‘The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years. However, the conundrum can be even more challenging when considering personal injury damages that one party may have received in order to meet their specific needs arising from an accident or injury.’
Family Law, 16th April 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Details of the new SCT RTA Protocol[1] (“the Protocol”) which sits alongside the new whiplash tariff, as set out in The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (“the Whiplash Regulations”) were announced at the end of February. They will come into force, alongside the accompanying changes to the Civil Procedure Rules, on 31 May 2021.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has sent a firm message to litigators about the details required in a Part 36 after ruling that a claimant’s offer to settle at 90% was not genuine.’
Law Society's Gazette, 7th April 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Delays in cases going through the civil court continue to spiral upwards, with the whiplash reforms set to increase pressure on the small claims court even further in the coming months.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A woman who duped her lawyers as she wildly exaggerated a clinical negligence claim, seeking damages of £5.7m instead of the £350,000 her case was worth, has been jailed for contempt of court.’
Litigation Futures, 18th March 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The significant uncertainties in the economy and the employment market caused by the pandemic may lead to an upsurge in defendants arguing that damages for future loss of earnings should be assessed by way of a Blamire and/or a Smith v Manchester award rather than using the multiplier/multiplicand method. It could be contended that, applying the pre-COVID guidance, the extraordinary nature of those uncertainties creates too many imponderables for assessment using the standard multiplier/multiplicand basis. Conversely, the same uncertainties may make it easier for claimants to obtain Smith v Manchester awards and in higher amounts than before.’
Ropewalk Personal Injury Blog, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Details of the new SCT RTA Protocol[1] (“the Protocol”) which sits alongside the new whiplash tariff, as set out in The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (“the Whiplash Regulations”) were announced at the end of February. They will come into force, alongside the accompanying changes to the Civil Procedure Rules, on 31 May 2021.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd March 2021
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘If you are unlucky enough to have a car crash after 31 May 2021 and suffer whiplash injuries, you will face a very different approach to the valuation of and means of obtaining your damages. The new tariff regulations – The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 – will reduce general damages significantly, from the potential £4,080 for a 12-month whiplash injury under the Judicial College Guidelines to a fixed £1,320 under the tariff scheme.’
No. 5 Chambers, 1st March 2021
Source: www.no5.com
‘In Jarman v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 323 (QB), the Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant hospital for failing to promptly diagnose Cauda Equina Syndrome (“CES”).’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Personal injury lawyers have warned that the UK government’s decision to ditch a European ruling on private land vehicles risks sacrificing the rights of injured people “in the name of Brexit”.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The government has confirmed that legislation paving the way for whiplash reforms will come into force from 31 May. Newly-published draft statutory instruments have also finally indicated the tariff levels at which damages will be set for soft tissue injuries suffered in road traffic accidents.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th February 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In the clinical negligence case of Aileen Brint v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 290 (QB), HHJ Platts dismissed the claim but declined to find the Claimant fundamentally dishonest. It is a reminder that significant unreliability does not necessarily equate to dishonesty, particularly where there is a complex psychological component.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has given judgment in a high-profile appeal which raises important issues regarding the proper approach to jurisdictional challenges and the potential liability of parent companies in respect of damage caused by their subsidiaries.’
Blackstone Chambers, 12th February 2021
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘A High Court judge has rejected that a claimant suing a hospital was fundamentally dishonest – despite rejecting her evidence – because she believed she was telling the truth.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th February 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Royal Dutch Shell Plc (‘RDS’) is the parent company of the Shell group of companies, incorporated in the UK. The Shell Petroleum Company of Nigeria Limited (‘SPDC’, the other Respondent) is an exploration and production company incorporated in Nigeria and is a subsidiary of RDS.’
UKSC Blog, 12th February 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The continuing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is slowly but surely beginning to cast a shadow over personal injury claims. As the months have rolled on, viable businesses, starved of custom, are facing the prospect of being forced to cease trading. Those same businesses are the Defendants in many ongoing and pending claims. So, what happens when a Defendant becomes insolvent?’
St John's Chambers, February 2021
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘In the February 2021 edition of the personal injury newsletter:
Tactical Management: Taking charge for claimants
As a claimant-only advocate, Bill Braithwaite QC explains exactly why he believes that lawyers who represent severely injured claimants should understand the importance of having complete control over the recovery, rehabilitation and litigation process.
Child’s Play: Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97)
Will Waldron QC considers the case of Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97), amongst others, in relation to the often tricky question of whether to concede some finding of contributory negligence in a case involving a child.
Second bite of the cherry? Abuse of process post-Poku
In this article, Helen Rutherford covers abuse of process in credit hire cases following Isaac Osei-Wusu Poku v Abedin.
Another Hurdle for Nervous Shock Claims
In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, the House of Lords established 4 hurdles which a secondary victim must overcome in order to establish liability. Although a number of cases have tested the limits of these hurdles, an issue which has never previously been considered is whether a secondary victim must prove that his shock resulted from an appreciation that the primary victim is a loved one who had been or might have been involved in the incident. David Knifton QC considers this issue, with reference to the case of Young v Downey.’
Exchange Chambers, February 2021
Source: lexlinks.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The fee to bring an unlimited additional claim should be £10,000, rather than the £55 the court office had advised one of the parties in bitter litigation involving two law firms, a judge has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 10th February 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024