PI and Clinical Negligence developments

New starter guides

The following new starter guides are aimed at claimant and defendant paralegals, trainee solicitors and those who are starting out in PI or clinical negligence practice. They provide an introduction to the topic, factors to be aware of and a summary of the key steps in commencing, running and responding to a claim:

  1. Personal injury new starter guide—pre-action

  2. Personal injury new starter guide—procedure

  3. Clinical negligence new starter guide

Pre-action protocols

See: Personal injury protocols—overview and Portal claims—overview.

Part 36 offers and Protocol offers

For guidance on the specific CPR 36 provisions in relation to personal injury and clinical negligence claims, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers in PI and clinical negligence claims.

For general guidance on CPR 36, see: Part 36 offers—overview.

There are specific provisions within CPR 36 which apply to offers to settle where the parties have followed the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents or the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents