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 claims@rogers-norton.co.uk or call Mark Hambling or Tim Nobbs on 01603 666001.
Showing posts with label mark hambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mark hambling. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Long battle ends in success
A 5 year fight is over following a decision by the UK’s highest Court which now means that employers’ insurers will be obliged to pay compensation claims of those suffering from or the families of those who have died from mesothelioma, a disease that can lay undetected for many years. It means that many thousands of people will at long last be entitled to compensation following the landmark ruling that the liability of insurers arises at the date of exposure to asbestos and not when symptoms of mesothelioma are detected which may be decades later.
Yesterday the Supreme Court delivered a long awaited landmark Judgment in what has been termed the mesothelioma “trigger litigation” which has seen a long running Court battle at an end, the Supreme Court having now ruled that the relevant date for the purposes of entitlement to compensation is the date of exposure and not the date when symptoms may develop or manifest themselves which can be many years later.
This particular issue related to the stance taken by a number of insurers that they were not obliged to pay out on such claims and that the key date for claiming arose at the date that the disease developed. This ruling has ended that argument in confirming that the relevant date is the date of employment during which the exposure occurred.
This will be of some comfort to those who have contracted mesothelioma, an insidious cancer, as well as their loved ones who will be able to pursue claims against the insurers as a result of their exposure to asbestos resulting in them contracting the disease.
For those who are suffering such condition and those who have lost their personal battle but whose families continue to pursue for their just entitlements, this decision brings to an end a whole host of test cases which have challenged the entitlement of those exposed to asbestos being able to recover compensation.
These cases are particularly difficult and raise a variety of complex legal issues. Expertise as well as compassion and the ability to empathise are key elements in ensuring that those who are entitled to compensation secure that compensation.
Rogers & Norton's Personal Injury Department has dealt with a number of significant asbestos cases and to achieve a successful outcome requires stubborn determination and frequently detailed forensic investigation in respect of a client’s employment history. This calls for professionalism, determination and compassion in equal measure.
If you would like to talk to one of our lawyers about whether you may have a possible claim for compensation relating to exposure to asbestos then please contact us on 01603 666001 for a free initial consultation.
Yesterday the Supreme Court delivered a long awaited landmark Judgment in what has been termed the mesothelioma “trigger litigation” which has seen a long running Court battle at an end, the Supreme Court having now ruled that the relevant date for the purposes of entitlement to compensation is the date of exposure and not the date when symptoms may develop or manifest themselves which can be many years later.
This particular issue related to the stance taken by a number of insurers that they were not obliged to pay out on such claims and that the key date for claiming arose at the date that the disease developed. This ruling has ended that argument in confirming that the relevant date is the date of employment during which the exposure occurred.
This will be of some comfort to those who have contracted mesothelioma, an insidious cancer, as well as their loved ones who will be able to pursue claims against the insurers as a result of their exposure to asbestos resulting in them contracting the disease.
For those who are suffering such condition and those who have lost their personal battle but whose families continue to pursue for their just entitlements, this decision brings to an end a whole host of test cases which have challenged the entitlement of those exposed to asbestos being able to recover compensation.
These cases are particularly difficult and raise a variety of complex legal issues. Expertise as well as compassion and the ability to empathise are key elements in ensuring that those who are entitled to compensation secure that compensation.
Rogers & Norton's Personal Injury Department has dealt with a number of significant asbestos cases and to achieve a successful outcome requires stubborn determination and frequently detailed forensic investigation in respect of a client’s employment history. This calls for professionalism, determination and compassion in equal measure.
If you would like to talk to one of our lawyers about whether you may have a possible claim for compensation relating to exposure to asbestos then please contact us on 01603 666001 for a free initial consultation.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Into The Dragon's Den
Mark Hambling partner and personal injury expert at Rogers & Norton swapped his usual role of fighting for justice for personal injury victims to become a dragon in the Brundall School Dragons Den. Joining other local business leaders from Oriental Rugs Norwich, Pymm & Co, Bugdens and Norwich City Football Club, Mark heard seven pitches from business formed by groups of year 6 pupils at Brundall School.
The pitches for investment came from potential businesses ranging from a milkshake and Brownie company, a school fitness DVD and a loyalty scheme encouraging children to eat fruit. Each business obtained investment ranging between £20 and £50 and each dragon will now support the children as they strive to develop their business and make a profit to enable interest to be paid back to the investor.
Mark Hambling, Personal Injury partner, has invested in a fitness DVD company which plans to produce a DVD filmed in the school, using the school pupils to be sold in the summer term in the run up to the Olympics. Commenting on the event Mark said, "Whilst I know little about fitness DVD's, as a parent I know how good it is to see your children on screen or in the press. I therefore hope my teams DVD will certainly sell well to the parents in the Brundall and surrounding area".
The pupils worked very hard in preparing for the event and as part of their studies had prepared business plans, marketing strategies and projections. Their presentation of their business proposals to the Dragons was excellent and they engaged in debate and negotiation with the Dragons in a very professional and measured way. Mark commented " I was very impressed with the pupils enthusiasm and skills and had a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon with a group of very able children".
Rogers & Norton were delighted to be one of the supporters of this event and we hope to see some entrepreneurs develop in the future from these year 6 pupils.
Thanks must also be given to Mr Ed Dooley the year 6 class teacher and Brundall school for their hard work in arranging the event. Further reports and pictures of the pupils can be seen on the front page of the Evening News today (16th March 2012) and in todays Eastern Daily Press.
Mark Hambling can be contacted on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
When and how should Court assess chances in Personal Injury claims?
The Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a diamond core driller and as part of his employment was provided with the use of a company van. For some time the van doors were defective and as a result the Claimant was required to squeeze through the gap between the driver and passenger seats, move the content of the storage area of the van to the side, slide two 25 litre barrels of water to the side and then push the van doors open.
Whilst undertaking this task on the 16th March 2006 the Claimant suffered a significant prolapse of the disc in his back at L4/5 which despite surgery left the Claimant with substantial symptoms, permanently restricting his day to day activities and rendering him permanently unfit to work.
It was agreed medical evidence that the Claimant was suffering from a significant prolapse and that as a consequence he was left with a permanent disability and an inability to return to work.
The issues for the court to decide were the extent to which the Defendant employer was liable to the Claimant and if liable the extent to which the agreed injuries were caused by the negligence of the employer.
Liability settled just before trial with the employer finally accepting liability with a very small reduction for contributory negligence to reflect the risk of litigating the case before a Judge.
