DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Request for Claimant Firm Costs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information Request for Claimant Firm Costs 2nd Floor 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SZ Telephone: 020 7811 2700 April 2019 FOI_3727 The following information was requested on 29 March 2019: For the last two financial year available please provide a full list (preferably in excel format) of all the claimant firms to have received money from the NHSLA in relation to claimant costs for the clinical negligence scheme (CNST) ? For each of the firms please provide the following information: 1. Claimant Firm Name 2. Nr of Claims 3. Damages Paid 4. Defence Costs Paid 5. Claimant Costs Paid 6. Total Paid Our Response Please find attached the requested information. The information supplied relates to claims closed/settled in those years but payments may have been spread across a range of financial years, not necessarily just in the last 2 years. Please note that ‘claimant costs’ includes not only the fees of that firm but other costs such as expert and barrister’s fees and court costs. This does not include claimant firms where no damages or claimant costs were awarded. We have suppressed low numbers as we believe that disclosure of information with this level of granularity is exempt under Section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3) (a) (i) of the Act, where disclosure to a member of the public would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. The data protection principles are set out in Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation. We take the view that it would not be fair or lawful (given the sensitive and confidential nature of the information held) to disclose such information, and any disclosure would therefore contravene the first data protection principle. In some instances the low numbers of claims (fewer than 5) in each category, the likelihood exists that individuals who are the subject of this information may be identified either from this information alone, or in combination with other available information. In addition to this, as this information is considered to be sensitive personal data (the data subjects’ medical condition); NHS Resolution believes it has a greater responsibility to protect those individuals identities’, as disclosure could potentially cause damage and/or distress to those involved. Where we are in the territory of such small numbers in the attached, we have used a ‘#’ symbol in the relevant field. You should still be able to see aggregate/total details for higher level fields containing this data. If you would like to know how data is categorised in our Claims database please see the following link: Glossary This concludes our response to your request. If you are not satisfied with the service that you have received in response to your information request, it is open to you to make a complaint and request a formal review of our decisions. If you choose to do this, you should write to Tinku Mitra, Head of Corporate and Information Governance for NHS Resolution, within 28 days of your receipt of this reply. Reviews of decisions made in relation to information requests are carried out by a person who was not involved in the original decision-making about the request. If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner will not make a decision unless you have exhausted the local complaints procedure. The address of the Information Commissioner’s Office is: Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Freedom of Information Request# 3727 Data correct as at: 2019-03-31 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S NB: Number of claims fewer than 5 (and any associated values, within the same row) are masked with a "#" (in accordance with Data Protection guidelines). Accordingly, some total values may also be approximated to prevent masked values to