This site uses cookies.

PIBULJ

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 - Georgina Hirsch, Devereux Chambers

10/02/13. On 27th November 2012 a new version of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme1came in to force. This followed one of the less publicised coalition wobbles: the new Scheme was withdrawn by the newly appointed Justice Minister Helen Grant after much criticism in debate during its final committee stage. The Ministry of Justice told the BBC that "We have listened to the views expressed in Parliament and will now consider our next steps." However, following minor re-working of the definition of ‘crime of violence’ (relevant to an appeal by the CICAP to be heard in the Supreme Court on 28 February 2013.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/bjones27

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Is the Worst Still to Come for Pi Lawyers? - Richard Coulthard, Michael Lewin Solicitors

09/02/13. It’s time that we Personal Injury lawyers face the fact that we are not very popular. The insurance industry has done a very thorough job of portraying PI Lawyers as greedy, unscrupulous ambulance chasers. Consequently, like the eye of Sauron from Lord of the Rings, the governments gaze is firmly fixed on the perceived compensation culture and the Government have publicly stated that they will take whatever steps possible to reduce claims.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/allyclark

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Work Harder for Less - Andrew Prynne QC, Temple Garden Chambers

08/02/13. Third-party funding will become an increasingly tempting option for litigators post-Jackson but it will put them under greater financial pressure says Andrew Prynne QC. It is a central pillar of a civilised society that it makes freely available a justice system to enable civil disputes to be resolved by competent and independent courts, according to the rule of law. In the last few years, it has been government policy to reduce expenditure in this area both by ceasing to provide public funds to litigants of modest means and increasing court fees. There are no ...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagestock

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

 

Adding Insult to Injury: Time to Review Roberts v Johnstone, Again - Will Waldron QC, Exchange Chambers

07/02/13. When it comes to recovering the reasonable costs of necessary adapted accommodation, there must be a better way of achieving justice for the catastrophically injured then the current system provides for– really, there must. Time after time I sit opposite an innocent victim of some dreadful accident or other and watch as a face turns from incredulity to anger as the principles of Roberts v Johnstone ((1989) QB 878 CA (Civ Div)) are explained. It is literally a case from and of another century. It is about time it was consigned to the dustbin of legal history and we found something better. It offends against the fundamental principle of the law of tort: damages should be awarded so as fully, fairly and reasonably to compensate victims of accidents. If you believe Roberts does that, perhaps you should think again.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sohl

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Fast Track Bus Accident Cases: Considering Quantum - Rushmi Sethi

06/02/13. An analysis of, with reference to leading case law, claims in respect of fast track bus accidents and quantum. An overall conclusion is drawn from the review of case law, after consideration of some of the key factors for assessing quantum. Section 5 (1) of the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 states that a driver ... shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of passengers who are on, or who are entering or leaving, the vehicle. A number of bus accidents may arise as a result of negligence and a breach of those regulations by bus drivers. Liability is not normally difficult to assess, the key question is assessing quantum of the bus accident claim.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


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.