The issue of causation went to a hearing before the Norwich County Court were the Judge heard evidence from two expert orthopaedic surgeons. For the Claimant the opinion was that but for the accident this injury would not have occurred and even if the Claimant has suffered a prolapse it would have been very unlikely to have been as severe and without the significant consequences which occurred after the injury. For the Defendant the expert gave a view that the injuries would have occurred in any event within two years given the Claimants heavy work and smoking and that when the symptoms occurred they would have more likely than not been the same. However in cross examination the Defendant's expert made numerous concessions as to the percentage chance of the the symptoms being either:
The role of the court in making an assessment of damages which depends upon its view as to what will be and what would have been is to be contrasted with its ordinary function in civil actions of determining what did happen in the past a court decides on the balance of probabilities. Anything that is more probable than not it treats as certain. But in assessing damages which depend upon its view as to what will happen in the future or would have happened in the future if something had not happened in the past, the court must make an estimate as to what are the chances that a particular thing will or would have happened and reflect those chances, whether they are more or less than even, in the amount of damages which it awards.
The Defendants sort at first instance to distinguish these appeal cases as only relating to a claim involving fatal injuries and that a judge should decide all matters on the "balance of probabilities" which is the test used by the court when addressing matters of past fact.
At first instance HHJ Curl sitting in the Norwich County Court held that the Defendants’ medical view was correct and applied the balance of probabilities test. As a result because the view of the Defendants’ expert was that it was over a 50% chance, although nowhere near certain, that the Claimant would suffer the same symptoms the Claimant should only recover compensation for two years. This was the period over which the Claimant would have developed the same symptoms in any event according to the Defendants’ expert.
The Claimants appealed on the ground that the Judge did not correctly apply the law which required him to reflect the risks of various possible outcomes, to include never suffering symptoms to suffering similar symptoms, when assessing the basis on which the Claimant should recover damages. As such the initial trial judge when accepting the Defendants view had incorrectly failed to take account of the concessions made by the Defendants’ expert in cross examination.
The Court of Appeal heard representations from both parties and held that the Judge at first instance had failed to apply the correct test and should when assessing future loss reflect the risk and chances of a future event happening as established in Mallet v McGonagall 1970 and to that extent the appeal Judges were with the Claimant. However the Court felt they could still uphold the Trial Judge's finding of two years by following an authority of Kenth v Heimdale Hotel Investments Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1283 which held that one way of assessing risks and chances is to apply an acceleration which was an acknowledged broad brush approach. As such the Claimant received damages for a two year period.
COMMENT
This is undoubtedly a disappointing result for the Claimant who on the one hand succeeded on the legal issue before the Appeal Court yet then failed to recover any increase in damages as a result of the Judges upholding the finding on acceleration, whilst recognising the Norwich County Court wrongly applied the law. It is difficult to believe that had the Judge in Norwich at first instance correctly applied the law that he would have awarded the Claimant the same two year acceleration if he had factored in the various risks, which he failed to do when applying the test of balance of probabilities, which he should have done. As a result it is disappointing that the Court of Appeal, having found for the Claimant on the law, did not then allow what the Claimant argues would be more appropriate damages.
However the case demonstrates the importance of, when assessing future losses, considering all of the events that may or may not happen before a Court awards or solicitors agree damages. Whilst the acceleration approach of awarding damages for a period of 2, 3 or 10 years (as an example) may be correct and regularly applied this must be done on an analysis of the evidence and if appropriate an assessment of the future risks rather than because on the balance of probabilities it is found.
Inevitably whilst we were disappointed that the Claimant recovered no further damages, the case did prove a very important legal point. It also demonstrates that at a time when lawyers are challenged for the use of No Win No Fee agreements, if used properly they are a significant benefit to Claimants. Indeed it is likely that without a system which allows success fees in No Win No Fee agreements to be recovered this case may not have been advanced. It is therefore very disappointing that the current government are seeking to remove the recoverability of success fees which underpin the risks lawyers take in substantial cases such as the one under discussion.
If you wish to discuss this article or the current proposals to change the recoverability of success fee or discuss any possible claim please contact Mark Hambling mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
22nd December 2011
Whilst undertaking this task on the 16th March 2006 the Claimant suffered a significant prolapse of the disc in his back at L4/5 which despite surgery left the Claimant with substantial symptoms, permanently restricting his day to day activities and rendering him permanently unfit to work.
It was agreed medical evidence that the Claimant was suffering from a significant prolapse and that as a consequence he was left with a permanent disability and an inability to return to work.
The issues for the court to decide were the extent to which the Defendant employer was liable to the Claimant and if liable the extent to which the agreed injuries were caused by the negligence of the employer.
Liability settled just before trial with the employer finally accepting liability with a very small reduction for contributory negligence to reflect the risk of litigating the case before a Judge.
The issue of causation went to a hearing before the Norwich County Court were the Judge heard evidence from two expert orthopaedic surgeons. For the Claimant the opinion was that but for the accident this injury would not have occurred and even if the Claimant has suffered a prolapse it would have been very unlikely to have been as severe and without the significant consequences which occurred after the injury. For the Defendant the expert gave a view that the injuries would have occurred in any event within two years given the Claimants heavy work and smoking and that when the symptoms occurred they would have more likely than not been the same. However in cross examination the Defendant's expert made numerous concessions as to the percentage chance of the the symptoms being either:
- As severe
- Of similar nature
- With the same effects on work and
- With the same urological consequences
The Defendants sort at first instance to distinguish these appeal cases as only relating to a claim involving fatal injuries and that a judge should decide all matters on the "balance of probabilities" which is the test used by the court when addressing matters of past fact.
At first instance HHJ Curl sitting in the Norwich County Court held that the Defendants’ medical view was correct and applied the balance of probabilities test. As a result because the view of the Defendants’ expert was that it was over a 50% chance, although nowhere near certain, that the Claimant would suffer the same symptoms the Claimant should only recover compensation for two years. This was the period over which the Claimant would have developed the same symptoms in any event according to the Defendants’ expert.
The Claimants appealed on the ground that the Judge did not correctly apply the law which required him to reflect the risks of various possible outcomes, to include never suffering symptoms to suffering similar symptoms, when assessing the basis on which the Claimant should recover damages. As such the initial trial judge when accepting the Defendants view had incorrectly failed to take account of the concessions made by the Defendants’ expert in cross examination.
