Personal Injury, A Solicitor’s Perspective
Michael Hartley | 31/03/2008
You may have read in our previous newsletter, Griffith Smith Farrington Webb LLP has a department dedicated specifically to helping people with injury claims arising generally from accidents and clinical negligence. These accidents may include slipping and tripping accidents, accidents at work or road traffic accidents; or they may be the result of clinical negligence on the part of health professionals, such as doctors, dentists, midwives and so on.
The majority of the cases that we deal with tend to follow fairly similar patterns and procedures and, where necessary, are dealt with in the local county courts. However, once in a while, claims come along that are of a much more unusual nature. These claims might deal with less welltravelled areas of the law or issues of a particularly complex legal nature or they may deal with issues that are in a developing area of the law or involve important issues of public policy.
In some, unusual cases, following an appeal by one party or another, the matter may come before the Court of Appeal to be decided. In a very few instances, the case will reach the rarefied atmosphere of the highest court in the land, namely the House of Lords.
If he or she is lucky, a lawyer may get to bring a case to the House of Lords perhaps just once in their legal career and many never, in fact, get the opportunity to do so. As luck would have it, in recent months, in the manner of the proverbial London buses, I have had the good fortune to have not one but two of these more unusual cases come along at once. Both of these cases have required the attention of the Law Lords to decide them.
In November I had a case before the Court of Appeal and another before their Lordships in the House of Lords itself. Both were dealing with issues where we were trying to change the law as it stands and set new legal precedent.
The first case, before the Court of Appeal, and recently reported in the Argus, is a very interesting case revolving around the issue of whether or not, and in what circumstances, the police should be liable in damages to members of the public where they have failed to carry out their duties.
The second case is an abuse case against a local authority in the North of England and revolves around the length of time a Claimant has to bring court proceedings, known as the ‘limitation period’.
This case was heard in early November by the House of Lords, along with four other cases all involving abuse or sexual assault and all involving similar issues of limitation. These cases included the famous ‘Lottery Rapist’ case that has been widely reported in the national newspapers and on radio and television.
In the same week, at the end of January, we received judgment in both cases and are proud to report that we have been successful in both instances. In the House of Lords abuse case, judgment was handed down in the House itself and it has been described in the press as a ‘landmark ruling’. One of the Law Lords stated in the actual judgment that it was ‘ushering in a new era’ in this area of the law. In the Court of appeal case, the police are now seeking permission to appeal to the House of Lords in that case as well and, given the very important public policy issues involved, there must be a realistic chance that they will get that permission.
If you have any queries or require any advice relating to injury you may have suffered as a result of an accident or what you believe to be medical negligence, please call us on 01273 034041.
The information and options contained in this article are only intended as a general view of the subject concerned. Specific advice concerning individual situations should always be obtained from the usual contact at Griffith Smith Farrington Webb LLP. No part of the publication may be produced without the express written permission of the individual author.
