 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Specailism Recognised
|
The partners of the Andover Firm Barker Son & Isherwood LLP are delighted that Partner, Richard Gregory, has been successful in his reaccreditations as a member of the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel.
Re-accreditation takes place every five years and is the Law society's way of assuring consumers that members of the Personal injury Panel continue to meet the requirements for membership. This is the third time that Richard has met the accreditation standards, following his admission to the Panel in 1994.
Richard heads the Personal Injury Department of Barker Son & Isherwood LLP practising under the style of the Accident Shop which is situated in Union Street, Andover.
Richard has been a solicitor since 1982 and became partner in the firm in 1991
July 2006 |
|
| Be There or Beware
|
In litigation it is sometimes necessary to obtain reports from expert witnesses and, in such cases, it is often important to make sure the expert witness is available to give evidence when the case is heard in court. The danger is that if an expert is not present to be cross-examined, the evidence they present may be regarded as of diminished value by the court.
Such was the case when an optician, who had suffered a whiplash injury when her car was hit from behind by another vehicle, sued the driver of the car that had run into her.
As a result of the injury, she had to reduce her working week from four to three days and included in her claim for damages was a sum of over £350,000 relating to loss of earnings and loss of future earnings. The defendant produced two letters from an orthopedic surgeon which indicated that the victim's reduction in working time was the result of her personal choice rather than a result of her injury. The reports were unclear, but questioned whether the accident was the true cause of the reduction in working hours.
The defendant did not produce the expert in court, so he could not be cross-examined. As the claimant was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant's expert, the judge took the view that it would be unfair for the court to be bound to accept the expert's evidence.On appeal, the claim that the judge had wrongly discounted the expert evidence was rejected.
The original finding of fact stood.
When taking proceedings in court, it is essential to have experienced representation. We can help you ensure that your case is put as strongly as possible.
spring 2006
|
|
| Calculating the Future
|
In personal injury cases, calculations of the appropriate level of damages to be paid for future loss are based on what is called the 'multiplier', which is a calculation used to estimate care costs over the expected future period during which they will occur (normally one's expected life) and which takes into account the effects of inflation.
The discount rate applied for assessing the multiplier is based on the retail prices index (RPI) and has been set, since July 2001, at 2.5%.
Recently, a chartered accountant acting as an expert witness sought to argue that the multiplier was inadequate. The argument occurred in relation to damages being assessed against a hospital. Evidence was given that the care costs involved had, historically, risen at a far steeper rate than the RPI and that the appropriate index to use in such cases was not the RPI, but the NHS pay cost index (PCI). The PCI had risen by 2.5% per annum more than the RPI over a considerable period, so to calculate future care costs using the RPI would lead to a significant shortfall over time.
The Court of Appeal's ruling was that the sole means of providing for the effect of future inflation in such claims should be the multiplier as laid down in the Lord Chancellor's order. To do otherwise would be to subvert, illegitimately, the stipulated discount rate.
Richard Gregory, a member of the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel says "It may seem unfair that such a low discount rate is used when care costs - which depend mainly on wage rates - have risen much faster than the RPI and are expected to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. However, the courts are not about to budge as regards the multiplier, which makes it all the more important that the best possible settlement is negotiated in the first place."
October 2004 |
|
| Injury - Who Is To Blame?
|
One of the things which determine the eventual payout in personal injury claims is the degree to which the injured person is to blame for the injury that befell them. This principle is called 'contributory negligence'. It also applies where an injury happens as a result of an accident which is partly the fault of a third party who negligently fails to comply with a duty of care, which may be statutory, owed to another person.
You may think that it is self-evident that if you are injured in a road accident because you were unaware of a danger that was not signposted, the local council (who are responsible for putting the warning signs on roads) should shoulder some of the blame.
A case which was fought all the way to the House of Lords has recently been decided. It involved a woman who was severely injured when her car collided with a double-decker bus on a stretch of road known to be dangerous and which had been the scene of previous accidents. The council had allowed a previous 'Slow' marking on the road to wear away and an 'Uneven Road' sign at the edge of the road was not fully visible due to overhanging foliage.
Richard Gregory says, "On the face of it, it might seem that the council should share the blame for the accident. However, the Lords ruled that councils do not have a duty of care to place markings on the road or to erect signs to warn of dangers. Their duty is to maintain the road in a safe condition, which is quite another thing. This ruling may appear unfair, but it follows a number of similar cases which have included injuries suffered due to ice on roads, poor signage and so on."
November 2004 |
|
| What Does No Win No Fee Really Mean?
|
It is common knowledge that taking action in the courts against an opponent who disputes your claim can be stressful and expensive. Recently, alternatives to bringing court action, such as alternative dispute resolution and mediation, have become more common. Another opion is to take action on a 'no win no fee' (NWNF) basis.
One of the principles of English law is that the loser in a court case pays the costs of the winner in addition to their own. Richard Gregory, a member of the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel explains, "In NWNF, the solicitor agrees not to charge a fee unless the action is successful. This means that if you instruct a firm such as ourselves on a NWNF basis, your risk as to costs is limited to the other side's costs plus any 'disbursements' (such as the cost of expert witness reports) incurred by your solicitors and the court costs. You can, however, buy insurance to cover these costs and it is generally recommended that you do so.