The Court of Appeal heard representations from both parties and held that the Judge at first instance had failed to apply the correct test and should when assessing future loss reflect the risk and chances of a future event happening as established in Mallet v McGonagall 1970 and to that extent the appeal Judges were with the Claimant. However the Court felt they could still uphold the Trial Judge's finding of two years by following an authority of Kenth v Heimdale Hotel Investments Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1283 which held that one way of assessing risks and chances is to apply an acceleration which was an acknowledged broad brush approach. As such the Claimant received damages for a two year period.
COMMENT
This is undoubtedly a disappointing result for the Claimant who on the one hand succeeded on the legal issue before the Appeal Court yet then failed to recover any increase in damages as a result of the Judges upholding the finding on acceleration, whilst recognising the Norwich County Court wrongly applied the law. It is difficult to believe that had the Judge in Norwich at first instance correctly applied the law that he would have awarded the Claimant the same two year acceleration if he had factored in the various risks, which he failed to do when applying the test of balance of probabilities, which he should have done. As a result it is disappointing that the Court of Appeal, having found for the Claimant on the law, did not then allow what the Claimant argues would be more appropriate damages.
However the case demonstrates the importance of, when assessing future losses, considering all of the events that may or may not happen before a Court awards or solicitors agree damages. Whilst the acceleration approach of awarding damages for a period of 2, 3 or 10 years (as an example) may be correct and regularly applied this must be done on an analysis of the evidence and if appropriate an assessment of the future risks rather than because on the balance of probabilities it is found.
Inevitably whilst we were disappointed that the Claimant recovered no further damages, the case did prove a very important legal point. It also demonstrates that at a time when lawyers are challenged for the use of No Win No Fee agreements, if used properly they are a significant benefit to Claimants. Indeed it is likely that without a system which allows success fees in No Win No Fee agreements to be recovered this case may not have been advanced. It is therefore very disappointing that the current government are seeking to remove the recoverability of success fees which underpin the risks lawyers take in substantial cases such as the one under discussion.
If you wish to discuss this article or the current proposals to change the recoverability of success fee or discuss any possible claim please contact Mark Hambling mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
22nd December 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 claim you wish Rogers & Norton to advise upon please contact Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Top Legal Directory praises expanding Rogers & Norton
Rogers & Norton has gained major recognition in this year’s edition of the Legal 500 for its high quality service and expertise.
The Legal 500 is acknowledged as the most widely used legal directory in the country, in which law firms are ranked in terms of their skills and performance.
Rogers & Norton was founded in 1982 and is now a 12 Partner firm with more than 60 fee earners and support staff.
Rogers & Norton’s Commercial Litigation Team continues to flourish with John Cadywould, Peter Hastings and Phil Kerridge all receiving substantial recognition for having valuable experience and expertise, excellent tactical awareness, and are helpful and quick with advice. The recent expansion of the Team has seen the appointment of Jenna Phillips, who specialises in debt recovery.
Phil Kerridge, Head of the firm’s Employment Team, also gains recognition for offering pragmatic and practical advice to a strong base of employer clients.
Peter Hastings, described as an immense talent, is an expert in Directors’ disqualification cases and acts for most local Insolvency Practitioners. Peter has recently advised administrators on a £1.1 Million HMRC Excise Duty back claim and also a contractor’s £1.75 Million claim for fees following the termination of a project.
The firm’s Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Team continues to strengthen their reputation both locally and far beyond. Mark Hambling, who is a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a Personal Injury accredited specialist with the Law Society, and Tim Nobbs, are praised as being notably conscientious, with a practice spanning employers’ liability, public liability and RTA claims. Tim and mark are noted to have handled claims involving failed diagnosis in radiology, inadequate surgery, death in hospital and failed vasectomy.
The excellent, professional and compassionate advice of Amy Walpole, Partner and Head of the firm’s Family Team, is acknowledged. The team has expanded to include recently-appointed experienced Solicitor Sophie Key who has a strong expertise in children matters. Together they handle a stream of high-value divorce and cohabitee work. Amy is also a trained collaborative lawyer.
Newly-promoted Partner and Head of the Private Client Team, Tom Lawrence, and Catherine Hawdon, who are both members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, are noted for being technically up-to-speed, prompt with good business acumen and a pleasant demeanour. The Private Client Team continues to grow with the recent appointment of experienced Solicitor Louisa Mawbey. It is noted that four lawyers in the team are members of the Solicitors for the Elderly.
The Corporate and Commercial Team has again impressed with Richard Etheridge, the firm’s Managing Partner, at the helm. Richard is noted as being very approachable and constructive whilst delivering a high quality of service on corporate issues. The firm’s recent work includes company buy-backs, restructurings and the MBO of a local manufacturing firm.
The one-stop service offered by Bruce Faulkner, who heads the Commercial Property Team, continues to thrive in dealing with the sale, purchase and licensing of premises, including pubs and clubs around Norwich. Bruce is noted as having handled leases, including a 9,000 sq ft property in a prestigious office block in Norwich.
Meanwhile the Residential Property Team, headed by the well known and liked Marc Greig has seen a continued increase in good quality instructions which is bucking the trend of many of the firm’s competitors. Marc enjoys an enviable reputation with local builders and developers for his work. The firm continues to advise local businesses, landowners, public limited companies and pension schemes. The Property Team has increased in size, with the appointment of three new members.
The 2011 edition (published online at: www.legal500.com) highlights Norwich-based Rogers & Norton’s impressive credentials for providing expert legal advice to clients – regionally, nationally and internationally.
Richard Etheridge, Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Corporate and Commercial Team, says “We are thoroughly delighted that, yet again, Rogers & Norton has received significant recognition for the calibre of its work and first-rate service. In what are undoubtedly tough economic times, we are encouraged by the fact that we have been able to further expand upon our already very talented team of lawyers. I think it goes to show that our commitment to offering a top quality service to our clients at reasonable cost is the right approach”.
He adds “Every year I have been at Rogers & Norton has been exciting and this year has proved to be no exception! Over the past 12 months we have been able to significantly strengthen our Property Team and increase the depth of our already highly experienced Private Client and Family Teams, whilst also promoting from within, which is always very encouraging. I am confident that 2012 will see us continuing to move further in the right direction”. Rogers & Norton was founded in 1982 and is now a 12 Partner firm with more than 60 fee earners and support staff.