be deduced through reverse calculation. Q1: For the last two financial year available please provide a full list of all the claimant firms to have received money from the NHSLA in relation to claimant costs for the clinical negligence scheme (CNST)? Table 1: Number and Cost of Claims Closed/Settled between financial years 2016/17 and 2017/18 Page 1 of 10 Freedom of Information Request# 3727 Data correct as at: 2019-03-31 Q1: For the last two financial year available please provide a full list of all the claimant firms to have received money from the NHSLA in relation to claimant costs for the clinical negligence scheme (CNST)? Table 1: Number and Cost of Claims Closed/Settled between financial years 2016/17 and 2017/18 Closed_Settled Y Clinical_NonClinical Clinical Scheme CNST Claim_Outcome_FOI (Multiple Items) Year of Closure (Settlement Year for PPOs) Defence Claimant --- Claimant Solicitor Firm No of Claims Damages Paid Costs Paid Costs Paid Total Paid 2017/18 Irwin Mitchell 457 174,818,255 12,593,710 52,538,793 239,950,758 Slater & Gordon 271 58,671,902 4,562,998 21,833,727 85,068,627 Fletchers 180 7,273,779 637,396 6,184,433 14,095,608 Enable Law 162 24,129,576 1,734,984 6,563,520 32,428,080 Quality 132 8,302,704 870,672 2,994,237 12,167,613 Thompsons 114 13,314,850 1,447,250 5,430,985 20,193,084 Neil Hudgell 114 3,620,440 613,775 2,157,667 6,391,882 Leigh Day 102 34,621,102 2,291,559 10,903,604 47,816,266 Simpson Millar 97 16,017,259 1,526,955 6,270,881 23,815,095 Pryers 96 7,868,062 1,066,642 5,170,929 14,105,632 Curtis Legal 95 1,273,722 191,493 587,897 2,053,112 Shoosmiths Access Legal 87 16,838,711 1,701,224 8,357,609 26,897,544 JMW 82 37,335,127 2,246,591 7,394,629 46,976,346 Bridge McFarland 67 6,812,475 996,882 4,680,782 12,490,138 EAD 64 2,221,592 558,609 2,041,038 4,821,239 Lyons Davidson 64 3,084,424 572,540 1,974,193 5,631,156 Royds Withy King 61 13,800,704 1,018,216 4,681,739 19,500,659 Switalskis 59 13,338,332 975,515 4,134,257 18,448,105 Hudgell 52 7,277,189 494,156 1,694,783 9,466,127 Gadsby Wicks 50 5,565,108 840,046 5,596,196 12,001,351 Wolferstans 50 1,651,792 667,339 2,514,846 1,530,392 Bower & Bailey 49 1,329,191 390,117 1,298,820 3,018,128 Atherton Godfrey 47 4,385,947 931,176 4,870,622 10,187,744 Hugh James 46 3,154,938 498,852 2,902,473 6,556,263 Penningtons Manches 45 19,962,053 1,009,035 5,487,802 26,458,890 Pattinson & Brewer 43 3,018,550 558,465 2,326,768 5,903,784 Attwood 41 1,041,723 188,143 819,421 2,049,287 Hodge Jones & Allen 40 12,038,740 767,863 3,340,164 16,146,767 Linder Myers 38 13,085,257 899,116 3,025,700 17,010,073 Brindley Twist Tafft & James 37 4,207,576 472,890 1,642,750 6,323,216 Jackson Lees 37 16,991,012 858,612 3,220,194 21,069,818 Longden Walker And Renney 37 5,411,194 509,506 1,885,354 7,806,054 Coles Miller 36 1,379,677 139,490 821,996 2,341,162 Price Slater Gawne 36 1,314,620 361,054 1,814,694 3,490,368 Dutton Gregory 35 1,631,454 373,515 1,825,663 3,830,632 Nelsons 35 5,321,735 838,473 2,009,669 8,169,877 Lime Personal Injury 34 1,578,578 433,327 2,234,207 4,246,112 Russell Cooke 34 3,454,673 694,571 2,551,276 6,700,520 Fairweathers 32 1,744,463 305,110 1,752,095 3,801,668 Thomson Snell & Passmore 32 3,165,697 478,394 1,836,853 5,480,944 Wixted & Co 32 1,191,689 187,061 744,830 2,123,580 Hay & Kilner 30 5,581,607 551,961 2,352,101 8,485,669 Stephensons 29 6,439,875 874,428 3,020,769 10,335,072 Burnetts 28 21,398,048 1,259,720 4,908,528 27,566,295 Ashtons Legal 27 6,182,272 617,759 2,506,183 9,306,214 Geldards 27 1,127,190 196,306 983,820 2,307,316 Forbes 27 1,438,524 271,083 549,503 2,259,110 Michael W Halsall 27 443,763 77,230 566,086 1,087,079 Langleys 27 2,387,440 401,664 1,353,249 4,142,353 Stewarts Law 27 23,985,039 1,939,459 12,710,394 38,634,892 Express 26 5,855,096 268,917 2,195,141 8,319,154 Heptonstalls 26 3,492,333 472,762 2,231,335 6,196,431 Thompson Smith & Puxon 26 3,102,003 275,967 1,071,038 4,449,009 Lamb Brooks 26 587,780 132,389 473,306 1,193,475 Armstrong Foulkes 25 1,589,060 328,010 1,154,710 3,071,781 Page 2 of 10 Freedom of Information Request# 3727 Data correct as at: 2019-03-31 Q1: For the last two financial year available please provide a full list of all the claimant firms to have received money from the NHSLA in relation to claimant costs for the clinical negligence scheme (CNST)? Table 1: Number and Cost of Claims Closed/Settled between financial years 2016/17 and 2017/18 Closed_Settled Y Clinical_NonClinical Clinical Scheme CNST Claim_Outcome_FOI (Multiple Items) Year of Closure (Settlement Year for PPOs) Defence Claimant --- Claimant Solicitor Firm No of Claims Damages Paid Costs Paid Costs Paid Total Paid Graysons 25 537,938 150,623 1,011,464 1,700,025 McMillan Williams 25 12,117,080 674,572 2,802,402 15,594,054 Powell & Co 25 2,868,924 354,695 1,255,210 4,478,829 (blank) 25 2,879,190 344,148 1,080,240 4,303,578 MTA Personal Injury 25 653,098 165,213 762,245 1,580,556 OP Law 24 1,068,366 96,473 787,030 1,951,869 Dental Law Partnership 23 345,432 87,272 270,724 703,428 Higgs & Sons 23 7,520,143 478,758 1,618,572 9,617,473 New Law 23 658,716 108,884 643,587 1,411,188 Foot Anstey 22 1,446,288 302,206 1,888,067 3,636,561 Anthony Collins 22 6,093,106 947,414 2,519,271 9,559,790 Waldrons 22 3,686,144 236,874 995,812 4,918,830 Lanyon Bowdler 22 12,942,090 451,177 2,180,576 15,573,843 Williamsons 22 1,996,013 167,739 794,527 2,958,279 Anthony Gold 21 5,055,808 381,485 1,650,388 7,087,681 Attwaters Jameson Hill 21 3,561,783 303,516 1,747,700 5,612,999 BL Claims 21 8,021,291 301,045 1,318,715 9,641,051 Bolt Burdon Kemp 21 4,278,058 398,727 3,038,859 7,715,645 Morrish 21 2,643,971 193,984 627,974 3,465,929 Sills & Betteridge 21 1,117,132 308,012 925,645 2,350,790 Forster
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Architecture of Joseph Michael Gandy (1771-1843) and Sir John Soane (1753-1837): an Exploration Into the Masonic and Occult Imagination of the Late Enlightenment
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2003 The Architecture of Joseph Michael Gandy (1771-1843) and Sir John Soane (1753-1837): An Exploration Into the Masonic and Occult Imagination of the Late Enlightenment Terrance Gerard Galvin University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Architecture Commons, European History Commons, Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, and the Theory and Criticism Commons Recommended Citation Galvin, Terrance Gerard, "The Architecture of Joseph Michael Gandy (1771-1843) and Sir John Soane (1753-1837): An Exploration Into the Masonic and Occult Imagination of the Late Enlightenment" (2003). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 996. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/996 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/996 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Architecture of Joseph Michael Gandy (1771-1843) and Sir John Soane (1753-1837): An Exploration Into the Masonic and Occult Imagination of the Late Enlightenment Abstract In examining select works of English architects Joseph Michael Gandy and Sir John Soane, this dissertation is intended to bring to light several important parallels between architectural theory and freemasonry during the late Enlightenment. Both architects developed architectural theories regarding the universal origins of architecture in an attempt to establish order as well as transcend the emerging historicism of the early nineteenth century. There are strong parallels between Soane's use of architectural narrative and his discussion of architectural 'model' in relation to Gandy's understanding of 'trans-historical' architecture. The primary textual sources discussed in this thesis include Soane's Lectures on Architecture, delivered at the Royal Academy from 1809 to 1836, and Gandy's unpublished treatise entitled the Art, Philosophy, and Science of Architecture, circa 1826.
