly reconsider their cases. The greater the delay and less efficient the system of Criminal Case Review the more injustice will occur...
Safe Use of AI in Legal Proceedings - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin uses Gemini LLM to consider a recent paper considering AI and the UK Judiciary from the point of view of a medical expert with wide experience in AI. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal field has been generally welcomed but Judges have raised concerns. There are a number of reports of lawyers having been caught out citing non existent cases. This suggests that AI use in law is already widespread and largely unregulated either by legal firms or through formal guidance. The judges in this paper have a unique viewpoint and their work is a key step to safe AI use...

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.