Introduction The police force is a pure public authority (ie performs only public functions). Therefore, claims can be brought against it under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and of misfeasance in public office. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Personal injury claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Misfeasance in public office. That said, by far the most common claims against the police are those brought in negligence. This Practice Note discusses: • negligence claims by members of the public • negligence claims by members of the police force • negligence claims involving self-harm • claims under HRA 1998 Vicarious liability and the correct defendant Technically, police officers are not employees but office-holders. However, under section 88 of the Police Act 1996 (PA 1996), the Chief Constable of the relevant police force (or the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis in London) will be vicariously liable for ‘any unlawful conduct of constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their functions’ in the same manner as

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal held that a statutory appeal is ’brought‘ when the appellant’s notice is delivered to the court, irrespective of whether the requisite fee is paid at that time. In allowing Dr Eskander’s appeal, the court applied and extended Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey, rejecting prior authority treating fee payment as integral to timely commencement. The decision establishes a clear, bright-line rule focused on delivery rather than administrative compliance, significantly narrowing scope for limitation-based challenges founded on non-payment of fees. Produced in partnership with Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge development lawyer of Penningtons Manches Cooper.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The applicants (a company in liquidation (‘ELC’) and its liquidators) sought compensation in relation to, among other things, fraudulent trading and wrongful trading against various respondents. ELC’s only business was the running of an investment scheme. The scheme—which had been fraudulent from its inception—failed and ELC went into insolvent liquidation. The two main questions were (1) to what extent various respondents who had been involved in the scheme were liable to pay compensation and (2) whether a settlement agreement entered into with two of the respondents barred the claims against the others. It was held that one respondent, a de facto director of ELC, was liable in wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance, and on the ground that payments made to him constituted transactions at an undervalue. The settlement agreement did not bar the claim against him or any of the other respondents (although the claims against the other respondents failed). Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings.

FORTHCOMING CHANGES: In measures expected to come into force on 1 October 2026, time limits for making certain claims in employment tribunals in Great Britain (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) will be increased from three months to six months. The changes are set out in section 152 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) and ERA 2025, Schedule 12 (not yet in force), and in The Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (draft), The Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 (draft) and The Employee Study and Training (Procedural Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/473. This Practice Note will be updated as soon as the relevant statutory instruments are made. For more information, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Act 2025—tracker. This Practice Note examines the possible claims that may be brought by an affected employee or worker in relation to the statutory right, under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (ERA

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 30 January 2024, marking the first review of trusts law in Scotland in over 100 years since the principal legislation, the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, was passed. Some provisions relating to succession law came into effect on 30 April 2024, while others are not yet in force. The main changes to modernise the law are summarised in News Analysis: Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill passed. Practice Notes on areas of Scottish trusts and succession law will be updated further to reflect this legislation. This Practice Note discusses the provisions under section 29 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 (FL(S)A 2006) relating to the right of a surviving cohabitant to apply to the court for an order for payment from an intestate estate in Scotland. The court has discretion as to whether or not to grant an award where an application is made. The provisions apply to same or mixed sex couples,

Law360, London: A claims manager didn't blow the whistle on forged signatures at an insurance claims handler because he had waited until his resignation day to alert senior management, an employment tribunal has ruled.

This Practice Note considers the amended 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which came into force on 13 June 2019, the requirements for applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), injury type, ineligibility and reductions to awards. While victims of a crime of violence can bring a civil claim for damages for personal injuries against an attacker, this is only worthwhile if the prospective defendant is either insured or has the means to pay any damages awarded by the court. This Practice Note considers the amended 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which came into force on 13 June 2019. The amended 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme While a victim of crime can bring a civil claim for damages for personal injuries against an attacker, this is only worthwhile if the prospective defendant has the means to pay any damages awarded by the court. A civil claim may also be considered if an employer may be found vicariously liable or where a public authority may be held liable. A victim of

Personal Injury analysis: When can a claimant issue damages proceedings against unnamed drivers? Cathrine Grubb, barrister at Civitas Law, analyses the issues raised in Farah v Abdullahi and others and looks at the determinative factor to consider before bringing proceedings against unnamed defendants.

This Practice Note sets out the key factors to consider when claiming damages for losses resulting from food poisoning under the: • Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (1992 Package Travel Regs), SI 1992/3288 (package holidays sold or offered for sale on or after 31 December 1992 until 30 June 2018 are governed by the 1992 Package Travel Regs), or • Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (2018 Package Travel Regs), SI 2018/634 (for packages sold on or after 1 July 2018) You can access a copy of the 1992 Package Travel Regs here: For general guidance on package holiday claims, see Practice Note: Package holiday claims. Proving breach of contract Despite the fact that this would be a claim against the tour operator under the 1992 Package Travel Regs, SI 1992/3288, reg 15 or 2018 Package Travel Regs, SI 2018/634, regs 15 and 16, it is now accepted that there is no need to provide evidence of a breach of local standards—see Kempson & Kempson

If a claimant has lost entitlement to state pension as a result of an accident there is, on the face of it, a potential claim in respect of that loss. However, to assess whether or not there will be a viable claim, the practitioner will need to establish whether there will be a shortfall and, if so, to understand how a claimant has come to lose the entitlement. How does a person qualify for the state pension? To qualify for the state pension, an individual must have: • paid or been credited with national insurance contributions • reached the state pension age The new state pension The title ‘new state pension’ is not simply a term of art. Although it can hardly be termed ‘new’, the reference is significant in distinguishing it from the previous long-standing regime. If a person reached state pension age on or after 6 April 2016 they must claim the new state pension. However, confusingly, the individual’s national insurance record before 6 April

The claim and basis for it This type of claim is made on behalf of a living claimant whose life expectancy has been reduced as a result of the defendant’s negligence. Medical evidence will determine the loss of life expectancy. The phrase ‘lost years’ refers to the period after death in which the claimant would have received earnings, pension or other financial benefit. Where a living claimant’s expectation of life has been reduced due to the defendant’s negligence, the claimant is entitled to recover damages for their financial losses eg loss of earnings throughout both the period that they are likely to remain alive and also for the ‘lost years’ during which they would have lived but for their injuries. The damages are assessed after deducting the claimant’s own living expenses which they would have spent during the lost years. The sum to be deducted as living expenses is the proportion of the claimant’s net earnings that they would have spent exclusively on themselves to maintain their standard of living. The court will assess the