PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In this personal injury claim, HHJ Walsh found that the claimant’s decision to undergo a below-knee amputation of his injured leg was a novus actus interveniens for which the defendant was not responsible in law. Surveillance evidence had showed that he was walking normally even very close to the amputation date, and he was partaking in activities such as airsoft on a weekly basis right up to the amputation. In the circumstances, the judge held that the amputation was not caused by pain or loss of function from the index accident. The claimant’s motivation remained unclear, but the costs should not be borne by the defendant. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

In the employment tribunals Case no: [Insert case number] Between: [insert name of claimant] Claimant and [insert name of respondent] Respondent _____________________________________________ CLAIMANT’S DISABILITY IMPACT STATEMENT _____________________________________________ I [insert full name of witness] of [insert work or home address of witness] will say as follows: Introduction 1 I began working for the Respondent in [insert date]. My role [is OR was] [insert role]. 2 [[I was dismissed on [insert date, eg 18 March 2021] for [insert reason, eg being late to work and absent from work on a number of occasions due my disability].]] 3 The disability I rely upon for the purposes of my claim is [insert details, eg ‘depression and anxiety’]. Duration, diagnosis and medication 4 [Insert details of the history of the impairment relied upon, eg ‘I first

Employment analysis: Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg during case management. In these circumstances, the tribunal can consider whether to dismiss or strike out the claim under Rule 27 or 37 (now Rules 28 or 38 of the ET Rules 2024). However, on a proper construction of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (ETA 1996), the claimant’s failure to comply with the EC requirement did not deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction to hear the claim. The decision of HHJ Shanks in Pryce v Baxterstorey [2022] EAT 61, which reached the opposite conclusion on the impact on jurisdiction, was manifestly incorrect, according to the Honourable Mr Justice Swift in the EAT.

In the employment tribunals Case no: [Insert case number] Between: [Insert name of claimant] Claimant and [Insert name of respondent] Respondent Claimant's schedule of loss 1. Details Net weekly basic pay: £[Insert amount] Respondent’s annual pension contributions/annual pension benefit: [[Insert amount, eg £x] OR [Insert details of pension scheme, eg 1/80 final salary scheme with related lump sum]] Annual value of bonus/other employment benefits: £[Insert amount] Contractual notice period: [Insert period, eg x weeks or x months] claimant's date of birth: [Insert date] [Date of termination of employment:] [[Insert date]] [Age at date of termination:] [[Insert age]] 2. compensation 2.1 FINANCIAL losses [FOR DISMISSAL CLAIMS:] 2.1.1 loss to date of tribunal hearing Loss of basic salary to date of tribunal ([insert number of weeks from effective date of termination] X £[insert net weekly basic pay]): £[insert amount] Loss of [enter details, eg bonus/commission] to date of tribunal: £[insert amount] Loss of pension benefit to date of tribunal: [specify details, eg number of weeks at £x employer’s contribution per week or an explanation of how a more complex pension loss calculation has been carried out] £[insert amount] Loss of [insert details of other benefits] to date of tribunal: £[insert amount] Expenses incurred to date of tribunal: [specify details] £[insert amount] Losses

In the employment tribunals Case no: [Insert case number] Between: [insert name of claimant] Claimant and [insert name of respondent] Respondent Claimant's schedule of loss 1. Details Net weekly basic pay: £[insert amount] Contractual notice period: [insert number] [weeks OR month[s] ] Statutory notice period: [insert number] week[s] Claimant's date of birth: [insert date] Period of service: [insert date] to [insert date] Complete years of continuous service: [insert number] year[s] Age

This Practice Note serves as a quick reference guide for practitioners comparing the law of damages as it applies to claims in tort and in contract. For the basic principles of the law of damages, see Practice Note: The remedy of damages—general principles. For detailed guidance on the law as it applies to contract claims, see: Contractual breach damages and remedies—overview. For detailed guidance on the law as it applies to claims in tort, see: Damages in tort and negligence claims. For guidance on the concept of ‘special damages’ and ‘general damages’ which are unique to pleading personal injury and clinical negligence claims, see: Past expenses and losses—overview. For guidance on attempts in drafting commercial contracts to exclude and/or limit liability for certain types of losses, see Practice Note: Exclusion and limitation of liability. General principles Contract Tort Compensatory function ’...where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages,

