It has been reported in the Claims Magazine today that Donns, a Claimant firm of solicitors in Manchester has gone into administration. Please see the attached link for further details http://bbm-news.net/pinews40/FOB-F7Y-D220HPCK2E-AGK82-1/industry.aspx?dm_i=FOB,R2IV,20HPCK,26POQ,1
It appears that many clients will now be contacted by Irwin Mitchell and be invited to transfer their file to this alternative firm. Given that Donns acted for clients nationwide there may be many local clients who would like to use this opportunity to enlist the services of a local solicitor rather than Irwin Mitchell. If any client wishes to exercise their freedom of choice, Rogers & Norton can assist and we would be more than happy to discuss any potential cases and arrange the transfer of files to this practice if required.
For more information please contact our Personal Injury experts on (pi@rogers-norton.co.uk or call Mark Hambling or Tim Nobbs on 01603 666001.
Showing posts with label Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Higher payouts for elderly victims of asbestos
In a recent case a 92 year old man (Mr Dennis Ball) suffering from Mesothelioma an asbestos-related cancer has been awarded £73,890 damages by the High Court.
Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lungs which is notorious for its incurability and for the pain caused to its victims. Mr Ball had been exposed to asbestos at Sutton Colliery and Moorgreen Colliery, both in Notts, where he had worked between 1967 and 1985. As a consequence of the disease Mr Ball was forced to leave his home where he had lived independently and move into a nursing home.
In the landmark ruling, Mr Ball received £50,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity which was £15,000 higher than the recommended figure. The judgment being contrary to legal guidelines that recommended a pay out of £35,000 when a victim was of an age that meant the duration of pain and suffering was relatively short.
The High Court judgment stated that “A person of any age who is informed that his or her life will be cut short by the effect of a harmful substance to which he or she has been wrongfully exposed is likely to suffer a good deal of distress.”
“Even if a deceased’s death has in the event been relatively peaceful, he or she will have been fearful since being told of the diagnosis of mesothelioma that a painful and distressing end lies in store.”
The defendants in the case had tried to argue that, because Mr Ball was 92 and only had a short life expectancy, the amount of asbestos compensation he received should be reduced accordingly.
Mr Ball’s legal team argued that despite Mr Ball’s age and the fact that he had only had a few months to live, he should be entitled to the same level of damages as a younger person or someone who could expect to live longer.
The ruling makes it clear that for however long a victim lives following their diagnosis, they should be appropriately compensated for the pain and suffering they endure, and surely leads the way for other elderly claimants to receive settlements which reflect the pain and distress the disease causes, regardless of their age.
Monday, February 20, 2012
How safe are our Schools?
Campaigners are up in arms after it has recently come to light that a year long review of the condition of our country’s schools (from classroom decoration to the state of the toilets) will specifically exclude asbestos. It is alleged that the government has acted in this way because it knows that tackling the issue of asbestos will costs millions of pounds.
The scale of the problem is huge with over 75% of our schools containing asbestos. Statistically there has been a 15 fold increase in mesothelioma deaths since 1967 in Britain with more than 2,300 in 2009. The annual death toll for asbestos related conditions is expected to rise to 5000 by 2015. There have been over 140 such deaths involving teachers alone in the last 10 years.
The government has no national picture of asbestos in our schools or the cost of dealing with it. The matter is left in the hands of local authorities whose resources have already been stripped back to the bone.
Schools do not have to tell people if they have asbestos or routinely report the state it is in. Nor, according to the HSE, do they have to remove it during refurbishment.
So how safe are our children in school? Tweet us with your thoughts.
The scale of the problem is huge with over 75% of our schools containing asbestos. Statistically there has been a 15 fold increase in mesothelioma deaths since 1967 in Britain with more than 2,300 in 2009. The annual death toll for asbestos related conditions is expected to rise to 5000 by 2015. There have been over 140 such deaths involving teachers alone in the last 10 years.
The government has no national picture of asbestos in our schools or the cost of dealing with it. The matter is left in the hands of local authorities whose resources have already been stripped back to the bone.
Schools do not have to tell people if they have asbestos or routinely report the state it is in. Nor, according to the HSE, do they have to remove it during refurbishment.
So how safe are our children in school? Tweet us with your thoughts.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Crime will not pay
CICA Scheme is to be overhauled. Criminals will only be able to claim compensation for being victims of crime in "exceptional circumstances", under proposals by the justice secretary, Mr Ken Clarke. This if after the annual costs of the taxpayer funded scheme trebled to nearly £300m since 1997.
