Personal injury trusts

For most people, a bare trust is the most appropriate type of trust. The injured person retains a large degree of control in a bare trust and the trust is tax neutral. If the person changes their mind later, the bare trust is also easiest to unravel.

Precisely because of the control that a bare trust gives to an injured person, though, some people will want to opt for a different type of trust because they fear what they might do if they had that control. For example, some people may know that they are vulnerable to addiction, suffer from a mental condition such as bi-polar disorder which can lead to extreme highs and lows, or they may just be conscious that they are vulnerable to pressure from family and friends. For these people, a bare trust would generally

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has updated the English version of Form N215 Certificate of Service in civil cases, and in doing so has also introduced a new statement of truth. The formatting of the form has changed but the content to be recorded in it remains the same with additional notes being provided to aid completion of the form.

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

Lord Burrows discusses UK Supreme Court methods in Bar & Bench magazine interview

The UK Supreme Court has reported on an interview with Justice Lord Andrew Burrows for Bar & Bench magazine during his visit to India for the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR) Round Table. He discusses his transition from academia to the judiciary, the Supreme Court’s working methods and its role in interpreting statutes and developing the common law. He also highlights the importance of part-time judicial experience, explains the Court’s limited powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, outlines transparency through live-streamed hearings, and comments on the procedural use of AI, the value of concise advocacy, and the merit-based judicial appointment process.

ACSO reports personal injury claims hit record lows following whiplash reforms

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has reported that the government’s Compensation Recovery Unit recorded a further fall in personal injury claims in 2025, with total registrations reaching a record low, based on data obtained through a Freedom of Information request. A total of 413,323 claims were registered, a 12% decrease from 2024 and a fall of more than half compared with 2018. The decline was driven mainly by motor injury claims, which fell by 14% year on year to 282,428 and reached their lowest quarterly level on record in the final quarter of 2025. Claims in other categories, including employer and public liability, also remained well below previous highs. ACSO said the sustained reduction reflects increased barriers to bringing claims, particularly following the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash reforms, and stated that the figures undermine claims of a widespread compensation culture, as higher small claims limits and fixed costs regimes have reduced access to legal representation despite road traffic levels returning close to pre-pandemic norms.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News

Practice notes

Precedents

Q&As