Claimant groups: 85% of injured workers not compensated – Law Society’s Gazette

‘More than 85% of people injured or made ill at work do not recover any compensation, a new report has stated.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 16th April 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Judge orders toddler to be returned to parents after nearly a year in care – Daily Telegraph

Posted April 1st, 2014 in care orders, child abuse, children, news, personal injuries, social services by sally

‘A little boy who suffered brain injuries after falling from a bed should be returned to his parents after being taken into care nearly a year ago amid, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 31st March 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off

Judge refuses whiplash damages as he criticises Britain’s ‘compensation culture’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted March 27th, 2014 in compensation, expert witnesses, judges, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘Britain’s compensation culture is a “national phenomenon,” a High Court judge said as he refused to grant damages to two women to “stem the tide” of fake insurance claims.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 26th March 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off

The Savile Estate Saga – Sovereign Chambers

‘Jimmy Savile died on 29 October 2011. The current value of his estate, after allowing for a range of expenses that have been incurred, was about £3.3 million. Jimmy Savile left a will. The executor of the will and Jimmy Savile’s personal representative was National Westminster Bank plc (“the Bank”). Various individuals were named in the will as beneficiaries (“the individual beneficiaries”). These included a small number of close relatives and friends, each of whom was given a relatively modest bequest. However, under the will, the bulk of the residue of Jimmy Savile’s estate was left to the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (“the Trust”). That Trust was intended to serve a number of very worthwhile and valid charitable causes, including Help for Heroes.’

Full story

Sovereign Chambers, 19th March 2014

Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) – Supreme Court

Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant); Dunhill (a protected party by her litigation friend Tasker) (Respondent) v Burgin (Appellant) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 18

Supreme Court, 12th March 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) – WLR Daily

Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2): [2014] UKSC 18;  [2014] WLR (D)  122

‘The test of capacity to conduct proceedings for the purpose of CPR Pt 21 was the capacity to conduct the claim or cause of action which the claimant in fact had, rather than the claim as formulated by her lawyers. A consent order based on the settlement of a claim by a claimant who lacked capacity and did not have a litigation friend was not valid even though the claimant was legally represented.’

WLR Daily, 12th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Teacher paid £230,000 compensation after slipping in ketchup – Daily Telegraph

Posted March 4th, 2014 in compensation, health & safety, news, personal injuries, teachers by sally

‘The claim is one of £1 million worth of compensation payments made to injured teachers by Essex County Council.’

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 4th March 2014

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances – WLR Daily

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances [2014] EWCA 12; [2014] WLR (D) 86

‘Where a cyclist had been run down in France and brought proceedings in the English courts seeking damages for personal injury, the question whether there should be one single joint expert, or more than one expert pursuant to CPR Pt 35, was a matter of “evidence and procedure” within the meaning of article 1(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007. Therefore the question of which expert evidence the court should order fell to be determined in accordance with English and not French law.’

WLR Daily, 20th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

These Things Take Time – Zenith Chambers

Posted February 14th, 2014 in limitations, negligence, news, personal injuries by sally

‘On 11th December 2013 the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Davidson v Aegis [2013] EWCA Civ 1586. The case provides a useful and up to date reminder of the applicable principles when a Court is asked to use section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the primary limitation period in a personal injuries action.’

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 5th February 2014

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Fact or Friction – Horner v Norman – Zenith Chambers

Posted February 14th, 2014 in accidents, evidence, expert witnesses, negligence, news, personal injuries, road traffic by sally

‘It can be difficult at the best of times to establish liability in claims involving pedestrians. Expert evidence should, hopefully, make the task easier, but this case is a useful reminder that even seemingly robust expert evidence may not be enough for a party to succeed.’

Full story

Zenith Chambers, 5th February 2014

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Mesothelioma Act 2014

Mesothelioma Act 2014 published

Full text of Act

Source: www.legislation.gov.uk

Comments Off

Is Fairchild a Leading case of the Common Law? – The Inner Temple

Is Fairchild a Leading case of the Common Law? (PDF)

Per Laleng, Inner Temple Academic Fellow, University of Kent

The Inner Temple, 20th January 2014

Source: www.innertemple.org.uk

Comments Off

Hospital payout for girl’s glue injection – BBC News

Posted January 28th, 2014 in children, damages, medical treatment, news, personal injuries by sally

‘A 10-year-old girl who was left brain damaged after she was accidentally injected with glue in her brain is to receive a multimillion-pound payout.’

Full story

BBC News, 27th January 2014

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Taj Mahal Hotel injury claim allowed to proceed in English courts – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted January 27th, 2014 in choice of forum, duty of care, India, jurisdiction, news, personal injuries, terrorism by sally

‘This sad case arose out of the 2006 terrorist attack on the Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, India. The claimants, who had spent 15 days backpacking around Goa, decided to treat themselves to one night of luxury at the hotel before they were due to fly home from Mumbai. Shortly after the attack began the claimants hid in their room, locked the door and turned off the lights. Some hours later they tried to escape through the window. Their room was on the third floor of the tower part of the hotel. They tied together sheets, curtains and towels to make a rope. They hung it outside their room and the first claimant went first. The “rope” came apart and he fell to the ground suffering serious spinal injuries which have left him paraplegic. The second claimant was rescued subsequently. She did not suffer physical injuries but claims for continuing psychiatric consequences.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

High Court slams council for “act of retaliation” against PI law firm which sued it – Legal Futures

‘A local authority’s refusal to offer a law firm tenant a new lease was “an act of retaliation, pure and simple”, to punish the firm for bringing personal injury claims against it, the High Court found last week.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 27th January 2014

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Comments Off

Haxton v Philips Electronics UK Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted January 24th, 2014 in asbestos, damages, industrial injuries, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Haxton v Philips Electronics UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 4; [2014] WLR (D) 19

‘There was no reason of principle or policy why a claimant whose life expectancy had been reduced by the negligence of the defendant should not be able to recover damages compensating her for the consequent reduction in damages for loss of dependency which she was entitled to claim in a separate action against the same defendant under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as a dependant of her late husband.’

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Justice for asbestos victims moves forward – Litigation Futures

Posted January 17th, 2014 in asbestos, bills, compensation, industrial injuries, news, personal injuries by sally

‘In early December, I wrote about the new HMRC policy doing nothing but stifle access to justice for asbestos victims. And my opinions on that side of things still hold true.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 15th January 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

MoJ presses ahead with plan to introduce RTA medical panels this year – Litigation Futures

Posted January 17th, 2014 in doctors, expert witnesses, news, personal injuries, road traffic by sally

‘The new independent medical panels to assess whiplash injuries are on course for implementation this year after the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) began putting together a working group to take them forward.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th January 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

MoJ confirms plans for medical whiplash panels – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted January 16th, 2014 in doctors, evidence, fraud, limitations, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that a working group will next month begin the process of creating medical panels to assess whiplash injury claims.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 16th January 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Anonymity Part 2: Child personal injury cases – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted December 19th, 2013 in anonymity, children, news, personal injuries, reporting restrictions by tracey

‘JXMX (A Child) v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2013] EWHC 3956 (QB). In Part 1 on this subject, I discussed medical confidentiality and/or legal restrictions designed to protect the privacy of a mother and child. This case raises the question in a slightly different guise, namely whether the court should make an order that the claimant be identified by letters of the alphabet, and whether there should be other derogations from open justice in the guise of an anonymity order, in a claim for personal injuries by a child or protected party which comes before the court for the approval of a settlement.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 19th December 2013

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off