    [Show full text]
  • Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update
    25 November 2016 Edition 165 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. Asons Solicitors Receive Controversial Bail Out From In the last week it has been revealed that Bolton County Council has awarded a Local Council ‘secret’ emergency grant of £300,000 to Bolton based claimant solicitors firm Asons Solicitors Ltd. The timing of the grant has caused much controversy as it PAGE 5 was made alongside a claim by HMRC against Asons, also for £300,000. Elsewhere, the High Court has ruled that a part 36 offer extinguishes a previous common law offer to settle. Part 36 v Common Law Offer To Settle This week we present, in the first of a two part feature, a return to the topic of asymmetrical hearing loss and noise exposure and consider whether it can be Government PI Reforms compatible with a diagnosis of NIHL by considering some recent studies on the Open To Judicial Review? subject. PAGE 6 Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen. Update On Review of Fixed As always, warmest regards to all. Recoverable Costs Majority of Solicitors Fail to SUBJECTS Stick To Budgets Survey Reveals Asons Bail Out – Part 36 Offer v Common Law Offer – Government PI Reforms and Judicial Review – Fixed Recoverable Costs Update – Solicitors Fail To Stick To Feature Budgets – Asymmetrical Hearing Loss and Noise Exposure. Asymmetrical Hearing Loss And Noise Exposure PAGE | 2 Cliff Morris has explained that the grant was intended to assist the firm with its move to Asons Solicitors Receive different premises earlier in the year and to ensure that the 263 jobs tied to the firm are retained in Bolton for the next five years after the firm had suffered losses in the previous Controversial Bail Out financial year.
    [Show full text]
  • Claimant Solicitor 12/13 13/14 14/15 Grand Total
    Number of clinical negligence claims received by notification year 12/13 to 14/15 by claimant solicitor (data as at the end of each respective year) Claimant Solicitor 12/13 13/14 14/15 Grand Total (blank) 606 746 853 2,205 Irwin Mitchell 735 721 677 2,133 Rapid 403 334 193 930 Thompsons 192 441 243 876 Slater & Gordon 292 289 249 830 Hudgell 187 285 346 818 Simpson Millar 147 197 180 524 Fletchers 58 113 267 438 Pryers 126 185 112 423 EAD 128 148 147 423 Quality 105 142 170 417 Leigh Day & Co 124 166 126 416 Foot Anstey 67 159 119 345 Lyons Davidson Limited 123 142 78 343 Coles Miller 81 107 104 292 Bridge McFarland 81 93 108 282 JMW 71 109 91 271 Pattinson & Brewer 84 78 77 239 Shoosmiths 31 87 117 235 Leo Abse & Cohen 46 71 116 233 Hodge Jones & Allen 83 85 60 228 Stephensons 63 70 86 219 Penningtons 70 86 60 216 Withy King 61 66 80 207 Linder Myers 73 67 67 207 Atherton Godfrey 67 76 64 207 Brindley Twist Tafft & James 79 79 47 205 Wolferstans 77 59 65 201 Pannone 56 81 53 190 Dutton Gregory 78 59 52 189 Higgs & Sons 52 70 63 185 Morrish 53 65 59 177 Lime Personal Injury 66 55 56 177 Hlw Keeble Hawson 49 57 70 176 Gadsby Wicks 48 53 72 173 Ashton KCJ 55 61 57 173 Langleys 52 78 42 172 Heptonstalls 66 67 36 169 Blake Lapthorn 78 67 23 168 Hugh James 44 74 47 165 Longden Walker And Renney 58 49 56 163 Fairweathers 50 64 46 160 Forbes 41 60 53 154 Fentons 52 44 53 149 Anthony Collins 52 51 46 149 Bower & Bailey 46 54 47 147 Freeths Cartwright LLP 25 35 85 145 Geldards 37 69 34 140 Thomson Snell & Passmore 20 46 71 137 Bolt Burdon Kemp
    [Show full text]
  • Download Conference Pack
    PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AND LIABILITY UPDATE LONDON CONFERENCE 19th June 2019 PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION LONDON CONFERENCE – RECENT CHANGES UNTANGLED Wednesday 19th June 2019 0900–0925 Registration and Refreshments 0925–0930 PNLA Introduction 0930–0950 Chair’s Keynote Address Nicola Rushton QC – Hailsham Chambers 0950–1035 "Loss of a Chance" Michael Pooles QC – Hailsham Chambers 1035–1110 "Legal Advice and Representation in Criminal Cases: Professional Negligence as a Tool to Advance Quality and Remedy Failure" Jago Russell – Fair Trials 1110–1115 "Litigation Funding Update" David Pipkin & David Chase Temple Legal Protection 1115–1130 Refreshments 1130–1200 "Post-Implementation Review of Part 2 of LASPO – 7 February 2019" Robert Wright - Head of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs at Ministry of Justice 1200–1215 Q&A 1215-1300 "Non-Party Costs Orders against Professional Indemnity Insurers" Shantanu Majumdar – Radcliffe Chambers 1300–1400 Lunch 1400–1445 "Expert stunts" Daniel Shapiro QC – Crown Office Chambers 1445–1530 "Brokers Negligence" Neil Hext QC – 4 New Square Chambers 1530–1545 Q&A 1545–1600 Refreshments 1600–1645 "The Future of Disclosure? The Pilot Regime in the Business & Property Courts" Luka Krsljanin - 2 Temple Gardens Chambers 1645–1700 Q&A – Chair’s Closing Remarks PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AND LIABILITY LONDON CONFERENCE – RECENT CHANGES UNTANGLED EEF Broadway House, Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9NQ Wednesday 19th June 2019 ATTENDEES (1 of 2) Helen Brown Paris
    [Show full text]
  • Claimant Solicitor 12/13 13/14 14/15 Grand Total (Blank) 390 564 546
    Number of clinical negligence claims closed with nil damages by closure year 12/13 to 14/15 by claimant solicitor (data as at the end of each respective year) Claimant Solicitor 12/13 13/14 14/15 Grand Total (blank) 390 564 546 1,500 Rapid 185 285 253 723 Irwin Mitchell 208 225 262 695 Hudgell 47 75 105 227 EAD 50 90 87 227 Simpson Millar 48 65 81 194 Slater & Gordon 35 42 99 176 Thompsons 50 57 64 171 Pryers 53 52 41 146 Lyons Davidson Limited 44 45 39 128 Fletchers 6 43 79 128 Bridge McFarland 40 39 40 119 Coles Miller 39 33 46 118 Quality 23 38 51 112 Leigh Day & Co 27 40 44 111 Pannone 32 40 31 103 Forbes 33 28 40 101 Goodmans Law 29 51 12 92 Pattinson & Brewer 23 34 32 89 Stephensons 34 29 24 87 Leo Abse & Cohen 18 26 37 81 Brindley Twist Tafft & James 21 28 30 79 Hlw Keeble Hawson 32 17 29 78 Atherton Godfrey 23 30 25 78 Dutton Gregory 25 29 21 75 JMW 17 20 35 72 The Roland Partnership Specialists 22 29 18 69 Foot Anstey 26 23 20 69 Hodge Jones & Allen 18 24 26 68 Penningtons 20 23 24 67 Linder Myers 14 27 25 66 Morrish 12 17 35 64 McMillan Williams 19 23 22 64 McKeag & Co 23 14 26 63 Anthony Collins 24 21 18 63 Birchall Blackburn 23 25 13 61 Ashton KCJ 19 23 19 61 Blake Lapthorn 19 20 21 60 Wolferstans 12 26 18 56 Nelsons 21 17 18 56 Burnetts 11 30 15 56 Lime Personal Injury 5 22 28 55 Express 20 15 20 55 Withy King 14 19 21 54 Longden Walker And Renney 20 22 11 53 Fentons 17 17 18 52 Higgs & Sons 8 20 24 52 MPH 22 17 11 50 Langleys 22 13 14 49 Heptonstalls 12 21 16 49 Graysons 16 17 13 46 Devonshires 15 9 21 45 Applebys 8 19 18
    [Show full text]
  • Marcus Grant
