Welcome to the latest issue of the PI Brief Update Law Journal, containing a summary of all articles published on PIBULJ.com during the past month. You have received this email at newsletter@newslettercollector.com, because you are signed-up to our newsletters via lawbriefpublishjing.com, www.lawbriefupdate.com or www.pibriefupdate.com. Scroll to the end for contact, unsubscribe info etc. | Personal Injury Articles, October 2018 | Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] PIQR P18: The implications for Chester v Afshar - Michael Patrick, Hailsham Chambers Consider the traditional medical consent scenario: a doctor, in breach of duty, fails to advise her patient of a material risk of a given treatment. The treatment proceeds, the risk materialises causing injury, and the patient seeks compensation. There are three logical causation possibilities. But for the failure to properly advise... | Tuson v Murphy [2018] EWCA Civ 1491 - James Manning, Bevan Brittan LLP In Tuson v Murphy [2018] EWCA Civ 1491, the Court of Appeal overturned a costs order made against the Claimant, who had been ordered to pay a proportion of the Defendant's pre-Part 36 offer costs when she accepted the offer after the relevant period had expired... | Editorial: When can a Claimant be allowed a Second Bite at a Cherry? - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers Following the Jackson reforms, the renewed emphasis on efficiency and compliance with rules, practice directions and orders led to an increased number of claims being struck out. Those technical knockouts, however, would provide only temporary relief to defendants, if claimants could simply... | Kids will be kids: What is the extent of the duty owed by schools to their pupils? - Lauren Seagart, Queen Square Chambers How far does the duty of care owed by schools to pupils extend? We were all familiar with the shouts of 'WALK! Don't run' from teachers as we careered around school corridors. But can failure to echo this stern warning amount to a breach of duty?... | | What makes an injury 'actionable'? The Supreme Court offers some guidance - Joanna Lewis, Queen Square Chambers Although Dryden v Johnson Matthey PLC [2018] UKSC 18 is a case involving industrial disease, the Supreme Court's decision has wider significance in helping to clarify what makes a personal injury 'actionable'... | The importance of NICE guidance in a clinical negligence claim regarding the diagnosis and management of pre-eclampsia - Sam Holden & Gemma Dunn, Clyde & Co The Court recently considered the importance of NICE guidance in a clinical negligence claim regarding the diagnosis and management of pre-eclampsia. Clyde & Co were instructed by NHS Resolution on behalf of the Trust. The decision reinforced the position that NICE guidance (and other specialism-specific guidance) should be followed unless there is a clinically justified reason to depart from it... | | A on behalf of Estate of B v C NHS F Trust - Andrea Ribchester-Hodgson & Sarah Wright, Spencers Solicitors B was diagnosed with lung cancer in or around November of 2011 and was advised that there was no treatment for her condition. She was discharged from hospital and no follow up by the respiratory department was arranged. B suffered increased pain, reduced mobility and her health deteriorated because of the absence of any treatment / any accurate diagnosis for what was in actual fact an inflammatory arthritic condition... | Deborah Tilsley v Derbyshire Community Health Services - Andrea Ribchester-Hodgson & Sarah Wright, Spencers Solicitors The claim against the Defendant Trust was brought by the Executor of the Estate of the deceased following an assault upon the deceased by another patient when he was a patient in the Defendant hospital, compounded by the subsequent failure of medical staff to assess his injuries sustained in the assault, leading to a delayed diagnosis of a fracture of the neck of the femur and thereafter delay in treating the same... | CPD Information Reading PIBULJ articles can help to meet the CPD requirements for solicitors, barristers and others. For further details see our CPD Information page. | One Month Trial If you haven't subscribed yet there's no need to miss out. You can join for one month for just £1. Access the trial now! |
|
| Pleadings and fundamental dishonesty: Howlett affirmed as film director's compensation claim is dismissed - Jeff Turton, Weightmans LLP David Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671 is an example of another claim being dismissed under section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The claimant raised a preliminary issue as to whether the defendant should be prevented from arguing the claim was dishonest at all. The facts The claimant was involved in a road traffic accident on 21 August 2012 with the defendant's insured... | Laurence Sprey -v- Rawlinson Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) - Andrew McAulay, Clarion Following the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 (LASPO), solicitor/own client costs disputes have increased. The case of Laurence Sprey -v- Rawlinson Butler LLP [2018] EWHC 354 (QB) is a good case to read for anyone who would like to learn more about these types of disputes... | Accommodation; Discount or Dilemma? - Trevor Ward, Fletchers Solicitors Will the likely change in the discount rate for personal injury losses affect the way in which the Courts deal with the calculation of accommodation claims in serious personal injury cases?... | Fundamental dishonesty in occupational disease claims - Paul Debney, Weightmans LLP In this, the first of a series of 3 articles, Paul Debney, Partner and head of disease counter fraud at national firm Weightmans LLP, highlights some of the issues surrounding fundamental dishonesty ('FD') in disease claims... | Summary of Recent Cases, October 2018 Here is a summary of the recent notable court cases over the past month... | PI Practitioner, October 2018 Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. In this month's PI practitioner update we consider the case of Alpha Insurance A/S v (1) Lorraine Roche (2) Brendan Roche [2018] EWHC 1342 (QB) which concerns discontinuance and fundamental dishonesty... |