The proposed reforms include:
1. Criminals to contribute more towards the scheme. Payment of "victim surcharges" by more offenders, and higher fines for driving offences, will it is hoped raise £50m for victims.
2.To stop criminals claiming for injuries and psychological damage.
3. Claims for minor injuries under the scheme for people in England, Wales and Scotland would also be restricted under the plans.
4. A person with a criminal record will only be able to claim compensation in exceptional circumstances. This could include, for example, a minor offender who is very seriously injured or a criminal who prevents someone else being attacked.
Over the past decade, 20,000 people with criminal records have been paid more than £75m, including a rapist and a person convicted of two killings.
The proposed reforms include:
1. Criminals to contribute more towards the scheme. Payment of "victim surcharges" by more offenders, and higher fines for driving offences, will it is hoped raise £50m for victims.
2.To stop criminals claiming for injuries and psychological damage.
3. Claims for minor injuries under the scheme for people in England, Wales and Scotland would also be restricted under the plans.
4. A person with a criminal record will only be able to claim compensation in exceptional circumstances. This could include, for example, a minor offender who is very seriously injured or a criminal who prevents someone else being attacked.
Over the past decade, 20,000 people with criminal records have been paid more than £75m, including a rapist and a person convicted of two killings.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Heights to Haircuts!!!
Mark Hambling, Partner, Law Society Accredited Personal Injury Lawyer and Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Senior Litigator, has recently concluded an interesting case which saw the Claimant make an interesting and enforced career change.
The Claimant worked as a scaffolder and suffered a significant head injury when struck by a falling metal scaffold sleeve. The facts, in the absence of the serious injury, could form the basis of a comedy sketch. The Claimant’s colleague was Polish and had a tendency to swear on site for no apparent reason, usually in Polish and therefore his language was generally ignored. However on the day in question he dropped a metal scaffold sleeve and rather than shouting "look out" he swore and was unfortunately ignored. Tragically the sleeve struck the Claimant on the head causing a fractured skull, soft tissue injuries to the spine and neurological symptoms such as problems with memory and learning.
The Claimant required surgery to elevate his depressed skull fracture and was in hospital remarkably for only 7 days before his discharge to be monitored by out patients.
The insurers of the scaffolding company admitted liability for the unsafe system of work which was used to raise the scaffold fittings to the construction. Despite the scaffold company entering liquidation during the litigation the claim was pursued against the company, who had relevant insurance, with permission of the Court.
The only issue to determine was the extent of injury caused by the accident, the value of that injury and the losses flowing from the injury. Medical evidence was necessary from a Neurologist, Neurosurgeon, Neuro Psychiatrist, and Plastic Surgeon. It was established that the Claimant had suffered a depressed fracture to the skull which had left a permanent cosmetic appearance. He had also suffered trauma to the brain which would again cause minor permanent problems with memory and learning as well as interaction. His soft tissue injuries to the spine which were caused by the compressive force of the metal sleeve healed over a two year period. However psychologically it was established that he could never work in construction again and would have to consider a change of career.
The Claimant had some pre accident experience as a hairdresser having trained with Nicky Clarke, although he had given this up to train as a scaffolder and earn a higher salary. The Claimant therefore returned to the hairdressing trade once he was fit to work. He was however starting from scratch again and despite efforts in some top London and regional salons and a summer of experience working on fashion shoots and parades in Ibiza he was struggling to hold down a position and had lost several positions.
Our involvement was to present a proveable argument comparing his potential earnings as a hairdresser and scaffolder, analysing when the two would, if ever, reach parity. After numerous statements from past and present employers and a detailed review of the hairdressing opportunities as well as considering how the Claimant would have faired but for the accident as a scaffolder in one of the worst recessions ever, the claim settled at a round table meeting with the Defendants at a figure substantially ahead of £200,000.
COMMENT
This case raised all the issues I could expect. Whilst liability was resolved in the Claimant’s favour a detailed knowledge of the Health & Safety at Work legislation was required to prove this. The case had the added complication of an insolvent Defendant which required a successful application to the Court to allow the case to proceed.
In relation to the injuries a thorough understanding of the medical case was needed to enable the right experts to be selected from our panel of the best available. What was then required was the time and experience to investigate the pre and post accident work options to present a case on value to support the past and future loss of earning as well as providing for the future risks, in particular the inability to return to scaffolding if he never achieves parity of earnings as a hairdresser.
The case highlights the need to use an experienced Personal Injury Lawyer to pursue your claim if you unfortunately suffer an injury. There are a variety of potential claims within each case which will require consideration and the lawyer instructed must investigate these thoroughly to ensure the Claimant achieves the right level of compensation.