    T: +44 (0)20 7583 1315 E: [email protected] W: tgchambers.com/ https://tgchambers.com/member-profile/marcus-grant/ Marcus Grant Year of Call: 1993 Experience Marcus is ranked as a ‘Star Individual’ Personal Injury Junior Practice Areas Barrister in Chambers & Partners (London) 2021, as he was in 2020, 2019, 2018 and 2017. He was named Personal Civil Fraud Injury/Clinical Negligence Junior of the Year in Chambers & Clinical Negligence Partners UK Bar Awards 2016 and was nominated as the 2017 Credit Hire Legal 500 Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Junior of the Insurance Year. Personal Injury Public Access His specialism is head injury, chronic pain and spinal litigation. Undertakes Public Access He is noted for his leadership in exploring recent neurological work and chronic pain developments in the Courts and is regarded for his insight into the nuances of the medicine and his Mediator tenacity in handling medical experts in his specialist areas. Qualified Mediator He was Counsel for the Claimant in the mild traumatic brain Email: injury and functional neurological disorder decision in Long v. [email protected] Elegant Resorts [2021] EWHC 1330 (QB). Twitter: He was Counsel for the Claimant in the costs decision in https://twitter.com/marcusgr Thompson v. NSL Limited [2021] EWHC 679 in which he ant34 persuaded the Court to allow a further £96,500 to several phases of a budget previously budgeted pursuant to CPR Awards 3.15A. He was Counsel for the Claimant in the case management decision in Mustard v. Flower & Flower & Direct Line [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) which discouraged pleas of fundamental dishonesty which are merely speculative or contingent.
    [Show full text]
  • Liverpoollawsociety.Org.Uk LIVERPOOL
    www.liverpoollawsociety.org.uk LIVERPOOL Interview with LAWChristina Blacklaws, President of the Law Society A Crisis in Crime Liverpool Law Clinic celebrates 10 years of pro bono Whiplash Reforms delayed A Walk in Wales Report and photos from the social walk with Chester and North Wales Law Society The Magazine for the legal sector in Merseyside and the North West August 2018 More thathann a practice management solutionsolution Access cutting-edge technology IXOO\LQWHJUDWHGDXWRPDWHG OXIL\OQW UJHW GHWDPRWXDGHWD OHJDOIRUPVDQGSUHFH QDVPURIODJHOGHQWVVWQHGHFHUSGQ Integrate with leading legal tech providers %HQHȴWIURPRXUFRPPLWPHQW PRUIWȴHQH%RFUXRP WQHPWLPP to innovation Receive world-class Everything you need customer care WRUXQDODZȴUPDODQXURW PUȴZ 7RȴQGRXWPRUHYLVLWXRGQȴR7 WLVLYHURPWX OHDSFRXNSDHO NXRFS Contents 5. News from the President, August 2018 Nina Ferris 6. Helix Highlights 7. Whiplash Reforms Delayed 8. News from the Sub- Committes 11. Meeting the Councillors 55 7 12-13. Meet Christina Blacklaws, the President of the Law Society 14 & 15. Choose Life: Choose the Environmental Protection Act 16. New business review CONTENTS shows the way forward 20. A Walk in Wales Report and photos from the 11 Social Walk with Chester and North Wales Law Society 22. Celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the Liverpool Law Clinic 23. The latest news from the Liverpool BID Company 28. Council Member’s Report: The latest from Charlie Jones, Council 20 Member 30. Charity Spotlight: The Big Lego Brick Hospital 34 & 35. The latest Charity and CSR News Cover photo: The road to Offa’s Dyke 28 12 Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter @LpoolLawSociety Join us on Linked In www.facebook.com/LiverpoolLawSociety https://www.linkedin.com/ company/liverpool-law-society www.liverpoollawsociety.org.uk 3 Editorial Liverpool Law Needs YOU! Welcome to the Liverpool Law Society Magazine is produced by and August 2018 edition of for Liverpool Law Society Members.
