PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant suffered a partial finger amputation in an accident at work. At the point of instruction his solicitors assessed that the claim had a value of more than £25,000. As such, they sent a letter of claim to his employer, Etills, rather than following the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (EL/PL Protocol). The matter settled for £18,000 in damages. In the detailed assessment proceedings, Etills argued that it had been unreasonable to value the claim at more than £25,000; therefore the claimant should be restricted to fixed costs on the basis that the electronic portal should have been used. The court held that the express language used within the EL/PL Protocol is clear and unambiguous and that a claimant’s solicitor should make an objectively reasonable assessment of quantum, based on the information reasonably available at the time. It was concluded that the initial valuation of the claim had not been unreasonable and the claimant was therefore not limited to fixed recoverable costs. Written by Alex Bagnall, technical manager at Total Legal Solutions.

This Checklist on receiving a Part 36 offer identifies the key factors that a claimant should consider on receipt of a defendant’s Part 36 offer. Consideration Guidance Further information Relevant period The claimant should calculate the date when the relevant period expires for accepting the defendant’s Part 36 offer, which must be no less than 21 days from when the Part 36 offer was served (CPR 36.5(1)(c)).It is important to note this date because there may be costs consequences for late acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36 offer. There may also be costs consequences if the defendant’s Part 36 offer is not accepted and the claimant fails to obtain a judgment that is more advantageous than the defendant’s Part 36 offer (CPR 36.17(1)(a)). For further information, see Practice Notes: Part 36 offers—how to make a valid Part 36 offer—The relevant period (minimum 21 days) and Part 36 offers—costs consequences of rejection or non-acceptance—Costs consequences—claimant not accepting a defendant's Part 36 offer. Validity of Part 36 offer The claimant should check whether

A Claimant has succeeded in his bid to hold paramedics liable for failing to make a proper assessment of his mother who suffered a heart attack and died within 5 days of his 999 call. The paramedics failed to refer the Claimant's mother to hospital relying instead on the fact that she had a routine appointment the next day with her GP which, the court held, was not a sufficient “safeguard”. The paramedics should have taken a proper history of the patient and looked at the whole picture.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court held that an employer may become liable for psychiatric injury arising from occupational stress, where repeated warnings and clear signs of an employee’s inability to cope, make harm reasonably foreseeable. Applying the principles in Sutherland v Hatton and Barber v Somerset CC, the court found that the employer breached its duty by failing to undertake a risk assessment or occupational health referral once concerns about the claimant’s deteriorating condition became apparent. The judgment provides important guidance on foreseeability, evidential requirements in stress-at-work claims, and the need for defendants to adduce clear expert evidence if seeking apportionment on the basis of pre-existing psychiatric vulnerability. Produced in partnership with David Juckes of Hailsham Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The court determined issues of primary liability, limitation and vicarious liability in a case for damages for sexual assault brought by a former pupil of a music school. The pupil was subjected to sexual assault by her music teacher, who was also her guardian, when she was 15. She issued a claim against the school some 15 years after the expiry of limitation. The school disputed that the assaults had occurred, disputed vicarious liability, and relied on limitation. The court decided all issues in favour of the claimant. The case involves an interesting application of the principles of ‘dual vicarious liability’ in circumstances where the majority of the assaults took place off the school’s premises. The judgment also contains a detailed discussion of the principles of limitation in cases of sexual assault. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

Employment analysis: A claimant who was found by an employment tribunal to have made up a sexual assault allegation, and who had made no such allegation to the police (or other appropriate person), was not entitled to continued protection under anonymity and restricted reporting orders that an employment judge had made. For a claimant to have the protection of section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SO(A)A 1992) there must be a formal allegation made in the context of potential criminal proceedings, where a criminal charge may be brought (such as a complaint to the police, a prosecuting authority, a safeguarding body, a social worker or social services department or other person with professional responsibility for taking the complaint further through the criminal justice system). In addition, the tribunal’s decision, that the claimant’s account given in his evidence was in large part false and, in particular, that his complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault were fabricated, was a material change of circumstances entitling the tribunal to revoke the anonymity and restricted reporting orders. Also, the tribunal’s balancing exercise in relation to Convention rights was not flawed, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

The High Court has held that there was no duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 to visitors and trespassers nor was there a duty of care at common law for the claimant’s act in attempting to slide down a stairway banister. Furthermore the defendant had not assumed responsibility for the act of the claimant.

Filed on behalf of the Claimant Witness Statement of [insert initial and surname of witness] Number of witness statement: [insert number of witness statement in relation to the witness] Exhibit details: [insert initials and number of each exhibit referred to] Date on which statement was made: [insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] [IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT]ORIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION] DISTRICT REGISTRY] Claim No. [insert number] Parties A        Claimant and B        Defendant ________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [INSERT FULL NAME] ________________________________ I, [insert full name], of [insert full address and occupation], WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1 The facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. 2 [I drafted this witness statement myself and these are my own words. OR This witness statement was prepared on my behalf by [insert name and/or role of person who drafted the document] after a meeting [in person OR over the telephone OR [insert other form of communication] AND/OR [through an interpreter.] ] ] 3 I am the Claimant and I make this witness statement in support

Note: this Q&A considers the matter with reference to the decision in RXDX v Northampton Borough Council, which was decided with reference to the version of Part 36 in force prior to 6 April 2015. Thus the relevant rule under consideration was (old) Rule 36.14(3) (claimant's costs where it 'beats' its own, unaccepted, offer). The changes introduced to CPR 36 on 6 April 2015 do not change the essential formulation of old Rule 36.14(3) now CPR 36.17(4). What are the Part 36 costs consequences where a claimant 'beats' its own Part 36 offer? Under CPR 36.17(1)(b) where a claimant makes a Part 36 offer which the defendant does not accept and, at trial, the claimant obtains a judgment which is 'at least as advantageous' to it as the terms of its own Part 36 offer, then CPR 36.17(4) applies and 'the court must, unless it considers it unjust to do so, order that the claimant is entitled to' and the various costs

The Court of Appeal in the matter of Roberts v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has allowed an appeal brought by Mr Roberts against a decision by HHJ Ellis sitting at Croydon County Court dismissing an application he made under s33 of The Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in respect of his claim for personal injuries arising from an alleged assault on him by the police.

Public Law analysis: The High Court held that a judicial review challenging national security mitigation measures connected to the proposed Chinese embassy development did not qualify for Aarhus costs protection under CPR 46.24(2)(a). Applying HM Treasury v Global Feedback Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 624, the court confirmed that Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention requires an alleged breach of national law itself relating to the environment, rather than a claim merely involving environmental consequences. The decision under challenge was directed to national security, not environmental regulation. The court also refused the claimant’s application for amendment costs, emphasising that modest delay in responding to a complex pre-action protocol letter did not justify a separate costs order. Produced in partnership with Kyran Kanda of St Philips Chambers.

Dear [insert organisation name] WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS This is a claimant’s offer, made pursuant to CPR Part 36. If the offer is accepted within [21] days,