The following PI & Clinical Negligence precedent provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert]]
[[Specify Specialist court]]
[[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY]
[A B] Claimant
[X Y] Defendant
COUNTER SCHEDULE OF LOSS
The dates set out by the Claimant are agreed.
The Defendant relies on the evidence of Mr. T. Magnum, Consultant Spinal Surgeon, that a significant deterioration some 12 months after the accident was probably unrelated to it. If there was an acceleration, Mr. Magnum's view is that it was by no more than 2 years.
The Defendant’s contentions in relation to the effect of the accident on the Claimant’s employment are set out in section 2 below. As to recreational activities, the Claimant told Mr. Magnum that “most of all she liked to watch TV, mainly soap operas, and that was unaffected”.
On the basis of Mr. Magnum’s evidence, the Defendant will submit that general damages should be assessed with reference to category [insert bracket] of the Judicial College Guide
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant?Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull).General
The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intentWounding or causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent is triable only in the Crown Court on indictment. Elements of the offence Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove the defendant unlawfully
There may be times when, rather than assigning the benefit of an agreement to a third party, the original parties wish instead to end their obligations to each other under that agreement and, in effect, recreate it, with the third party stepping into the shoes of one of the original parties. This is
This Practice Note considers claims for damages for breach of statutory duty. For guidance on claims for damages for a negligent breach of duty of care outside a statutory duty, see Practice Notes:•Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?•Negligence—when is the duty of care breached?Breach of
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.