    [Show full text]
  • Bc Disease News a Monthly Disease Update
    July 2019 Edition BC DISEASE NEWS A MONTHLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Welcome to the 279th edition of BC Disease News. Defendant PI Solicitor’s In this issue, we break down the contents of Senior Master Fontaine’s collective Inaccurate Attendance case management order, in respect of so-called ‘aerotoxic syndrome’ claims. Note Amounted to ‘Misconduct’: Solicitors In addition, we provide analysis of the link between textured breast implants and Regulation Authority v a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In 2016, the World Health Organisation (WHO) classified breast implant-associated large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) as a Matthew Timothy Sparrow ‘disease’, and in a material development this week, the first UK letters of claim were sent to prospective defendants to product liability litigation. PAGE 4 Finally, we give reasons as to why the London Assembly has just launched an Sealed Collective Case inquiry into the health effects of dust exposure in the capital’s Underground Management Order for network. Aerotoxic Syndrome Group Litigation Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen. As always, warmest regards to all. PAGE 6 First Letters of Claim Issued SUBJECTS in UK Breast Enlargement- Related Cancer Litigation Attendance Notes, Extensions for Filing a Defence and Disciplinary Proceedings – ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ Collective Case Management Order – Textured Breast PAGE 7 Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma – Roundup-Induced Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Damages and Austrian Glyphosate Ban – Asbestos in Primary Schools Judge to Reduce – Tube Dust and the London Assembly Environment Committee. Glyphosate-Cancer Damages, While Austria Edges Towards Complete Ban Almost 50% of Primary Schools Contain Asbestos PAGE 8 London Assembly Committee Commences ‘Tube Dust’ Investigation PAGE | 2 Defendant PI Solicitor’s Inaccurate Attendance Note Amounted to ‘Misconduct’: Solicitors Regulation Authority v On the following day, the Clyde & Co associate filed and served his defence.
    [Show full text]
  • Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update
    31 March 2017 Edition 179 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. Unravelling ‘Issue Based In the last week, Elizabeth Truss has announced the launch of the much awaited, Costs Orders’: Lyons v Fox Government consultation on how the discount rate should be set in the future. Williams LLP [2017] EWHC Elsewhere, the SRA have intervened into the practice of Asons Solicitors, closing 532 (QB) the firm with immediate effect and suspending the practising certificate of Director Kamran Akram. PAGE 4 In this week’s feature, we look at the construction of one of the most commonly pleaded statutory duties in asbestos claims, s.63(1) of the Factories Act 1961 Truss Announces Launch of (preceded by s.47(1) of the Factories Act 1937) and consider what needs to be Consultation into Discount shown in order to establish liability under this section. Rate Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen. PAGE 5 As always, warmest regards to all. Asons Solicitors Become Coops Law SUBJECTS PAGE 6 Issue Based Costs Judgment – Discount Rate Consultation Launched – SRA Closes Assignment of CFAs Asons Solicitors – Regulator Drops Investigation Of S&G – Cabin Air Quality Research - Factories Act 1961/1937 – An Introduction To S.63/47. PAGE 7 ASIC Investigation into S&G Dropped Cabin Air Quality Studies Published Page 9 Feature Mesothelioma Series: Part 7: Factories Act 1961/1937 – s.63 PAGE | 2 not successful on every last issue Unravelling ‘Issue Based ‘… have regard to all the cannot, of itself, justify an issue- Costs Orders’: Lyons v circumstances including (but not based costs order.
