This site uses cookies.

March 2026 Contents

Welcome to the March 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
If at First you Don’t Succeed, Apply and Apply Again: Claimants Obtain Permission for Evidence Midway Through Trial - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers
On 12 March 2026, Mr Justice Nicklin handed down his judgment in Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2026] EWHC 556 (KB). There were two applications by the Claimants for him to consider: 1. An application, mid-trial and eight days after the conclusion of their evidence, to adduce and rely on 10 further documents as hearsay evidence. 2. An application for that same witness to give...
Supreme Court revives 'lost years' claims by young child claimants: CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers
On 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment on the recoverability of 'lost years' damages by young child claimants. By a majority of four to one, the Court overruled the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 ('Croke'), which had barred such claims for nearly half a century. The claimant, CCC, suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury during her birth in 2015, resulting in severe spastic cerebral palsy. The defendant NHS Trust admitted clinical negligence. At trial before Ritchie J, the parties had agreed that CCC’s life expectancy was...
Smart Glasses in the Witness Box: a cautionary tale from UAB Business Enterprise and Anor v Oneta Limited and Ors [2026] EWHC 543 (Ch) - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers
Michael Brooks Reid discusses a recent judgment in the Chancery Court raising wider issues of integrity of the justice system in the modern technological age. The case concerned a dispute over ownership of a small English property company. The Claimants ('Cs') sought a declaration that they were the true owners; the Defendants ('Ds') asserted ownership based on various agreements, including one said to have been signed by the Second Claimant, Mr Jakstys ('C2'), at a meeting in rural Lithuania in May 2022. The case turned substantially on...
On the Right Track: High Court Rules on Pre-issue Settlements and CPR r46.13(3) - Georgina Pressdee, Temple Garden Chambers
On 18 March 2025, Costs Judge Nagalingam handed down his Judgment in Smith v Wigan [2026] EWHC 660 (SCCO). The sole issue was whether the Costs Officer should have restricted the Claimant’s costs to those recoverable on the Small Claims Track pursuant to CPR 46.13(3). This required the Court to determine whether, had the Claim been issued, the matter would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track. The underlying Claim was a landlord and tenant dispute over repairs and associated...
Clinical Negligence Medicine by Dr Mark Burgin
Short notes on the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Service - Dr Mark Burgin
Dr Mark Burgin returns to his occasional series on clinical negligence cases and discusses how lawyers can approach problems in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The high numbers of maternity services that are given low scores by the CQC indicates that the problems are more often systemic than individual. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Service managers and leaders have failed to turnaround the problem. From Morecambe Bay (2015), East Kent (2022), Shrewsbury and Telford review (Ockenden) and the ongoing National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation (Baroness Amos, 2026) the same problems and solutions have been proposed...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.