Rogers & Norton’s Commercial Litigation Team continues to flourish with John Cadywould, Peter Hastings and Phil Kerridge all receiving substantial recognition for having valuable experience and expertise, excellent tactical awareness, and are helpful and quick with advice. The recent expansion of the Team has seen the appointment of Jenna Phillips, who specialises in debt recovery.
Phil Kerridge, Head of the firm’s Employment Team, also gains recognition for offering pragmatic and practical advice to a strong base of employer clients.
Peter Hastings, described as an immense talent, is an expert in Directors’ disqualification cases and acts for most local Insolvency Practitioners. Peter has recently advised administrators on a £1.1 Million HMRC Excise Duty back claim and also a contractor’s £1.75 Million claim for fees following the termination of a project.
The firm’s Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence Team continues to strengthen their reputation both locally and far beyond. Mark Hambling, who is a Senior Litigator with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a Personal Injury accredited specialist with the Law Society, and Tim Nobbs, are praised as being notably conscientious, with a practice spanning employers’ liability, public liability and RTA claims. Tim and mark are noted to have handled claims involving failed diagnosis in radiology, inadequate surgery, death in hospital and failed vasectomy.
The excellent, professional and compassionate advice of Amy Walpole, Partner and Head of the firm’s Family Team, is acknowledged. The team has expanded to include recently-appointed experienced Solicitor Sophie Key who has a strong expertise in children matters. Together they handle a stream of high-value divorce and cohabitee work. Amy is also a trained collaborative lawyer.
Newly-promoted Partner and Head of the Private Client Team, Tom Lawrence, and Catherine Hawdon, who are both members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, are noted for being technically up-to-speed, prompt with good business acumen and a pleasant demeanour. The Private Client Team continues to grow with the recent appointment of experienced Solicitor Louisa Mawbey. It is noted that four lawyers in the team are members of the Solicitors for the Elderly.
The Corporate and Commercial Team has again impressed with Richard Etheridge, the firm’s Managing Partner, at the helm. Richard is noted as being very approachable and constructive whilst delivering a high quality of service on corporate issues. The firm’s recent work includes company buy-backs, restructurings and the MBO of a local manufacturing firm.
The one-stop service offered by Bruce Faulkner, who heads the Commercial Property Team, continues to thrive in dealing with the sale, purchase and licensing of premises, including pubs and clubs around Norwich. Bruce is noted as having handled leases, including a 9,000 sq ft property in a prestigious office block in Norwich.
Meanwhile the Residential Property Team, headed by the well known and liked Marc Greig has seen a continued increase in good quality instructions which is bucking the trend of many of the firm’s competitors. Marc enjoys an enviable reputation with local builders and developers for his work. The firm continues to advise local businesses, landowners, public limited companies and pension schemes. The Property Team has increased in size, with the appointment of three new members.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Delight as Rogers & Norton wins acclaim in top UK legal guide
Rogers & Norton has won praise for its quality service and expertise in this year’s edition of the Legal 500 – the UK’s foremost guide to leading law firms.
The Legal 500 is the most widely used legal directory in the country and is considered to be "the bible of the legal business", ranking law firms in terms of their skills and performance.
The 2010 edition (published online at www.legal500.com) highlights Norwich-based Rogers & Norton’s continued ethos of providing expert legal advice to clients – regionally, nationally and internationally.
Richard Etheridge, Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Commercial Department, says: “We are delighted that Rogers & Norton has once again won acclaim and recognition for its first-rate work through the Legal 500, which is widely regarded as offering the definitive judgment of law firms. We are proud to have built up such a talented team and it’s very satisfying that their expertise has been both applauded and highlighted in the latest Legal 500.”
He adds: “It has certainly been a notable year for Rogers & Norton. We have strengthened our operation by bringing additional specialist expertise into the firm and promoting internally, which has led to significant gains and entries into sectors that are core to our future development. In 2011 we intend to ensure that we continue our excellent levels of service to clients both old and new, while also developing these important new sectors.
“Above all, the Rogers & Norton ethos of providing quality legal advice, delivered at a sensible cost, remains crucial to all existing and new business sectors.”
Founded in 1982, Rogers & Norton has grown from two partners to 12 partners – and now has more than 60 fee-earners and support staff.
Notable inclusions in this year’s Legal 500 see the elevation of the Rogers & Norton Dispute Resolution Team from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2 firm. The elevation recognises the excellent work done by Phil Kerridge and John Cadywould – and the arrival of Peter Hastings earlier this year.
Phil Kerridge, who continues to provide commercial dispute resolution advice to a wide variety of clients, including national companies, is also recognised for his employer-based employment law expertise. He has advised many local businesses over the last 12 months on redundancy and cost-saving matters, as well as dealing with Health & Safety prosecutions.
John Cadywould is praised in Legal 500 for his excellent reputation in commercial and contractual matters, breaches of confidentiality and defamation cases. His expertise has undoubtedly helped Rogers & Norton to ascend the rankings within the section.
This year saw the arrival of Peter Hastings, one of the region’s most prominent and experienced commercial litigators, as a new Partner at Rogers & Norton. Through his deep specialist knowledge, enthusiasm and energy, Peter has added weight to the firm’s commercial, construction and insolvency practice in addition to his HM Revenue and Customs work.
In the six months since Peter’s appointment, the practice has seen significant additions to its client database – including instructions from a national finance company, a major leisure company, international and local businesses and insolvency practitioners.
New instructions have included several multi-million pound claims from the offshore, construction and insolvency sectors, and various claims and disputes with HM Revenue Customs, including acting and advising on injunctions, appeals and judicial reviews.
The Dispute Resolution Team has seen notable success in 2010, which highlights the quality of the advice from Rogers & Norton’s experienced lawyers and has led to further strengthening of the team by way of internal promotions.
Richard Etheridge’s Commercial Department is recognised in Legal 500 for its good work ethic, delivered in a personable manner. The department continues to enjoy a wealth of instructions from the medical sector, as well as advising on local business, sales and acquisitions.
Richard works in conjunction with Partner Bruce Faulkner, who is also recognised for his licensing expertise, and the Dispute Resolution Team provides a ‘one-stop shop’ to commercial clients, whatever their business needs.
The Rogers & Norton Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence practice has in 2010 continued to maintain its excellent reputation for providing advice on a multitude of complex, multi-track personal injury and clinical negligence litigation.
Tim Nobbs has led the Clinical Negligence Department to its first year of recognition in the Legal 500’s ‘Tiers for Clinical Negligence’, following a succession of significant cases – including multi-million pound claims. His expertise and perseverance in investigating cases where many others have given up have brought this well-deserved recognition.
