All members of the BTTJ Medical Negligence expert legal team then usually meet twice weekly to pool their knowledge and expertise to determine which claims are likely to meet the necessary legal criteria.

Once claims are formally commenced, we usually instruct independent medical experts to examine the client’s medical records, witness statement and other relevant documents. They are asked their professional opinion on whether there has been a breach of duty and causation.

From the outset, Claimants are advised how long their claim may take and what the potential outcome may be.

Richard Stanford, BTTJ Partner and Medical Negligence Solicitor says: “Launching a Medical Negligence claim can be very emotionally challenging, and we take this into account from day one.  From the outset we make sure that the client is prepared, knows what can be achieved from the claim and advise upon any foreseeable obstacles which they could face along the way, so that they are fully informed.

“We recognise that clients will have been through a harrowing time and want to make the legal process as straightforward as possible. We aim to support our clients and ensure they are fully advised of developments throughout the process and are involved as much as they want to be.”

At BTTJ we offer our services nationwide – whilst many of the firm’s clients are based locally, our long-established national reputation for Medical Negligence has led to a significant proportion of clients from outside of the region seeking our expertise.

We are highly experienced in a wide range of claims and are able to assess a case, understand it and then represent you compassionately & effectively. You’ll get an assigned Medical Negligence expert, and we will look after you every step of the way.

Richard, along with Tom Barnes, head of our Medical Negligence team, are understood to be the only two lawyers in Warwickshire to have been awarded membership of the AvMA (Action Against Medical Accidents) Specialist Clinical Negligence Panel. Established in 1982, the panel pioneered the concept of clinical negligence as a separate specialism within legal practice and is today recognised as an essential quality mark for clinical negligence practitioners.

We are also members of APIL (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers) and SCIL (Society of Clinical Injury Lawyers)

To find out more about our firm, Medical Negligence and how we pursue a claim, please click here to download our brochure.

The post What happens when I make a Medical Negligence claim? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Yes, you can claim against the The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB). The MIB is funded through insurance premiums paid by insured motorists through a monthly levy on motor insurers. If you, the innocent party has insurance, you are entitled to claim.

Personal Injury

You are advised to seek medical attention immediately and to take photographs of all vehicle damage and injuries. The MIB will organise the compiling of a report perhaps calling in a rehabilitation team to assess future needs and costs.

• You must make your claim for injury within threeyears of the accident date.
• You must make your claim for vehicle/property damage within three years of the accident date in Scotland and within six years in the rest of the UK.
• You must keep any losses to a minimum (otherwise known as mitigation of losses).
• You are advised to report the incident to the police within 14 days for personal injury or within five days for vehicle/property damage.

Exceptions to You Bringing a Claim

You cannot bring a claim if you allowed yourself to be carried in a vehicle when you knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was either stolen, uninsured, driven by someone under the influence of drink or drugs, or used to further crime.

Legal Steps

If we take your case on, we would act on a Conditional Fee Agreement (No win, no fee).

We would make a claim against both the third party and MIB. If your claim is successful the MIB would meet your claim and pay any compensation due to you.

If 7 days after final judgment against the Defendant driver, the claim is not satisfied, the MIB will meet the claim together with costs.

The post Motor Insurers’ Bureau: Uninsured Drivers appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

In this case, the Claimant had waited for over five years before instructing solicitors to pursue a number of claims against various defendants arising out of a purchase of land. The claim against two of the Defendants, and estate agent and the firm for which he worked, was for professional negligence and the claim form was issued on 12 November 2012. It was served on 12 March 2013, by which point the solicitors acting for the Claimant should also have served Particulars of Claim. However, the solicitors had mistakenly believed they had another 14 days to serve the Particulars of Claim, with the effect that, in order to be allowed to serve the Particulars of Claim and pursue its claim, the Claimant would now require from the Court permission to extend time for service of the Particulars of Claim.

This was opposed by the two Defendants mentioned above because, due to the time taken for the Claimants to bring the claim, the Claimant would now be time barred from bringing fresh proceedings; in effect, if the application for an extension of time was refused, the Claimants would be unable to pursue these two Defendants now or in the future.

The application was considered in light of several new provisions to the Civil Procedure Rules, which require that the Court now take a much stronger and less tolerant approach to failures to comply with matters such as time limits.