    [Show full text]
  • 108668NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. (' "~ .~." r, '.:: .. "."." ~,. ,<"'(;:v ~ Te Whainga i Te Tika In Search of Justice 108668 U$, Department ot Justice Natlonallnstltule ot Justice Th.s document has poen leproduced exactly as receIved lrom Ihe p&rSon or olgiln,zallon 01l9'0a1109II POlnta of vIew or opInions slaled 10 IhlS document ale Ihosa of lhe ~uthors and dn not necessanly ,epresent tho off,Cial pOSlllon or pollcle, of the National InsllMe of JUSUCB Perm19Sl0n to reproduce Ihls copy"ght~d ...,alOllal has beon granltd by Ne"", .Z.caland. Gover.nInaQt Printing. Q ffice._... ..,_,__ ..,,,_. 10 Ihe NatIonal enr"'"a! Jus,,~e Reference Servlco {NCJRSl Furlher reproductIon Culsldo of Iho NC.JAS syslem reqUItes permls­ $100 of the COPYIIght ()Woel JAtt 15 1988 . , FOREWORD Since the publication in 1982 and 1983 of the interim and froal reports of the Working Party on Access to the Law which discussed the provision of government assisted and community-based legal services in New Zealand there have been a number of changes in those services but much remains essentially the same. Two of the key recommendations of the final report were the introduction of a new Legal Services Act to replace the Legal Aid Act 1969 and Offenders Legal Aid Act 1954 and the establishment of a Legal Services Board to oversee and co-ordinate legal services in New Zealand. Many of the other recommendations were to be incorporated in the new Act and the Legal Services Board itself was to further consider a number of the report's proposals.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2019 FOI 3823 the Following Information Was
    2nd Floor 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SZ Telephone: 020 7811 2700 July 2019 FOI_3823 The following information was requested on 26 June 2019: For the last two financial year available please provide a list of all the claimant firms to have placed a claim with the NHSLA in relation to claimant costs for the clinical negligence scheme (CNST). Please only include the firm names without any additional information, to ensure that individuals who are the subject of this information cannot be identified and the request does not contravene any data protection principles. Our Response Please see the attached. This concludes our response to your request. If you are not satisfied with the service that you have received in response to your information request, it is open to you to make a complaint and request a formal review of our decisions. If you choose to do this, you should write to Tinku Mitra, Head of Corporate and Information Governance for NHS Resolution, within 28 days of your receipt of this reply. Reviews of decisions made in relation to information requests are carried out by a person who was not involved in the original decision-making about the request. If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a review of the decision. Generally, the Information Commissioner will not make a decision unless you have exhausted the local complaints procedure. The address of the Information Commissioner’s Office is: Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Freedom of Information Request# 3823 Data correct as at: 31/05/2019 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S NB: Number of claims fewer than 5 (and any associated values, within the same row) are masked with a "#" (in accordance with Data Protection guidelines).
    [Show full text]
  • Costs Product.Indd
    BC BC LEGAL B R I N G I N G C L A R I T Y BC LEGAL DISEASE COSTS MARCH 2016 BC LEGAL COSTS REPUDIATION RATE A SNAPSHOT UP TO 94% PRE LITIGATION 60-70% IN LITIGATION CLAIMANT BUDGET REDUCTIONS DATA COLLECTING 30-40% AND PROFILING PART 36 OFFERS COSTS APP ONCE AND ONCE ONLY! AVERAGE SAVING 44% PER BILL OF COSTS If you have any questions about the BC Legal Cost Team and Services please contact Gary Brankin on DD: 0113 323 0462 or [email protected]. 6 OPPORTUNITIES TO OUR ETHOS LOWER CLIENT’S INDEMNITY SPEND x Repudiation rates in Occupational Disease 1. Increase your repudiation rate. claims are typically higher than for other types of personal injury claims. Ours are 2. Cost Budgets- Reduce Claimants’ cost between 60-70% in litigation and up to 94% entitlement at the first opportunity. pre-litigation. 3. Create risk to agree damages and costs x If high repudiation rates can be maintained together. and Claimant solicitors’ costs limited, there is 4. Reduce the amount paid in costs. no business model for these claims. 5. Reduce unnecessary leakage into litigation. x High repudiation rates mean Claimant 6. Pay appropriate claims at the appropriate solicitors have to ‘over recover’ on those settlements at the earliest stage. claims in which they do receive payment. x Our BCL Costs Product aims to robustly attack the costs claimed by Claimant solicitors and Repudiation rate reduce the sums payable with limited risk to the insurer. x Our pre-litigation repudiation rate across varying disease types for one major client is x Under QOCS, costs cannot be recovered from the Claimant if the claim is won in based on significant volumes and litigation.
    [Show full text]