In the firm’s Personal Injury Department, Mark Hambling, a member of the Law Society Personal Injury Panel and recognised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a Senior Litigator, continues to thrive – with instructions on a range of multi-track personal injury cases.
Mark’s expertise has seen him succeed in a variety of cases, including instructions on cases turned down by other lawyers and where a client instructs the firm for a second opinion in cases which, on review, are undervalued.
Marc Greig, the Head of Residential Conveyancing, has continued to develop an enviable reputation with a network of local builders and developers, from whom the firm continues to enjoy and appreciate instruction.
Steve Clarke’s promotion to Partner has reinforced his reputation for providing clear and concise advice to a variety of private individuals and developers, with continued instructions from both local clients and introducers.
The Private Client Department progresses well under Catherine Hawdon and Tom Lawrence, both recognised in Legal 500 as good people to deal with and who provide advice on a variety of personal tax, trust and probate matters. They are recognised as members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.
Colin Grooms and Amy Walpole, in the Rogers & Norton Family Department, are again recognised for their experience and advocacy – as well as a growing reputation for being able to undertake high net worth ancillary relief matters. Colin, a Law Society Family Law Panel Member, and Amy manage the team, which acts for a variety of clients on cases of varying value.
The Legal 500 is the most widely used legal directory in the country and is considered to be "the bible of the legal business", ranking law firms in terms of their skills and performance.
The 2010 edition (published online at www.legal500.com) highlights Norwich-based Rogers & Norton’s continued ethos of providing expert legal advice to clients – regionally, nationally and internationally.
Richard Etheridge, Managing Partner and Head of the firm’s Commercial Department, says: “We are delighted that Rogers & Norton has once again won acclaim and recognition for its first-rate work through the Legal 500, which is widely regarded as offering the definitive judgment of law firms. We are proud to have built up such a talented team and it’s very satisfying that their expertise has been both applauded and highlighted in the latest Legal 500.”
He adds: “It has certainly been a notable year for Rogers & Norton. We have strengthened our operation by bringing additional specialist expertise into the firm and promoting internally, which has led to significant gains and entries into sectors that are core to our future development. In 2011 we intend to ensure that we continue our excellent levels of service to clients both old and new, while also developing these important new sectors.
“Above all, the Rogers & Norton ethos of providing quality legal advice, delivered at a sensible cost, remains crucial to all existing and new business sectors.”
Founded in 1982, Rogers & Norton has grown from two partners to 12 partners – and now has more than 60 fee-earners and support staff.
Notable inclusions in this year’s Legal 500 see the elevation of the Rogers & Norton Dispute Resolution Team from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2 firm. The elevation recognises the excellent work done by Phil Kerridge and John Cadywould – and the arrival of Peter Hastings earlier this year.
Phil Kerridge, who continues to provide commercial dispute resolution advice to a wide variety of clients, including national companies, is also recognised for his employer-based employment law expertise. He has advised many local businesses over the last 12 months on redundancy and cost-saving matters, as well as dealing with Health & Safety prosecutions.
John Cadywould is praised in Legal 500 for his excellent reputation in commercial and contractual matters, breaches of confidentiality and defamation cases. His expertise has undoubtedly helped Rogers & Norton to ascend the rankings within the section.
This year saw the arrival of Peter Hastings, one of the region’s most prominent and experienced commercial litigators, as a new Partner at Rogers & Norton. Through his deep specialist knowledge, enthusiasm and energy, Peter has added weight to the firm’s commercial, construction and insolvency practice in addition to his HM Revenue and Customs work.
In the six months since Peter’s appointment, the practice has seen significant additions to its client database – including instructions from a national finance company, a major leisure company, international and local businesses and insolvency practitioners.
New instructions have included several multi-million pound claims from the offshore, construction and insolvency sectors, and various claims and disputes with HM Revenue Customs, including acting and advising on injunctions, appeals and judicial reviews.
The Dispute Resolution Team has seen notable success in 2010, which highlights the quality of the advice from Rogers & Norton’s experienced lawyers and has led to further strengthening of the team by way of internal promotions.
Richard Etheridge’s Commercial Department is recognised in Legal 500 for its good work ethic, delivered in a personable manner. The department continues to enjoy a wealth of instructions from the medical sector, as well as advising on local business, sales and acquisitions.
Richard works in conjunction with Partner Bruce Faulkner, who is also recognised for his licensing expertise, and the Dispute Resolution Team provides a ‘one-stop shop’ to commercial clients, whatever their business needs.
The Rogers & Norton Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence practice has in 2010 continued to maintain its excellent reputation for providing advice on a multitude of complex, multi-track personal injury and clinical negligence litigation.
Tim Nobbs has led the Clinical Negligence Department to its first year of recognition in the Legal 500’s ‘Tiers for Clinical Negligence’, following a succession of significant cases – including multi-million pound claims. His expertise and perseverance in investigating cases where many others have given up have brought this well-deserved recognition.
In the firm’s Personal Injury Department, Mark Hambling, a member of the Law Society Personal Injury Panel and recognised by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a Senior Litigator, continues to thrive – with instructions on a range of multi-track personal injury cases.
Mark’s expertise has seen him succeed in a variety of cases, including instructions on cases turned down by other lawyers and where a client instructs the firm for a second opinion in cases which, on review, are undervalued.
Marc Greig, the Head of Residential Conveyancing, has continued to develop an enviable reputation with a network of local builders and developers, from whom the firm continues to enjoy and appreciate instruction.
Steve Clarke’s promotion to Partner has reinforced his reputation for providing clear and concise advice to a variety of private individuals and developers, with continued instructions from both local clients and introducers.
The Private Client Department progresses well under Catherine Hawdon and Tom Lawrence, both recognised in Legal 500 as good people to deal with and who provide advice on a variety of personal tax, trust and probate matters. They are recognised as members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.
Colin Grooms and Amy Walpole, in the Rogers & Norton Family Department, are again recognised for their experience and advocacy – as well as a growing reputation for being able to undertake high net worth ancillary relief matters. Colin, a Law Society Family Law Panel Member, and Amy manage the team, which acts for a variety of clients on cases of varying value.
Monday, September 6, 2010
ROGERS & NORTON PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS REACCREDITED
We are delighted to announce that Tina Myhill and Mark Hambling in our Personal Injury Department have successfully been re accredited by the Law Society as Members of the Law Society’s Accredited Personal Injury Panel.
