Protected parties, anonymity orders and clinical negligence; PQ (a child by her litigation friend) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 1662 (QB) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘In PQ (a child, by her litigation friend) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Martin Spencer J was required to rule on an application that the identity of the Claimant and her family be anonymised, for the purposes of a liability-only clinical negligence trial. Although only a short, first-instance decision, the case effectively makes anonymisation orders in such circumstances all but inevitable.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

PI lawyers and insurers expect dip in RTA claims – Litigation Futures

‘Personal injury (PI) law firms and insurers expect a dip in workload over the next six months as a result of Covid-19 but expect the market to have recovered by the end of 2021, a survey has suggested.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th July 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Evans v Betesh Partnership and McGinty [2020] EWHC 1589 (QB) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘High Court decision (24/06/20) concerning solicitor/barrister professional negligence arising out of a personal injury case.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 24th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Toby Chaplin (by his mother and litigation friend, Diane Chaplin) v Ben Pistol, Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB),2020 WL 03254432 – No. 5 Chambers

‘At 28, the Claimant had acquired a traumatic brain injury and been rendered tetraplegic in an accident caused by the negligent driving of the Defendant. The case came before Master Eastman in July 2019 for case management. At that stage, it was common ground between the experts in neurology for each party that the Claimant’s injuries had significantly reduced his life expectancy. However, they disagreed as to the extent of the reduction, Dr Liu for the Claimant estimating that his life expectancy to be 30-35% of normal; Professor Collin for the Defendant adopting a figure of 30-44% of normal. There were also differences in the experts’ approach to available statistics. Whilst the range of figures adopted by each expert were not far apart and it was likely that the Claimant’s care costs would by awarded by way of a PPO, it was nonetheless accepted that the difference between the parties translated to a 7-figure sum. At the CMC before Master Eastman in July 2019, the Defendant’s application for permission to rely on a report, from medical statisticians on the issue of the Claimant’s life expectancy, was dismissed on the basis that neither party’s neurology expert deferred to evidence from a statistician to assist them in determining the Claimant’s life-expectancy and such evidence would not add to their existing analysis of the available statistics. The Defendant did not appeal.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 22nd June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Women launch group action over mesh implants – Litigation Futures

‘Another group action has gone live this week, with more than 250 women left permanently injured by mesh implant surgery suing a group of pharmaceutical giants.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Swift v Carpenter: Accommodation costs dispute reaches Court of Appeal – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 25th, 2020 in appeals, compensation, housing, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The fundamental and long-debated approach to awarding compensation for special accommodation today arrived at the Court of Appeal.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 23rd June 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Court blocks new expert on disabled claimant’s life expectancy – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 17th, 2020 in damages, evidence, expert witnesses, insurance, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The High Court has refused an insurer permission to rely on a new expert whose evidence reduced the estimated life expectancy of a personal injury claimant.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 17th June 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB): A glimmer of hope for secondary victims? – St Philips Chambers

‘The law relating to secondary victims, who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing a shocking event, has long been an area of contention.’

Full Story

St Philips Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: st-philips.com

Just a walk in the Park – No. 5 Chambers

‘The interplay of cases and statutes including some from the last century hardly makes for exciting bedtime reading but Barlow v Wigan MBC is an important decision for those who suffer injury as a result of a highway defect particularly if they are walking on a path in a park established many years ago. It is also a tribute to solicitors and counsel who pursue such claims with dogged determination, and in the case of those acting for Claimants, at a risk if the claim is unsuccessful of receiving no payment in return.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Restoring companies to the register: article exploring issues arising in mesothelioma litigation and the conflict between the Compensation Act 2006 and 2010 – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘This article intends to investigate probably well-rehearsed principles implied in bringing actions for personal injury against long-since defunct and even dissolved companies.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 10th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

MEF v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 11th, 2020 in birth, costs, hospitals, negligence, news, personal injuries, time limits by sally

‘Mr Justice Morris dismissed the Defendant’s appeal seeking to overturn Master Rowley’s decision that a Calderbank Offer without a time limit was capable of being accepted two days into a detailed assessment hearing.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Covid-19 being used to “stall” brain injury claims – Litigation Futures

