October 2025 Contents
 Welcome to the October 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 | |
 The Devil's in the Detail-ed Assessment: XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY), ZZ v Jordan Young, Aviva Insurance Limited - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers On 24 September 2025, Costs Judge Nagalingam handed down his judgment in XX (a protected party by her husband and litigation friend YY), ZZ v Jordan Young, Aviva Insurance Limited 2025] EWHC 2443 (SCCO). The case provides important guidance on the limits of detailed assessment, particularly concerning arguments regarding alleged fundamental dishonesty (FD)... |
 Chaos Beats Causation: The Limits of Accident Reconstruction - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers Michael Brooks Reid comments on the High Court's approach to the neurosurgical evidence in the case of MW (a child) v Wilkinson & Anor [2025] EWHC 2300 (KB). A car vs pedestrian accident took place near a school causing a young child, 'M', to suffer life-changing injuries. At trial, the Claimant argued that even if the collision was unavoidable, M's injuries would have been significantly reduced had the Defendant been driving at a lower speed (he was driving at around 20mph, the advisory speed limit). The Claimant relied on neurosurgical evidence which posited that a marginal reduction in impact speed would... |
 An offer too good to ignore? 'Intransigence' proves a costly defence stragegy - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers Michael Brooks Reid comments on the recent judgment of HHJ Russen KC in Learning Curve (NE) Group Ltd v Lewis & Anor [2025] EWHC 2491 (Comm), a case highlighting the uphill battle faced by a party arguing that it would be unjust for the usual Part 36 consequences to apply. Following trial, the Claimant was awarded £5.2m. The critical factor in this consequential hearing was a Part 36 offer made by the Claimant over a year before trial. The offer was for the precise sum ultimately awarded by the Court, inviting settlement at £5,211,625. The Defendants chose not to engage with the offer, pursuing a... |
 Watson, We Have a Case! MH Site Maintenance Services Limited, Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited v James Watson - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers On 24 June 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in MH Site Maintenance Services Limited, Markerstudy Insurance Services Limited v James Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775. The lead judgment of Lord Justice Coulson clarifies the extent of the Court's jurisdiction to intervene and make case management directions in claims progressing under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value RTA Claims ("PAP") when proceedings have been issued under Part 8 due to limitation... |
 Managing the Risks of AI in Expert Evidence: 10 Practice Standards for Lawyers and Experts - Ramune Mickeviciute, Hugh James LLP & Geoffrey Simpson-Scott, Hodge Jones and Allen LLP We hope we do not exaggerate by saying that one of the biggest nightmares that any lawyer faces is being penalised for using or submitting false or inaccurate information. Most of you might have already heard about good cases stumbling not because of the law itself, but because of missed communication or unclear expectations. In a world that is run by technology to ease our professional lives, one might question how this happens... |
|
| Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin | |
 When Experts Go Too Far! - Dr Mark Burgin Dr Mark Burgin explains experts who give opinions on what they think is inside the person's head will continue to face legal criticism. Can a GP expert give opinions on whether a person will be harmed by prison, being made homeless or return to their own country? This is a common question in Tribunal, Civil and Criminal court cases and it has been suggested that only psychiatrists can provide the answer. This is the wrong question and the experts should invite the solicitors to provide clarified instructions... |
|
![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)