This Accreditation demonstrates the practices commitment to ensuring the highest level of expertise in their lawyers. It also provides clients with the assurance that both Tina and Mark have been assessed independently as experts in the field of personal injury law.
At a time when there are many possible opportunities to seek advice in relation to a potential personal injury claim, it is important to ensure the person being instructed is an expert and recognized as such by an independent body. This accreditation provides reassurance to both clients and potential clients of the practice of the expertise and ability that Rogers & Norton has and sets us apart from many of our competitors.
In relation to Mark Hambling the Law Society Accreditation accompanies his Accreditation with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a senior Personal Injury Litigator.
This Accreditation demonstrates the practices commitment to ensuring the highest level of expertise in their lawyers. It also provides clients with the assurance that both Tina and Mark have been assessed independently as experts in the field of personal injury law.
At a time when there are many possible opportunities to seek advice in relation to a potential personal injury claim, it is important to ensure the person being instructed is an expert and recognized as such by an independent body. This accreditation provides reassurance to both clients and potential clients of the practice of the expertise and ability that Rogers & Norton has and sets us apart from many of our competitors.
In relation to Mark Hambling the Law Society Accreditation accompanies his Accreditation with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers as a senior Personal Injury Litigator.
Friday, June 18, 2010
R&N Business Leaders Lunch
On the 14th June 2010 Rogers & Norton Solicitors hosted their 3rd Business Leaders Lunch. The event took place at the Assembly House in Norwich when 72 guests enjoyed a splendid lunch prepared from the kitchen of Richard Hughes followed by a presentation by Jeff Halliwell, Managing Director of Bernard Matthews Foods Ltd in which he discussed the Company's turnaround programme and plans for the future.
The event, which was hosted in association with the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce was a great success and plans are already in place for a similar function later in the year.
Commenting on the event Mark Hambling, partner said "I am delighted that so many people from the local business community joined us for a delightful lunch in pleasant surroundings to listen to Jeff's interesting presentation. Can I thank both Jeff Halliwell and Richard Hughes for making the event such a success".
If you wish to be kept informed about the next lunch please contact our Practice Manager Graham Knights (tel 01603 675618 or gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk) for further details and dates.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Clare School Life Skills Room Grand Opening
We are delighted to be able to advise you that the project to renovate the Life Skills Room at the Clare School in South Park Avenue has finally been completed and officially opened by the Lord Mayor Cllr Eve Collishaw and The Right Hon. Charles Clarke MP on Friday 4th December 2009.
This project has taken almost three years to complete and was originally a fund raising idea by the Practice to help disadvantaged children at the School develop their culinary skills in what were very dated surroundings as no improvements had been carried out since the 1970s. We held a Grand Charity Ball in aid of the school in June 2007 at Drayton Old Lodge and raised a sum of just under £20,000 from the event. This has been added to other donations and grants to allow the refurbishment to take place.
We would like to take this opportunity to not only let all our clients and contacts know about the improvement but to say a big thank you to all those individuals and Companies who contributed in some way, large or small, towards making this happen. Without such support the renovation would not have been possible. We are including links to some photos and video footage of the speeches at the opening so you are able to see what has actually been achieved with the money and the enormous difference it will make to the children attending the School.
As a result of our liaison over the last three years we have become a Business Partner of the School which we hope will benefit the children in the future too.
If you would like further information about the School or the project please conact either the School Headmaster Nigel Smith at office@clare.norfolk.sch.uk or Graham Knights at Rogers & Norton gjk@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Watch Right Hon. Charles Clarke MP & Lord Mayor Cllr Eve Collishaw perform the opening ceremony here
Watch Nigel Smith's speech here
Photos can be viewed here
Monday, July 6, 2009
Inaugural Business Leaders Lunch produces lively debate
On the 24th June 2009 Rogers & Norton held its first Business Leaders Lunch at Sprowston Manor in
Richard spoke about the opportunities that are available to businesses in the eastern region at the current time and considered the need to develop any business during times of recession, focusing upon approaches to marketing and in particular continuing to use the benefits of locality which remains very important to potential customers.
Commenting upon the future Richard highlighted the need for businesses to consider the wealth of young talent that is emerging from our educational institutions and give consideration to graduate recruitment. “It is important not to lose the hotbed of talent that exist in this region”.
Following Richard’s presentation he was joined by a panel comprising of Caroline Williams, Chief Executive of the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce and Paul Hill, Business Editor of the Eastern Daily Press. The panel, chaired by Rogers & Norton’s Managing Partner, Richard Etheridge took questions from the floor and this provoked lively debate on topics covering the networking abilities of local business, predictions as to when the economy will emerge from the recession and the benefits available to businesses in the Eastern region from the 2012 Olympic bid.
The intention is to arrange a further lunch later in 2009 with a further guest speaker.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
First Prosecution for Corporate Manslaughter Commences
On the 17th June 2009 the first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is to be heard in the Stroud Magistrates Court.
The Crown Prosecution Service have brought of Corporate Manslaughter against Gloucestershire based Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings.
The charge follows the death of a Junior Geologist who was killed in September 2008 when the sides of a pit in which he was collecting soil samples collapsed and crushed him.
In November 2008 Rogers & Norton co hosted a seminar on the impact of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The commencement of this prosecution is an important development from this seminar and as the prosecution progresses the manner in which the Court will deal with the evidential issues under the Act will be analysed. In addition if found guilty the Court’s new powers in sentencing can also be examined.
Under the Act the Court have the power to impose an unlimited fine. The fine in accordance with sentencing guidelines may be between 2.5% and 10% of a company’s gross turnover.
Aside from the financial sanctions the Court will also have the power to force an organisation to publicise its own guilt at its own expense if found guilty.
It is also of interest that apart from the Prosecution under the new Act the company are also being prosecuted for breaches of Section 2.1 of the Health & Safety at Work Act in failing to protect the deceased. Additionally, Company Director, Mr Peter Easton, is being charged personally with the offence of gross negligence manslaughter and further breaches of the Health & Safety at Work Act.
The case will inevitably be transferred to the Crown Court for Trial and it will be important for all businesses and advisors to watch this case develop and to establish how the Court deals with the evidential issues under the new Act and, if found guilty, their sentencing powers.
We will endeavour to provide further information on the case as and when this becomes available.