Running a legal action on a NWNF basis with costs insurance means your solicitor is taking the largest financial risk. Since a court case will only take place if both parties to the dispute think they have a good chance of winning, the solicitor will normally charge a 'success fee', which is an extra fee designed to compensate them for the risk that you may lose and they do not get paid. The success fee varies depending on how risky the case is thought to be. Provided the success fee is reasonable, the court will normally make the loser pay it as part of the winner's costs.
The two forms of legal insurance you can buy to cover court costs are called 'after the event' (ATE) and 'before the event' (BTE). ATE insurance is bought when you are in dispute and need to cover your costs and the other side's legal bill should you lose. BTE insurance is commonly sold with house or motor insurance policies to cover your costs in the event of your being sued.
Richard Gregory advises that if you are involved in an accident or are likely to face a legal claim, or want to take legal action, contact the Accident Shop as soon as you can and we will advise you on the best course of action to take.
November 2004 |
|
| Negligent Aftercare Leads to £1.5m Settlement
|
A mother of four was left confined to a wheelchair after a breakdown in post-operative care following a botched epidural anaesthetic injection. The membrane surrounding the woman's spinal cord was punctured, allowing spinal fluid to leak out. As a result of these injuries, she was awarded £1.5 million in the High Court.
The case arose when the woman had surgery for Chron's disease, an inflammatory bowel condition. She was not given a proper examination for signs of neurological trauma whilst in the recovery room. In the view of the Judge, the injection itself did not constitute negligence, but the aftercare did.
When the patient was examined at midnight the same day, a senior house officer failed to spot signs of her developing neurological problems and consequently failed to bring in a consultant neurosurgeon.
In the early morning, the woman complained of considerable pain but her complaints were 'brushed aside', despite the risk of her developing the rare, but well known, complication of such injections called 'red flag'.
The 41 year old woman now faces a life of 'devastating disability', being paraplegic and in need of constant care.
Richard Gregory, a member of the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel says "An award for damages for negligent medical treatment can never be adequate compensation for a life of suffering and disability, but it can help to make the claimant more comfortable and reduce financial worries."
October 2004 |
|
| Fixed Success Fees for No Win No Fee Road Accident Claims
|
Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 2003 came into effect on 1 June 2004 which fix the level of the success fees payable, in road accident cases, by a defendant's insurer to a successful solicitor or barrister acting on a no win, no fee basis.
The new scheme has been introduced in an attempt to bring a degree of stability and certainty to the personal injury claims market and to make the system more efficient and economical. There has been a series of court battles, which delayed a large number of cases because insurance companies challenged the level of the success fees claimed.
Under the new rules, insurers will pay a fixed 12.5% success fee on top of costs, provided the claim is settled out of court. This will apply to the majority of cases as 80% - 90% of claims are settled in this way. If a case does go to trial, solicitors or barristers can claim a 100% success fee. Exceptional cases will be assessed on an individual basis.
Personal Injury Lawyer, Richard Gregory, of Andover based Accident Shop says "I am pleased that we have been given some clear guidance in this area and would also add that the Department for Constitutional Affairs has announced a similar scheme, fixing success fees for claims involving accidents at work."
Richard can be contacted on 0800 652 2204 or visit www.accidentshop.com.
November 2004 |
|
| Launch Press Release
|
|
A specialist personal injury advice centre, believed to be the first of its kind in the country, hosted a celebratory launch party with Andover's MP, Sir George Young, as guest of honour.
The Accident Shop opened in October 2004 as a specialist centre for those who have suffered injuries in accidents where someone else is to blame so that help can be given in pursuing a claim to recover the compensation they deserve.
Run by personal injury lawyer Richard Gregory and his team the Accident Shop provides accessible advice for genuine injury claims.
Sir George said he was delighted to see the attractive and well laid out facilities and felt that it was very important that those unfortunate enough to have suffered an accident should seek professional advice.
Richard Greogry said: "We have been so pleased with the reaction of people coming to see us.
"We can give straightforward,frank and fair advice on any proposed claim and will process the matter as soon as possible.
"We were delighted to welcome so many people to our celebratory launch party and were grateful that Sir George took the time to join us and to look around our facilities."
The Accident Shop is staffed by a dedicated team of personal injury specialists with many years experience in representing injured parties in claiming compensation to which they are entitled following an accident.
The principal contacts at The Accident Shop are Richard Gregory, a member of the Law Society's Personal Injury Panel and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and Rachel Barr a Personal Injury Executive.
The team only deals with personal injury claims for claimants and does not practice in any other area of the law.
"Personal injury claims are complex and we believe they should be dealt with only by specialist lawyers." said Richard Gregory.
"We believe that direct access to specialists who actually deal with your claim is the best answer.
"Over recent years there has been rapid growth of unregulated claims management companies or claims handlers, acting as middle men passing a client's claim onto others to be dealt with.
"We do not believe this is a satisfactory way of dealing with a compensation claim.
"We will always try and find a way to make sure that we can pursue a client's claim without worry about legal costs.
"If you ask us to act on a 'no win no fee' basis and we agree, you will keep all of your compensation if you win and, should you lose, our advice will cost you nothing."
Mid-week Advertiser - 19th Jan 05 |
|
 |
RECENT EXAMPLE
We have dealt with many claims for compensation.....
more >>> |
FAQs
Do I need the Accident Shop?
Are there time limits for bringing a claim?
I do not live or work close to The Accident Shop. Is this a problem?
more >>> |
LATEST
NEWS
Specailism Recognised
Be There or Beware
Calculating the Future
more >>> |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| | | | | |