If you wish to discuss this article or have a potential case that you wish to discuss please contact us on our enquiry form on our website at http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/make-a-claim.htm we would be delighted to speak to you.
The Claimant worked as a scaffolder and suffered a significant head injury when struck by a falling metal scaffold sleeve. The facts, in the absence of the serious injury, could form the basis of a comedy sketch. The Claimant’s colleague was Polish and had a tendency to swear on site for no apparent reason, usually in Polish and therefore his language was generally ignored. However on the day in question he dropped a metal scaffold sleeve and rather than shouting "look out" he swore and was unfortunately ignored. Tragically the sleeve struck the Claimant on the head causing a fractured skull, soft tissue injuries to the spine and neurological symptoms such as problems with memory and learning.
The Claimant required surgery to elevate his depressed skull fracture and was in hospital remarkably for only 7 days before his discharge to be monitored by out patients.
The insurers of the scaffolding company admitted liability for the unsafe system of work which was used to raise the scaffold fittings to the construction. Despite the scaffold company entering liquidation during the litigation the claim was pursued against the company, who had relevant insurance, with permission of the Court.
The only issue to determine was the extent of injury caused by the accident, the value of that injury and the losses flowing from the injury. Medical evidence was necessary from a Neurologist, Neurosurgeon, Neuro Psychiatrist, and Plastic Surgeon. It was established that the Claimant had suffered a depressed fracture to the skull which had left a permanent cosmetic appearance. He had also suffered trauma to the brain which would again cause minor permanent problems with memory and learning as well as interaction. His soft tissue injuries to the spine which were caused by the compressive force of the metal sleeve healed over a two year period. However psychologically it was established that he could never work in construction again and would have to consider a change of career.
The Claimant had some pre accident experience as a hairdresser having trained with Nicky Clarke, although he had given this up to train as a scaffolder and earn a higher salary. The Claimant therefore returned to the hairdressing trade once he was fit to work. He was however starting from scratch again and despite efforts in some top London and regional salons and a summer of experience working on fashion shoots and parades in Ibiza he was struggling to hold down a position and had lost several positions.
Our involvement was to present a proveable argument comparing his potential earnings as a hairdresser and scaffolder, analysing when the two would, if ever, reach parity. After numerous statements from past and present employers and a detailed review of the hairdressing opportunities as well as considering how the Claimant would have faired but for the accident as a scaffolder in one of the worst recessions ever, the claim settled at a round table meeting with the Defendants at a figure substantially ahead of £200,000.
COMMENT
This case raised all the issues I could expect. Whilst liability was resolved in the Claimant’s favour a detailed knowledge of the Health & Safety at Work legislation was required to prove this. The case had the added complication of an insolvent Defendant which required a successful application to the Court to allow the case to proceed.
In relation to the injuries a thorough understanding of the medical case was needed to enable the right experts to be selected from our panel of the best available. What was then required was the time and experience to investigate the pre and post accident work options to present a case on value to support the past and future loss of earning as well as providing for the future risks, in particular the inability to return to scaffolding if he never achieves parity of earnings as a hairdresser.
The case highlights the need to use an experienced Personal Injury Lawyer to pursue your claim if you unfortunately suffer an injury. There are a variety of potential claims within each case which will require consideration and the lawyer instructed must investigate these thoroughly to ensure the Claimant achieves the right level of compensation.
If you wish to discuss this article or have a potential case that you wish to discuss please contact us on our enquiry form on our website at http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/make-a-claim.htm we would be delighted to speak to you.
Alternatively, for further information please contact the Personal Injury Department at pi@rogers-norton.co.uk or Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or email mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Some simple questions answered
Mark Hambling, Partner at Rogers & Norton has been asked to write a Personal Injury Column for the North Norfolk Post which will be published shortly. The information in the column is certainly helpful to any client considering pursuing a personal injury claim and therefore I have posted below a copy of the information provided.
In a climate when insurers are keen to refer cases to their Panel Solicitors in exchange for sometimes substantial referral fees, it is not surprising that the client seems to be guided through their personal injury claim with very little advice as to the legal requirements for a successful Personal Injury claim. Mark Hambling, Partner in Rogers & Norton’s personal injury department sets out briefly below the legal requirements for a successful claim.
Do I have to prove someone was to blame to pursue a claim?