| Medico-Legal Articles, Edited by Dr Hugh Koch | Legal Mind Case and Commentary No 19: Case: Wright v First Group PLC (12 January 2018, Queens Bench Division, Foskett J Unreported) - Professor Hugh Koch, Dr Claire Browne, Dr Andrew Medley Personal Injury damages claimed by pedestrian crossing the road when hit by a bus. Two accident reconstruction experts were instructed. Following a joint discussion, both experts signed a joint statement apparently stating that there was nothing the bus driver could have done to avoid the collision. Claimant confirmed this reflected a material change in his expert's opinion and applied for permission to instruct a new expert and adjourn the trial... | | Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin | The Biopsychosocial Consent Process: Changing how Clinical Negligence is Decided? - Dr Mark Burgin Dr Mark Burgin BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP challenges the belief that informed consent is the gold standard and shows how the BPSM sees consent as a transaction between the doctor and patient... | | Book Reviews | Book Review - 'Tough Choices: Stories from the front line of medical ethics' by Daniel Sokol (Book Guild, 2018) Reviewed by Tim Kevan | PIBULJ.TV | Episode 6: 'Masterclass on Litigating Employers' Liability Claims After the Enterprise Act' - Andrew Roy, 12 King's Bench Walk
A one hour practical guide on litigating employers' liability claims after the Enterprise Act. Includes: the likely effects of s69, circumventing or mitigating the effects of s69, conventional common law principles, enhanced common law duties, direct application of European legislation, Francovich actions, other duties, practical considerations. | Episode 5: 'RTA Personal Injury: a 2015 Update - What Is Happening to PI in 2015?' - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
Andrew Mckie from Clerksroom presents a 35 minute guide to the latest developments in RTA personal injury claims. Covers fundamental dishonesty, inducements in PI cases, CUE for claimants, pre-medical offers, MedCo, and further problems. |
Half Price for Barristers, Experts, Academics, etc If you are a barrister (in independent practise), a single user expert, an academic, an independent consultant, or other self-employed single user then did you know that you can get an annual subscription to PIBULJ.COM for half of the standard rate? That means for you the cost is just £149+vat per year for full membership of the UK's leading online personal injury journal, giving you access to the latest news and important case opinions from leading personal injury barristers and solicitors, monthly CPD tests, video masterclasses, online book chapters, and a huge archive of content stretching back over 9 years. So what are you waiting for? Click below for more information or to sign-up now. About PI Brief Update Law Journal PI Brief Update Law Journal (PIBULJ) is the premium version of PI Brief Update. It contains articles written by our team of more than specialist PI barristers and other experts. The article summaries are published every month for free in this newsletter, however a paid membership is required to read the full content. If you'd like to write articles for us then please email us at mail@lawbriefpublishing.com. Remember to login with your PIBULJ account to read the full articles, or if you have not yet purchased a subscription you can book instantly online. If you have any questions about viewing articles, subscribing, or anything else at all then please contact us. Aidan Ellis & Anthony Johnson (editors) | You are receiving this message at newsletter@newslettercollector.com because are signed up to newsletters from Law Brief Publishing. If you'd prefer not to receive future editions of this particular newsletter then just click here to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from all newsletters or to edit your preferences please click here. This bulletin is free of charge and is funded in part by third-party advertisements. The publisher and editorial team make no representations about the products or services offered by any advertisers. Please note that your email address is held and processed in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). If you have received this email in error or do not wish to receive any future emails then please click the link above to unsubscribe, and do contact us if you have any questions at all. This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility of the recipient to conduct their own security measures and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this email. Note also that this email does not constitute advice for the purposes of any individual case, and it cannot be a substitute for specific advice based on the circumstances of any such case. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this document, the authors cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage, whether caused by negligence or otherwise, to any person using this document. This email is published by Law Brief Publishing Limited, 30 The Parks, Minehead, Somerset, TA24 8BT.
|
|