Anthony Gold Solicitors
3 Experts
6 Contributions by Anthony Gold Solicitors Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
Introduction
There are several bodies dedicated to reshaping how claimants and defendants collaborate on serious injury matters, improving behaviours and expectations through agreed ways of working. The not-for-profit campaign organisation, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), stands as a prominent advocate for injured people. The Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) speaks for defendants, partnering with APIL in a joint endeavour to streamline litigation in catastrophic injury cases. Together with leading insurers, APIL and FOIL have authored the ‘Guide to the Conduct of Cases Involving Serious Injury’, more widely known as the Serious Injury Guide. To access the Guide, see here: Serious Injury Guide. The Guide was created to foster cooperative working between claimant and defendant representatives in cases where damages exceed £250,000 and are expected to include claims for ongoing future loss (clinical negligence and
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
NOTE
This Practice Note concerns the MIB Uninsured Agreement 2015 and covers accidents occurring on or after 1 August 2015. For the previous 1999 agreement (which applies to road traffic accidents between 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2015), see MIB Uninsured Agreement 1999.
For accidents taking place on or after 1 March 2017, clauses 7 (vehicle damage) and 9 (terrorism) are omitted from the MIB Uninsured Agreement 2015. These clauses were removed by the Supplementary MIB Agreement 2017, but they remain applicable to accidents that occurred on or after 1 August 2015 and before 1 March 2017.
When an uninsured driver causes an accident, they will frequently lack the resources to pay compensation themselves. As a result, the claimant seeks compensation from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB). Subject to certain conditions and exclusions, the MIB must satisfy any
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Common issues
Claims for loss of earnings arise regularly in personal injury cases and are frequently the biggest head of damages. For guidance on future losses, see Practice Note: Future loss of earnings—personal injury claims. Although many valuations are straightforward, recurring complications include:
financial complexity, for instance a member of a partnership pursuing lost profits
uncertainty, such as where the claimant’s career path was unclear or income was variable
evidential difficulty, for example where earnings were undeclared
Calculating the net loss of earnings 13-week approach
For those in stable employment, pre-accident net pay is usually assessed by averaging earnings from the three months, or 13 weeks, immediately before the accident. The figures can be drawn from payslips, though the employer will generally supply the data. If the level of pay is disputed, obtain bank statements as proof of wages,
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Note: For collisions after 1 March 2017, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) will meet claims for damage to an uninsured motorist’s car where another untraced driver caused it. The government said this amendment was required to comply with the EU Motor Insurance Directive and that the changes would be revoked following Brexit.
The untraced driver
Where the motorist who causes a crash cannot be identified, for example after a hit-and-run, the claimant should apply straight to the MIB. Under the terms of the applicable agreement, the MIB will compensate a victim of an accident involving an untraced driver for:
injuries
death
property damage
The Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2017 covers accidents on or after 1 March 2017. For accidents on or after 14 February 2003 and before 1 March 2017, the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2003 applies. Before that, claims concerning untraced drivers fell under the
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Post 1 October 2013
On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) took effect. From that day, civil liability for workplace injuries no longer flows automatically from breach of a statutory duty unless the specific regulation expressly creates it. The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2966, contain no such route to civil liability. Accordingly, claimant representatives must instead frame claims in negligence, using any regulatory breach as evidential support. Although it is no longer proper to found a cause of action solely on contravention of a regulation, claimant practitioners will still cite, and often quote, the relevant statutory provisions as articulating the expected standard of care. Accordingly, regulatory duties still play a significant role, operating as benchmarks of expected care within negligence claims rather than as independent grounds of civil
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Claim no: [ insert claim number ]
In the county court at [ insert ]
Between [ INSERT CLAIMANT’S NAME ] Claimant
-and- [ INSERT FIRST DEFENDANT’S NAME ] First Defendant
-and- Motor Insurers’ Bureau Second Defendant
Particulars of claim
[ Insert introductory wording if relevant, for example: The Claimant is [ insert details ] ]
At all relevant times:
The Claimant was [ insert details, for example the driver of ]
The First Defendant was the driver of [ insert details, for example registration number ]
The Second Defendant is joined to these proceedings for the reasons set out further below...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
