This site uses cookies.

PIBULJ

Fraud: Defeating Suspected Fraudulent Road Traffic Cases - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom

12/01/13. Insurance fraud is on the increase. Undetected general insurance claims fraud total £2.1billion a year adding on average £50 to the annual costs individual policyholder’s policy, on average, each year (Source: Insurance Fraud Bureau). This article concentrates on pre-litigation tactics for insurance companies assuming that Solicitors will be instructed once Court proceedings are issued, by the Claimant’s Solicitor. The aim of the article is to provide practical advice for defeating claims where fraud is suspected pre-litigation, with a focus on dealing with claims economically and commercially.

The article will examine low velocity impacts, slam on/ induced collisions, bogus passenger collisions, staged/ contrived accidents and no collision allegations...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/bedo

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Small Claims: Why They Matter - Julie Carlisle, Henmans LLP

12/01/13. Personal injury practitioners are reeling from the series of blows received over the last few months, amongst which is the governments announcement that it is to consult on the raising of the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000. For consulting, I think we can safely read “is going to raise it regardless of the result”.

Government supporters are clearly tiring of the access to justice angle, going by comments on the various online forums, but quite simply one of several things is going to happen:

Image ©iStockphoto.com/angelhell

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Hot Tubbing for Expert Witnesses - Mark Solon, Bond Solon

11/01/13. As expert witnesses enter a new year and face the challenges that 2013 will bring, the buzz words of 2012 – costs, fees and efficiency – will not be far behind. However, high on that list will also be hot tubbing. Hot tubbing, more formally known as concurrent evidence, means that expert witnesses give evidence in Court at the same time and are questioned by the Judge rather than cross examined by an opposing party’s barrister. The practice, which stems from Australia, was...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Terraxplorer

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Widening the Scope of Duty in Clinical Negligence: the Significance of Less v. Hussain - John de Bono & Katharine Gollop, Serjeants’ Inn

10/01/13. In December 2012 the High Court gave judgment in a clinical negligence trial which raised significant new issues as to the scope of a doctor’s duty of care. The court also dealt with an attempt to extend the conventional Rees award and considered whether damages could be recovered by a relative/partner of a private patient as a result of breach of contract.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/dra_schwartz

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...


Obtaining Anonymity for Personal Injury Claimants - Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC & Henry Witcomb, 1 Crown Office Row

09/01/13. Following the award of a large sum in damages as a result of a successful personal injury or clinical negligence claim many Claimants suffer considerable distress as a result of media interest in their award of damages. Further the family of the injured Claimant may also suffer distress and intrusion into their family life. Claimants receiving large sums in damages are very vulnerable to exploitation even when their funds are held in the Court of Protection. When the Court has approved an award and the family were hoping they could finally try to plan their lives away from the litigation the intrusion that publicity brings can be particularly worrying. The interest from a local or national newspaper may be short-lived but the record made through on-line communications will be permanent. Many families are anxious to avoid this.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/pamelajane

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.