This Practice Note considers the different types of interest you may seek to recover in a claim, the basis on which interest may be claimed (contractual entitlement to interest, the court’s discretion to award interest under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 35A or the County Courts Act 1984, s 69, statutory interest, eg the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (LPCD(I)A 1998)), how to plead a claim for interest, and identifies some of the more common queries relating to claiming interest. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. This Practice Note provides guidance on claiming interest when issuing a claim. For further guidance on claiming: • interest on foreign currency claims, see Practice Note: Foreign currency claims—interest on damages claims and judgment debts • interest on judgment debts, see Practice Note: Interest on judgment debts • compound interest, see Practice Note: Claiming

This Practice Note on compound interest identifies the legal principles involved when seeking to claim compound interest, rather than simple interest, in respect of your claim. For guidance on claiming interest generally (the default position being to claim simple interest), see Practice Note: Claiming interest. The difference between simple and compound interest The difference between the two calculations of interest is as follows: • simple interest: the interest is calculated on the principal amount • compound interest: the interest is calculated on the principal amount plus the interest that accumulates on it in every (certain prescribed) period (or ‘rests’) By way of illustration (although for simplicity, only annual ‘rests’ are used, which do not show as marked a contrast between simple and compound interest, as more regular ‘rests’ would do): Simple interest Compound interest, with annual rests Year 1 5% x £10,000 = £500 5% x £10,000 = £10,500 Year 2 5% x £10,000 = £500 5% x £10,500 = £10,500 + £525 Year 3 5% x £10,000 = £500 5% x £11,025

A claim for negligent misrepresentation may often be brought alongside or in the alternative to a claim for negligent misstatement. It is therefore useful to understand the key practical considerations in respect of both types of claim. Comments Negligent misrepresentation Negligent misstatement Key ingredients of claim —the statement relied on by the representee was a statement made to them by or on behalf of the representor—the statement was intended by the representor to induce the representee to enter into the contract—the statement actually induced the representee to enter into the contract—the statement had the character of a representation—the representation was falseInherent therefore in a negligent misrepresentation claim is the entering into of a contract resulting from the misrepresentation —an untrue statement made by the representor to the representee—the claimant relied on the misstatement—the claimant suffered loss as a result of so doing—there is no requirement for a contract to have been entered into between the claimant and the representor Parties

Construction analysis: In the recent case of Severfield (UK) Ltd v Duro Felguera UK Ltd, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused a summary judgment application. It held that, in a contract that included both construction operations under section 105 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) and excluded operations, the claimant could not subsequently alter the amount it had claimed in its original payment notice to make a new claim under HGCRA 1996—it could not therefore rely on the previous lack of a pay less notice when the new sum claimed for construction operations was not identified in the original payment application. The court also reiterated the importance of clear and unambiguous payment notices following recent TCC authorities.

Many investors in UK property are based outside the UK. The UK real estate sector is attractive to a range of investors, from high net worth individuals acquiring high-end residential properties to international funds investing in London office space or out-of-town shopping centres around the UK. In general, any such investor will wish to structure their investment so that: • so far as possible, they avoid coming within the charge to UK tax, namely: ◦ for companies—corporation tax on income and chargeable gains ◦ for individuals and trusts—income tax on trading income, capital gains tax (CGT) and inheritance tax, and • to the extent UK tax arises, they are entitled to double tax relief Investors will therefore often look to make any investment from outside the UK and, where relevant, to seek relief under double tax treaties (DTT) entered into between the UK and the state where they are resident (the state of residence). The terms

Part of the deputy’s responsibility is making sure that P is receiving all state benefits to which they are entitled. The OPG Deputy Standards, published in February 2023, list a number of actions a deputy is expected to take on behalf of P. Standard 4(a) states a deputy must apply for any benefits P is eligible for within three months of receiving the deputyship order. The deputy is also expected to review P’s benefits at least once a year. The main benefits for which P is most likely to be eligible are considered in detail below. Although some state benefits are means tested, if P’s funds derive from a personal injury damages award, and are managed by a deputy or trustees in a personal injury trust, they will be ring-fenced and therefore cannot be taken into account on assessment. Both the capital and the income generated by the funds should be disregarded for this purpose. Benefits can be paid to P, their deputy, or another appointed person,