If you have any questions regarding the Act or this case please feel free to contact either:
Mark Hambling (email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk) Tel. 01603 675668
or Phil Kerridge (email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk) Tel. 01603 675612
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Newsbrief 2009
The 2009 edition of the R&N newsbrief is now online and available to view here at http://www.rogers-norton.co.uk/newsletters/news2009.pdf.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Rogers & Norton go live on air in 2009
Rogers & Norton are proud to announce that, in partnership with Norfolk Community Law Service (NCLS), as from the 28th of January 2009 we shall be appearing live on Future Radio 96.9FM to offer a free 'Legal Hotspot' to listeners.
The Legal Hotspot is to be aired on Future Radio's Community Chest Show on the final Wednesday of every month at approximately 11 am. It is to offer listeners an opportunity to pitch their legal questions in advance of the show for lawyers to answer live on air.
As far as we are aware this is the first collaboration of its type in the Norfolk area. We are hopeful that along with answering a number of legal problems the Legal Hotspot will also assist in increasing the general awareness of Future Radio's listeners to the legal services that are on offer locally.
The free Legal Hotspot concept was developed by Future Radio in collaboration with NCLS and Rogers & Norton’s Tom Lawrence, who is a solicitor in our Private Client Department. Tom said “I would like to thank NCLS and Future Radio for all of their help in making the idea a reality. It has taken a lot of time and considerable effort to bring it all together, but I am hopeful that it will provide listeners with a useful forum for obtaining answers to those thorny legal issues which we all come across from time to time.”
Mark Hambling, who is a partner and member of the marketing development team at Rogers and Norton, said “We are very appreciative of Tom's hard work and dedication in seeing his idea through to what we are sure will become a successful relationship with both NCLS and Future Radio. We hope that the Legal Hotspot shall become a show not to be missed by listeners!”
Please watch our website www.rogers-norton.co.uk for future details. If you would like to listen to the podcasts of the shows, they will be made after the monthly shows on the Future Radio website (www.futureradio.co.uk).
The Legal Hotspot is to be aired on Future Radio's Community Chest Show on the final Wednesday of every month at approximately 11 am. It is to offer listeners an opportunity to pitch their legal questions in advance of the show for lawyers to answer live on air.
As far as we are aware this is the first collaboration of its type in the Norfolk area. We are hopeful that along with answering a number of legal problems the Legal Hotspot will also assist in increasing the general awareness of Future Radio's listeners to the legal services that are on offer locally.
The free Legal Hotspot concept was developed by Future Radio in collaboration with NCLS and Rogers & Norton’s Tom Lawrence, who is a solicitor in our Private Client Department. Tom said “I would like to thank NCLS and Future Radio for all of their help in making the idea a reality. It has taken a lot of time and considerable effort to bring it all together, but I am hopeful that it will provide listeners with a useful forum for obtaining answers to those thorny legal issues which we all come across from time to time.”
Mark Hambling, who is a partner and member of the marketing development team at Rogers and Norton, said “We are very appreciative of Tom's hard work and dedication in seeing his idea through to what we are sure will become a successful relationship with both NCLS and Future Radio. We hope that the Legal Hotspot shall become a show not to be missed by listeners!”
Please watch our website www.rogers-norton.co.uk for future details. If you would like to listen to the podcasts of the shows, they will be made after the monthly shows on the Future Radio website (www.futureradio.co.uk).
Monday, December 8, 2008
Corporate Manslaughter Seminar 26th November 2008
On the 26th November 2008 Rogers & Norton in conjunction with Heath Lambert Group hosted a seminar on the impact of Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
The seminar at Dunston Hall was attended by over 70 delegates and involved presentations by Mark Hambling and Phil Kerridge, both partners in the practice. Phil analysed the law prior to the 2007 Act coming into force on the 6th April 2008 and considered the law which remains in place following the Act and the current sentencing regime under the Health and Safety at Work legislation.
Mark analysed the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and provided an overview as to what will need to be proven for a successful prosecution and advised on the steps that employers should take so as to ensure that they do as much as possible to avoid prosecution in the unfortunate event of a fatality in the workplace
Commenting on the seminar Mark Hambling indicated that "Rogers & Norton were delighted to be able to co-host this seminar with Heath Lambert and analyse both the legal and insurance issues. The seminar was very popular and clearly demonstrated the awareness of local businesses as to the impact of this Act and the need to be pro-active in ensuring compliance with the legislation".
Following the seminar both Mark and Phil indicated that they are more than happy to discuss, without obligation and initially without charge, the impact of the new Act should any delegate wish to make contact
Although the seminar has now concluded, both Mark and Phil will be happy to answer any further questions on the impact of the Act and can be contacted on the details listed below.
Philip Kerridge
Telephone: 01603 675612
Email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk
Mark Hambling
Telephone: 01603 675668
Email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
The seminar at Dunston Hall was attended by over 70 delegates and involved presentations by Mark Hambling and Phil Kerridge, both partners in the practice. Phil analysed the law prior to the 2007 Act coming into force on the 6th April 2008 and considered the law which remains in place following the Act and the current sentencing regime under the Health and Safety at Work legislation.
Mark analysed the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and provided an overview as to what will need to be proven for a successful prosecution and advised on the steps that employers should take so as to ensure that they do as much as possible to avoid prosecution in the unfortunate event of a fatality in the workplace
Commenting on the seminar Mark Hambling indicated that "Rogers & Norton were delighted to be able to co-host this seminar with Heath Lambert and analyse both the legal and insurance issues. The seminar was very popular and clearly demonstrated the awareness of local businesses as to the impact of this Act and the need to be pro-active in ensuring compliance with the legislation".
Following the seminar both Mark and Phil indicated that they are more than happy to discuss, without obligation and initially without charge, the impact of the new Act should any delegate wish to make contact
Although the seminar has now concluded, both Mark and Phil will be happy to answer any further questions on the impact of the Act and can be contacted on the details listed below.
Philip Kerridge
Telephone: 01603 675612
Email: pnk@rogers-norton.co.uk
Mark Hambling
Telephone: 01603 675668
Email: mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk
Monday, July 21, 2008
Personal Injury case track limits: The proposed changes
Since 2007 the Ministry of Justice have consulted on reforms to the Personal Injury Claims process to achieve a quicker process where appropriate and more proportionate costs. The outcome of the consultation was published on Monday 21 st July 2008.
Several changes are proposed, aimed at speeding up the process and several options considered have been discontinued due to the force of representation. The key changes that may affect the client pursuing or resisting a personal injury claim are as follows:
The small claims track limit for personal injury claims which has been set at £1,000 for the value of the injury claim for some time will not increase.
