May 2026 Contents
 Welcome to the May 2026 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 | |
 A Costly Business: No Security for Costs of Detailed Assessment - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers On 24 April 2026, Costs Judge Brown handed down his judgment in Magomedov v Rabinovich [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO). The key question for consideration was whether the Court dealing with the assessment of costs has the power to order security for costs. The answer was a definitive no. The application was for security for costs in the sum of £336,000, representing 70% of the Applicants' total costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. The Respondents (originally the Claimants) objected (inter alia) on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction. The underlying Claim had been brought against the Applicants together with 19 other Defendants. It consisted of two allegations of unlawful... |
 Too Late to the Party? The Post-limitation substitutions under CPR 19.6(3)(b) - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers The next episode of my series on the gripping topic of substituting a party after the expiry of limitation, this article looks at the Court of Appeal decision in Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Ltd (in liquidation) and Ors; BDB Pitmans LLP v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, concerning the "second gateway" under CPR 19.6(3)(b). In very brief terms, the appeals arose from professional negligence claims in respect of advice given by Pitmans LLP ("Pitmans"). Pitmans was subsequently acquired by BDB Pitmans LLP ("BDB"), and the claimants issued against BDB on the mistaken basis that BDB had assumed Pitman's liabilities. Upon realising their error, the claimants attempted to substitute... |
 Misfeasance in public office: PI claim against four police institutions reinstated - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers Michael Brooks Reid discusses the recent Court of Appeal decision in Van Buuren v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary and Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 391, in which the Master of the Rolls gave a striking judgment reinstating a litigant in person's claims for misfeasance in public office arising out of an allegedly falsified police investigation into a road traffic accident. In August 2013, the claimant fell from, or was knocked off his bicycle near Cambridge. He lost consciousness for over thirty minutes and was seriously injured. He had no recollection of the accident. Some minutes after the accident, two officers... |
 Trust Issues: MIM v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Secondary Victims of 'Medical Mishaps' - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers On 17 March 2026, Her Honour Judge Claire Evans handed down her judgment in MIM v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 562 (KB). The judgment concerned the Defendant's application to strike out the claim (as a secondary victim) on the basis that the particulars disclosed no legally recognisable Claim against the Defendant (CPR 3.4(2)(a)). The key issue was whether the cause of the Claimant's psychiatric injury was an "accident" as defined by the Supreme Court in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC. The Claimant developed an adjustment disorder as a result of witnessing the... |
 Causation, credibility and fundamental dishonesty: Lessons from a contested Fast-Track personal injury trial - Calum Pakey, Solicitor, RTA, Express Solicitors Personal injury claims, in which primary liability is no longer disputed, frequently turn on more nuanced issues of causation and credibility. A case I worked on illustrates how allegations of fundamental dishonesty can arise from relatively common evidential inconsistencies and the potentially serious consequences had such allegations been established at trial. The claim arose from a road traffic accident in January 2022, when the defendant moved off from a parked position and collided with the claimant's vehicle. Although breach of duty was admitted, the defendant denied the accident caused the alleged injuries. The defendants further alleged that the claimant brought a claim which was fundamentally dishonest... |
|
| Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin | |
 What is Consent Anyway? - Dr Mark Burgin Dr Mark Burgin argues that replacing the current understanding of consent as a transactional event by a disability informed, relational process known as Assisted Autonomy would provide a single universal legal basis for investigating issues. Consent is complicated by the way the concepts have grown with different definitions and applications in specific situations. Consent when considered by a doctor has a different meaning to that during s--ual relations. The foundational principles that consent must be voluntary, informed and given by a person with capacity are the same but doctors also have a duty to do good. An example of an inconsistency is the common... |
|
![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)