In most claims the requirement to prove fault is necessary to succeed. There are some very limited occasions when a claim can succeed without proving negligence on the part of the party against whom you are claiming but these are very limited. However, in most cases the parties seeking to prove the claim must show that the person against whom they are claiming owed them a duty of care which can be in Common Law, for example the duty of road users to ensure the safety of fellow road users or in statute, for example the duty of an employer to ensure that an employee is safe at work. It is then necessary to show that that duty of care has been breached which will usually require evidence.
Do I have to show that the breach of duty has caused my injury?
Yes, it is not enough to show blame and no injury or indeed an injury but no breach of duty. For example if an employer asked an employee to sit on a defective chair this may give rise to a breach of duty but if the employees back ache arises from the employer partaking in sport and not him sitting on the chair, the claim will not succeed. Equally, an injury alone caused through work without proving a breach of duty will not succeed.
What compensation can I pursue?
An award in compensation is generally split in to three component parts. The first aspect reflects the pain, suffering and loss of amenity that the injured party has sustained. This will usually be proven by a medical report to establish the injury, its link to the accident and the extent of the injury. In the absence of agreement a Court will assess this award which is known as general damages. In addition you will recover the items of expense that it can be shown have been caused by the injury and these are known as items of special damage. Finally, the award may attract interest at rates set by the Court.
How do I pay for pursuing a claim?
As the law stands currently there is provision in the event of a successful claim for your costs to be recovered in addition to your damages. Your solicitor may be advising you under legal expense insurance or under a No Win No Fee Agreement and it is usual for the solicitor to endeavour to recover all of his costs from the other party if the claim is successful. If the claim is unsuccessful and you have legal expense insurance generally the insurers will pay your costs. Under a No Win No Fee Agreement it is likely that the solicitor will not be paid for his time as the claim has not been successful. In successful cases we at Rogers & Norton provide clients with a guarantee that we will recover our costs from the other party in full, therefore you receive 100% of your damages.
Mark Hambling is a Partner specialising in matters of personal injury and clinical negligence. He is a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and an Accredited Specialist in personal injury with the Law Society. He can be contacted on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
In a climate when insurers are keen to refer cases to their Panel Solicitors in exchange for sometimes substantial referral fees, it is not surprising that the client seems to be guided through their personal injury claim with very little advice as to the legal requirements for a successful Personal Injury claim. Mark Hambling, Partner in Rogers & Norton’s personal injury department sets out briefly below the legal requirements for a successful claim.
Do I have to prove someone was to blame to pursue a claim?
In most claims the requirement to prove fault is necessary to succeed. There are some very limited occasions when a claim can succeed without proving negligence on the part of the party against whom you are claiming but these are very limited. However, in most cases the parties seeking to prove the claim must show that the person against whom they are claiming owed them a duty of care which can be in Common Law, for example the duty of road users to ensure the safety of fellow road users or in statute, for example the duty of an employer to ensure that an employee is safe at work. It is then necessary to show that that duty of care has been breached which will usually require evidence.
Do I have to show that the breach of duty has caused my injury?
Yes, it is not enough to show blame and no injury or indeed an injury but no breach of duty. For example if an employer asked an employee to sit on a defective chair this may give rise to a breach of duty but if the employees back ache arises from the employer partaking in sport and not him sitting on the chair, the claim will not succeed. Equally, an injury alone caused through work without proving a breach of duty will not succeed.
What compensation can I pursue?
An award in compensation is generally split in to three component parts. The first aspect reflects the pain, suffering and loss of amenity that the injured party has sustained. This will usually be proven by a medical report to establish the injury, its link to the accident and the extent of the injury. In the absence of agreement a Court will assess this award which is known as general damages. In addition you will recover the items of expense that it can be shown have been caused by the injury and these are known as items of special damage. Finally, the award may attract interest at rates set by the Court.
How do I pay for pursuing a claim?
As the law stands currently there is provision in the event of a successful claim for your costs to be recovered in addition to your damages. Your solicitor may be advising you under legal expense insurance or under a No Win No Fee Agreement and it is usual for the solicitor to endeavour to recover all of his costs from the other party if the claim is successful. If the claim is unsuccessful and you have legal expense insurance generally the insurers will pay your costs. Under a No Win No Fee Agreement it is likely that the solicitor will not be paid for his time as the claim has not been successful. In successful cases we at Rogers & Norton provide clients with a guarantee that we will recover our costs from the other party in full, therefore you receive 100% of your damages.
Mark Hambling is a Partner specialising in matters of personal injury and clinical negligence. He is a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and an Accredited Specialist in personal injury with the Law Society. He can be contacted on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)