The Judge considered various factors set out under CPR 3.9 (factors to consider when considering whether or not grant relief from sanctions), including; the interests of the administration of justice; whether the application for relief had been made promptly; whether the failure to comply was unintentional; whether there was a good reason for the failure; compliance with other rules; whether the failure to comply was caused by the party or his legal representative, and; the effect the failure had on each party.

He found the following;

1. The wholly unexplained delay in issuing proceedings was relevant, and, in general, it was not satisfactory or in the interests of justice to have claims brought in the closing weeks or months of a long limitation period. He found that, ‘the Court should adopt a stricter approach where a Claimant has, seemingly through its own choosing, left the start of proceedings until the last minute;’
2. The reason for the failure to comply with the time limit was a misreading of the rule by the Claimant’s solicitors;
3. The consequence of refusing to grant relief for the Claimant was the loss of a right to pursue the Defendants for all time, as against the consequence of granting relief for the Defendants, which amounted to the loss of an accrued limitation defence, with the result that ‘a professional man would have to endure having a claim hang over his head for much longer than would have been the case if the Claimant had pursued its case promptly and complied with the rules.’

The Judge found that, on balance, these factors were finely balanced in this case, and, all things being equal, he would have difficulty in seeing how it would be just or proportionate to allow a short delay to prevent the Claimant from pursing its claim against the Defendants.

However, the Judge found that, particularly in light of stricter approach that must now be taken by the Courts against those that fail to comply with the rules, permission to extend time should be refused because of;

1. The complete absence of an explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings;
2. The relative weakness of the Claimant’s claim against the Defendants, and;
3. The fact that part of the claim was only pleaded in vague terms.

Whilst the claim was not disallowed due the delay (and, so long as it was brought within the limitation period of six years, it could not have been), the fact of the delay likely caused the Court to adopt a stricter approach than it would have done if the claim had been brought at the earliest opportunity, or if a good reason for the delay had been advanced.

The case also underlines the new, less tolerant approach the Court will take to delays and failures to comply with rules, Order and time limits, following the Jackson report. Whilst this will certainly be true where solicitors are instructed, it is understood that Courts will adopt a similar position where litigants are in person; as such, care should be taken by litigants in person that rules and time limits are understood and complied with.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Professional advice should be taken before taking action. No liability can be accepted for any action taken or not taken as a result of this information.

The post Think you may have a claim? Don’t wait; Delay can have Serious Consequences. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Duty

Under Section 41 Highways Act 1980 your local council have a duty to maintain the highways and keep them safe from any hazards that may cause a member of the public to trip or fall. This duty extends to pedestrians, motorists, cyclists and horse riders.

What constitutes a ‘defect’?

‘Defects’ include raised or cracked paving stones, pot holes, snow and ice and broken drainage grids.

What do I have to prove in order to bring a claim?

You need to prove that the highway was not safe for users and that the accident was caused by the dangerous condition of the highway.

What is a public highway?

It is a highway over which every member of the public has a free right of passage. It includes public streets, roads, pavements, footpaths, walkways, cycle tracks and bridleways.

What is classed as ‘dangerous’?

When deciding whether something is dangerous, one must consider the size, position and nature of the defect. As a general rule, defects have to measure an inch or more in height or depth.

Does the council have a defence?

Under Section 58 Highways Act 1980, the council can defend a claim if they can prove that they received no prior complaints and carried out reasonable inspections of the highway. The council usually keep records of their inspections and complaints and would rely on these in support of their defence.

What if I was partly to blame?

You can still bring a claim, but your compensation may be reduced.

What should I do after my accident?

• Obtain witness details: A witness may have complained about the defect previously with no action being taken or be able to say how long the defect has been there. With this evidence, you can then overcome the council’s defence.
• Photographs: We need to identify the location of the accident, the dimensions of the defect and the condition of the pavement at the time of the accident. Take photographs with clear measurements.
• Seek medical attention as soon as possible: Go to your GP or hospital explaining fully how and where your injuries were sustained.

Should I report my accident to the council?

Although it is important that repair work is carried out, it is also imperative that proper evidence of the defect is obtained before repairs are carried out. We recommend that you seek legal advice before you contact the council.

The post Trips and slips on public highways. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.