The limit on fast track claims currently set at £15,000 will be increased to £25,000.
There will be a new claims process for road traffic accident claims where the value of the claim is £10,000 or less and there is no dispute on liability, the cause of the injury or allegations of contributory negligence. This process will be accompanied by a fixed recoverable cost system to regulate the level of costs that can be recovered.
Commenting upon the changes, Mark Hambling, a Partner in the firm’s Personal Injury Department indicated that he welcomes the Ministry of Justices’ decision to maintain the small claims limit for personal injury claims at £1,000.
“This is important in ensuring that those that unfortunately suffer personal injury claims have the ability to pursue their claim with the advice and representation of a qualified lawyer without their claim being at risk of falling into the small claims track. The initial proposals considered increasing the small claims limit for personal injury claims to £5,000 which would have prevented many cases being dealt with by solicitors and this would have significantly curtailed the access to justice for those suffering injury.”
Whilst it was perhaps inevitable that the fast track limit was going to increase, it is hoped that this will improve the speed in which relatively straightforward personal injury claims can be resolved. It is however of some concern that under the proposed reforms there is no procedure whereby complex claims which may have a value less than £25,000 but which are complex on the issues and more suited to the multi track procedure can be moved from the fast track to the multi track. This may lead to further litigation before the Court in arguing whether a case should be transferred even though the value falls within the new fast track claims limit. It will be interesting to see how Judges react to such applications.
THE NEW ROAD TRAFFIC CLAIMS PROCEDURE
This new procedure will create a system where the solicitor representing the Claimant will need to send a notification of claim to the Defendant within 5 days of obtaining all of the information required. The insurer then has only 15 days in which to respond within an indication on liability and no extensions of time are likely to be allowed. In effect in a relatively short period of time in a road traffic accident case where the value will not exceed £10,000 the insurer will have a very short period of time in which to consider liability and confirm whether this is admitted. There will then be processes whereby the solicitor would put together the medical evidence and prepare a settlement pack to send to the insurer who will then have a further 15 working days upon receipt of the pack to accept or reject an offer to settle. It is quite clear that this new process could significantly speed up the claims process however there will be a need for caution to be exercised by the solicitor to ensure that all of the medical evidence is accurate and the prognosis clear before advising a client on a full and final settlement.
Several changes are proposed, aimed at speeding up the process and several options considered have been discontinued due to the force of representation. The key changes that may affect the client pursuing or resisting a personal injury claim are as follows:
The small claims track limit for personal injury claims which has been set at £1,000 for the value of the injury claim for some time will not increase.
The limit on fast track claims currently set at £15,000 will be increased to £25,000.
There will be a new claims process for road traffic accident claims where the value of the claim is £10,000 or less and there is no dispute on liability, the cause of the injury or allegations of contributory negligence. This process will be accompanied by a fixed recoverable cost system to regulate the level of costs that can be recovered.
Commenting upon the changes, Mark Hambling, a Partner in the firm’s Personal Injury Department indicated that he welcomes the Ministry of Justices’ decision to maintain the small claims limit for personal injury claims at £1,000.
“This is important in ensuring that those that unfortunately suffer personal injury claims have the ability to pursue their claim with the advice and representation of a qualified lawyer without their claim being at risk of falling into the small claims track. The initial proposals considered increasing the small claims limit for personal injury claims to £5,000 which would have prevented many cases being dealt with by solicitors and this would have significantly curtailed the access to justice for those suffering injury.”
Whilst it was perhaps inevitable that the fast track limit was going to increase, it is hoped that this will improve the speed in which relatively straightforward personal injury claims can be resolved. It is however of some concern that under the proposed reforms there is no procedure whereby complex claims which may have a value less than £25,000 but which are complex on the issues and more suited to the multi track procedure can be moved from the fast track to the multi track. This may lead to further litigation before the Court in arguing whether a case should be transferred even though the value falls within the new fast track claims limit. It will be interesting to see how Judges react to such applications.
THE NEW ROAD TRAFFIC CLAIMS PROCEDURE
This new procedure will create a system where the solicitor representing the Claimant will need to send a notification of claim to the Defendant within 5 days of obtaining all of the information required. The insurer then has only 15 days in which to respond within an indication on liability and no extensions of time are likely to be allowed. In effect in a relatively short period of time in a road traffic accident case where the value will not exceed £10,000 the insurer will have a very short period of time in which to consider liability and confirm whether this is admitted. There will then be processes whereby the solicitor would put together the medical evidence and prepare a settlement pack to send to the insurer who will then have a further 15 working days upon receipt of the pack to accept or reject an offer to settle. It is quite clear that this new process could significantly speed up the claims process however there will be a need for caution to be exercised by the solicitor to ensure that all of the medical evidence is accurate and the prognosis clear before advising a client on a full and final settlement.
It must also be noted that under this procedure, if the insurer denies liability, argues to any degree that the person bringing the claim was responsible or denies that the injuries were caused by the accident, the claim will fall out of this new procedure and proceed in line with the current process, more likely than not within the fast track limit.
CONCLUSIONS
It should be welcomed that the Ministry of Justice have maintained the small claims track limit and it is hoped that the new road traffic accident claims process will be a success. However there must be some concern that in relation to both this new process and the new fast track limit that this will include claims that are complex and perhaps not completely suited for a streamlined process. It is therefore hoped that there will be some provisions for claims that are unsuitable for the process on the issues to be moved into the multi track where appropriate.
It is however disappointing that in relation to the reforms the Ministry of Justice have not considered whether provision could be made for the better implementation of the Rehabilitation Code of Best Practice. It is as important that a Claimant receives early treatment and management of an injury at an early stage as it is that they are suitably compensated at the conclusion of the claim. It is therefore disappointing that the Code of Best Practice on Rehabilitation, which is at the moment part of the Personal Injury claims Protocol was not mentioned in the proposed reforms. It is also disappointing that the reforms do not further emphasise the need for early interim payments in suitable cases and in particular in larger claims. In the absence of any mention of this in the reforms it is likely that in the event of an insurer not voluntarily agreeing to an early payment on account, Court proceedings to seek an interim payment will have to be issued.
Finally there is no timescale in terms of the implementation of these proposals and it is therefore necessary to “watch this space” as to when the proposals are implemented and what, if any, changes are made between now and the implementation”.
For further information on the proposed changes or to discuss any specific case that you may wish to advance or defend please contact Mark Hambling on 01603 675637 or mbh@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