‘Just over a quarter (26%) of defendants are using Covid-19 as an excuse to stall brain injury claims, despite guidelines urging the parties to take a consensual approach, research has suggested.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Appeal allowed against Strike out of Secondary Victim claims arising out of Clinical Negligence – St John’s Chambers

‘In November 2019 Master Cook had struck out the secondary victim claims brought by the Claimants as a result of witnessing the heart attack and subsequent death of their father some 14 ½ months after the alleged negligent omission of the Defendant Trust. This was on the basis that the claims were bound to fail on a strict application of binding authorities including Taylor -v- A. Novo [2014] QB 150 because the shocking event in question was not proximate in time to the breach of duty. In Taylor v A. Novo the Court of Appeal had dismissed a secondary victim claim where the claimant’s mother had been injured by a falling stack of boards due to the negligence of a colleague at work and had subsequently collapsed and died at home as result of deep vein thrombosis secondary to the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother collapsing at home but not the accident itself. Her claim failed on proximity because the death of the claimant’s mother was not the relevant shocking “event”, which was the accident itself, and so the control mechanisms were not satisfied.’

Full Story

St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020

Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk

NHS Resolution expands mediation panel – Litigation Futures

‘NHS Resolution has added one provider to its mediation panel following what it said was a “highly competitive retender” process that saw the existing three reappointed.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Training and risk assessments: a reminder from the High Court and returning to work in the Covid-19 crisis – 12 King’s Bench Walk

‘Sir Robert Francis QC (sitting as a deputy high court judge) recently handed down his judgment in Harris v Bartrums Haulage and Storage Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 900 (QB). It serves as a useful reminder of what employers must do to discharge their duty of care in terms of training and risk assessments. The key is being able to show that they are more than a “mere formality” [110]. On the facts of Harris, Sir Robert found that the First Defendant had acted negligently but dismissed the claim on causation. However, his critique of the First Defendant’s training and risk assessment process is relevant to all employers.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 26th May 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

Record court delays for civil litigants – Litigation Futures

‘The time litigants have to wait to reach trial in civil claims reached record lengths even before the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic hit, new government figures have revealed.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 4th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Group litigation – taking the lead – Doughty Street Chambers

‘Dominic Lis Waniso Lungowe & ors v Vedanta Resources PLC & anor [2020] EWHC 749 (TCC) gives important guidance on the position and role of lead solicitors in group litigation. It highlights the need for careful written arrangements setting out the relationship between lead and other solicitors and their respective responsibilities.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) – an Introduction, by Jim Hester – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted June 4th, 2020 in industrial injuries, news, noise, personal injuries by sally

‘Even those who are experienced in personal injury cases in general can sometimes find industrial diseases cases difficult to get to grips with. Noise induced hearing loss cases can fall into this category. Such cases sometimes appear littered with seemingly impenetrable, highly technical arguments.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Fatal Accident Claims by Jayne Adams QC – Ropewalk Chambers

‘The area of fatal accident claims is a wide one and, on occasion, a very complicated one. This handout and indeed the lecture which it accompanies is not intended to cover every aspect of such claims. To do so would take too much time and would, in any event, fail to cover every eventuality.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 19th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Identifying and dealing with difficult issues in NIHL cases – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted June 3rd, 2020 in chambers articles, damages, limitations, news, noise, personal injuries by sally

‘The diagnosis and quantification of NIHL is affected by innumerable confounding factors, which include:

(i) Constitutional issues, such as unrelated third pathologies, which can

‘replicate’ the pattern of threshold elevation as appears in NIHL cases;

(ii) Personal susceptibility to hearing damage: ‘soft and hard ears’;

(iii) The actual threshold at birth or before noise exposure, which means assumptions must be made regarding the extent of any allegedly raised threshold;

(iv) Age. Particularly how the effects of age are to be calculated and the assumptions which are valid in arriving at an approved or reliable AAHL table of estimates’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 22nd May 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk