<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are delighted to be sponsoring the NABIF conference alongside our friends Burnetts on the 28th June 2023. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This event is for people affected by brain injury/Case Managers/Personal Injury Solicitors/Health and Social Care Professionals. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For those looking to book an exhibition stand, please email <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-staff/victoria-steele/">Victoria Steele</a> who will gladly assist. Exhibition stands are £700, this includes three delegate spaces. When making your booking please provide the name and contact details of the three delegates. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For those wanting to attend the event, tickets are £70pp. You can purchase your ticket via <a href="https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/northern-acquired-brain-injury-forum-conference-28th-june-2023-tickets-557669403197">Eventbrite</a>. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>The Court of Appeal’s much anticipated judgment in <u>Charlotte Victoria Hassam &amp; Anor. v. Yoann Samuel Rabot &amp; Anor</u>.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1"><strong>[1]</strong></a> was handed down on Friday 20 January 2023.&nbsp; The Court set out guidelines as to how to deal with concurrence of tariff and non-tariff injuries.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Two cases were heard together on appeal: <em><u>Rabot v. Hassam</u></em> and <em><u>Briggs v. Laditan</u></em>.&nbsp; Both arose out of road traffic accidents.&nbsp; Both concerned the claimant having suffered whiplash and non-whiplash injuries.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp; Whiplash injuries<a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> now attract a tariff award, pursuant to the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 as enacted by the Civil Liability Act 2018.<a href="#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><em>Rabot</em></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Yoann Rabot had suffered various tariff injuries including whiplash, alongside soft tissue injuries to the knees, for which no tariff applied.<a href="#_ftn5" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a>&nbsp; The tariff award at first instance was assessed at £1,390 and the non-tariff £2,500, totalling £3,890.&nbsp; Hennessy DJ, sitting in the County Court at Birkenhead, then ‘<em>stepped back</em>’ to consider whether adjustment was necessary, applying the <em>‘totality principle’</em> identified by Pitchford LJ in <em><u>Sadler v. Filipiak</u></em>.<a href="#_ftn6" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>‘It is in my judgment always necessary to stand back from the compilation of individual figures, whether assistance has been derived from comparable cases or from the JSB guideline advice, to consider whether the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be greater than the sum of the parts in order properly to reflect the combined effect of all the injuries upon the injured person's recovering quality of life or, on the contrary, should be smaller than the sum of the parts in order to remove an element of double counting...’</em><a href="#_ftn7" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Following this application, Rabot’s overall award was reduced to £3,100.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><em>Briggs</em></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Similarly, Briggs, whose claim was heard by the same judge, suffered tariff-caught soft tissue injuries, alongside elbow, knee and hip injuries for which Parliament had not prescribed a set remedy.&nbsp; The tariffed injuries amounted to an award of £840, with non-tariff at £3,000.&nbsp; Hennessy DJ, stepping back and identifying an overlap between the two sets of injuries, reduced the award by £1,040 to give a total of £2,800.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The Appeal</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The question for the Court to determine was this: what approach should be taken when coming to assess a combination of tariff and non-tariff injuries where a given claim involves both?</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On that question, the Court of Appeal was divided.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Nicola Davies LJ, with whom Stuart-Smith LJ agreed, held by majority that on interpretation of the whiplash regulations, the assessments at first instance were correct.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>At paragraph 38 of her judgment, Nicola Davies LJ set out the approach to be taken by the Court:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>‘It follows that the approach of the court to an assessment of damages in respect of a tariff and non-tariff award where concurrently caused PSLA is present is that the court should:</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><em>assess the tariff award by reference to the Regulations;</em></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><em>assess the award for non-tariff injuries on common law principles; and Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Rabot v Hassam; Briggs v Laditan;</em></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><!-- wp:list-item --> <li><em>“step back” in order to carry out the Sadler adjustment, recognising that the sum included in the tariff award for the whiplash component is unknown but is smaller than it would be if damages for the whiplash component had been assessed applying common law principles’</em></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>‘There is one caveat, namely that the final award cannot be less than would be awarded for the non-tariff injuries if they had been the only injuries suffered by the claimant.’</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In essence, consider each injury as intended by statute or at common law, then step back to determine totality.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The caveat provided is noteworthy.&nbsp; The total award would be no lower than what the PSLA would have been in a given case for the non-tariff injuries by themselves.&nbsp; In other words, a claimant cannot walk away with a lesser sum by bringing both claims together.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, dissenting, determined that the parliamentary award represented full compensation for the injuries taken together.  The consequence of that approach would mean the award for any non-tariff injury would only amount in a small uplift on the original sum.  Stuart-Smith LJ suggested it was hard to reconcile such an application of the law with the conclusion reached:<a id="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>‘The Master of the Rolls starts with an acceptance that the 2018 Act “removed certain claimants’ rights to full compensation for whiplash injuries, but not for other kinds of injury”; but he reaches the conclusion that “Parliament has legislated for the reduction of general damages for non-whiplash personal injuries in cases where whiplash injuries have been sustained, even though the statute does not appear specifically to be directed at non-whiplash cases.” (My emphasis). There is an obvious tension between these two statements. Since it is accepted that the 2018 Act does not remove any claimants’ rights to full compensation for other kinds of injury, the conclusion can only be supported if the terms of the statute effect the change by necessary implication and the consequential alteration to the common law was necessary and no more than necessary: see Lachaux at [13], cited by Nicola Davies LJ above.’</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Comment</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The dissenting view mirrors the approach taken by many insurance companies when defending such claims.&nbsp; Following <em>Rabot</em>, insurers are likely to review their position.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Courts across the country now have a methodology upon which to value these claims.&nbsp; But is that the final word on the subject?&nbsp; We await to see whether leave to appeal will be sought to take the matter up to the Supreme Court in due course.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full judgment can be found <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/19">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The tariffs found within the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 can be found <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/642/regulation/2/made">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bharat-jangra/">Bharat Jangra</a>, called 2019, is a junior member of the civil and employment teams in Chambers.&nbsp; He is regularly instructed in representing parties at hearings in relation to assessment of quantum and in drafting advices on quantum.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/robert-allen-pupil/">Robert Allen</a> is a pupil in Chambers currently under the supervision of <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/jim-hester/">Jim Hester</a>.&nbsp; He will be accepting instructions in second six from 3 April 2023.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:separator --> <hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/> <!-- /wp:separator --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> [2023] EWCA Civ 19</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Para 2 ibid</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> So long as they do not exceed, or are not likely to exceed, two years – Section 3(1)(b)(i) Civil Liability Act 2018</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> Section 3</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref5" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> In quantifying PSLA for non-tariff injuries, the common law principles apply – see <em>Attorney General of St Helena v. AB</em> [2020] UKPC 1.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref6" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> [2011] EWCA Civ 1728</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref7" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> Para 34 ibid</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="#_ftnref8" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> Para 43 ibid</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are delighted to announce that our Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team has won the "Diversity and Inclusion Award".</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Personal Injury Awards provide a unique opportunity to highlight and celebrate excellence of both individuals and organisations in the personal injury sector. The awards encompass all professionals and key service providers working in personal injury. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The aim of the awards is to identify high standards of practice and to inspire others to emulate the achievements demonstrated by those who have been shortlisted.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To find out more about Parklane Plowden awards history visit this&nbsp;<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/awards/">page</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph {"fontSize":"medium"} --> <p class="has-medium-font-size"><strong>A brief summary of the decision in Mr AXX (A protected party) v Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463 (KB)</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Background </strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In 2016 the Claimant was knocked off his bike by the Defendant. It was said that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury and continued to suffer from neuropsychiatric symptoms including psychosis, paranoia, and delusion. The Claimant was refusing to take antipsychotic medication and could not be forced to do so without being sectioned, which wasn’t deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The Claimant’s difficulties also meant that he would not fully engage in medical examinations. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimant had partially engaged with his Neuropsychiatrist whilst other experts found it very difficult or were turned away. Without taking his antipsychotics, his prognosis could only be assessed as guarded. The Defendant denied causation of the psychiatric condition in part because of a history of substance abuse. The Claimant’s representatives argued that a case manager and access to independent medical professionals would assist in helping the Claimant to engage with treatment. With causation disputed, interim payments were not forthcoming.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The Issue</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The main issue before the court was whether the new vulnerability provisions in Practice Direction 1A could be used to justify ordering a split trial to deal with causation first. &nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimant argued that a split trial would provide the best prospects of getting the Claimant’s evidence before the court.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The Law</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>CPR 1.1(2) (a) requires the court to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings, and that the parties and witnesses can give their best evidence.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Paragraph 5 of Practice Direction 1A states that when considering whether a factor may adversely affect the ability of a party to participate in proceedings and/or give their best evidence, the court should consider their ability to: &nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:list {"ordered":true,"type":"a"} --> <ol type="a"><li>Understand the proceedings and their role in them.</li><li>Express themselves throughout the proceedings.</li><li>Put their evidence before the court.</li><li>Respond to or comply with any request of the court or do in a timely manner.</li><li>Instruct their representative/s (if any) before, during and after the hearings; and</li><li>Attend any hearing.</li></ol> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Decision</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Judge concluded:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:list {"type":"a"} --> <ul type="a"><li>The vulnerability appeared to impede the Claimant’s participation in proceedings and as such considered PD 1A (5).</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><li>The Claimant’s medical condition and refusal to take his medication made understanding proceedings a real obstacle.</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><li>At the time of the hearing, the Claimant was too unwell to attend any trial meaning there was no proportionate modification to ensure attendance at any hearing.</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><li>The most prominent issues were about putting his evidence before the court and responding to any request of the court at all or in a timely manner.</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:list --> <ul><li>The judge agreed that to put the evidence before the court included indirectly so, by way of cooperating with experts for the purpose of expert reports.</li></ul> <!-- /wp:list --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The judge concluded that <em>“a split trial on causation, leaving possible quantum of damages for later, was a measure which would be proportionate …..because to enable causation to be resolved would stand a real prospect of enabling the Claimant to place his evidence before the court, by making it more likely he could engage with the experts at quantum stage and by also enabling prognosis to be clearer if and when he is able to be medicated….. That in turn was affected by the potential to obtain an interim payment once liability for substantial damages is established (if it is) at a split trial.”</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The judge therefore ordered a split trial.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This case is a good illustration of the interplay between the new Practice Direction 1A and the overriding objective.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>It serves as a useful reminder for practitioners to identify vulnerable parties at the earliest possible stage.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The case is also one of the first examples of how the new Practice Direction 1A can be used in practice when considering very practical case management decisions.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/oliver-bailey/">Oliver Bailey</a> is beginning his specialist civil law pupillage under supervision&nbsp;<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/hylton-armstrong/">Hylton Armstrong</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bronia-hartley/">Bronia Hartley. </a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are delighted to announce our offer of tenancy has been accepted by Bharat Jangra, Sophie Watson and Andrew Mohamdee after successfully completing their respective pupillages.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bharat-jangra">Bharat Jangra</a> commenced his specialist civil law pupillage in October 2021 under the supervision of Gemma Lieberman and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/tim-wilkinson">Tim Wilkinson</a> observing a range of employment and personal injury matters.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sophie-watson">Sophie Watson</a> commenced her specialist civil law pupillage in October 2021 under the supervision of <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Leila-Benyounes">Leila Benyounes</a>, <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Colin-Richmond">Colin Richmond</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Andrew-Sugarman">Andrew Sugarman</a> observing a range of employment, inquest and personal injury matters.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Andrew-Mohamdee">Andrew Mohamdee</a> commenced his family pupillage in October 2021 under the supervision of <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Farzana-Tai">Farzana Tai</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/Lucy-Sowden">Lucy Sowden</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We are delighted to announce that our Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team has been shortlisted as finalists for "Barristers' Chambers of the Year" and for the "Diversity and Inclusion Award".</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Personal Injury Awards provide a unique opportunity to highlight and celebrate excellence of both individuals and organisations in the personal injury sector.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>To find out more about Parklane Plowden awards history visit this&nbsp;<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/awards/">page</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:html --> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mF1QVlGKW98" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <!-- /wp:html --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden 'Law with Lunch' webinars bring you the latest law updates. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Clinical Negligence &amp; Personal Injury barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/james-murphy/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">James Murphy</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/abigail-telford/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Abigail Telford</a> discussed where to start and what to look for in 'Pension Loss Calculations', on the 14^th July 2022 webinar.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Click the video to watch the webinar recording.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:html --> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eLbZXOvZWMA" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <!-- /wp:html --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden 'Law with Lunch' webinars bring you the latest law updates. </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On the 30^th June 2022 webinar, Parklane Plowden personal injury barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bethan-davies/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bethan Davies</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/may-martin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May Martin</a> discussed the key recent developments in the personal injury case law. The webinar ensured that practitioners were brought up to speed with legal developments and included a discussion of&nbsp;<em>Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust</em>, H<em>o v Adelekun</em>, and&nbsp;<em>Hughes v Rattan</em>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Click the video to watch the webinar recording.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Our ‘Law with Lunch’ webinar series in July of bitesize, lunchtime talks continue with Parklane Plowden's award-winning personal injury team to bring you updates covering the legal issues of the moment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="tuesday-22nd-march-2022-12-30-pm-zoom-webinar"><strong><strong>Thursday, 14^th July 2022</strong>, <strong>12.30 pm, Zoom webinar</strong></strong></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">Clinical negligence &amp; personal injury barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/james-murphy/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">James Murphy</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/abigail-telford/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Abigail Telford</a> will discuss  </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="section-33-know-your-limitations">'<strong><strong><strong>Pension Loss Calculations: where to start and what to look for</strong></strong></strong>'</h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>From the latest procedural tips, these sessions are ideal for busy practitioners who want to enjoy their lunch break while updating their legal knowledge.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>These events are free, and we expect them to be popular, please book early to avoid disappointment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>For further enquiries or to register, please email <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a></span></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Our ‘Law with Lunch’ webinar series in June of bitesize, lunchtime talks returns with Parklane Plowden's award-winning personal injury team to bring you updates covering the legal issues of the moment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="tuesday-22nd-march-2022-12-30-pm-zoom-webinar"><strong><strong>Thursday, 9^th June 2022</strong>, <strong>12.30 pm, Zoom webinar</strong></strong></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">Barrister and clinical negligence specialist <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/justin-crossley/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Andrew Axon</strong></a> will discuss&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="section-33-know-your-limitations"><strong><strong><strong>Material Contribution, the evolving Caselaw</strong></strong></strong></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">Presenting a comprehensive review of the law of Material Contribution, the evolving caselaw and how it applies to Clinical Negligence Litigation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">--0--</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="tuesday-22nd-march-2022-12-30-pm-zoom-webinar"><strong><strong>Thursday, 30^th June 2022</strong>, <strong>12.30 pm, Zoom webinar</strong></strong></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">Personal Injury barristers <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bethan-davies/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Bethan Davies</strong></a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/may-martin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>May Martin</strong></a> will discuss&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:heading {"textAlign":"center","level":4} --> <h4 class="has-text-align-center" id="section-33-know-your-limitations"><strong><strong><strong>Personal Injury Case Law Update</strong></strong></strong></h4> <!-- /wp:heading --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">Highlight the key recent developments in the personal injury case law. The webinar will ensure that practitioners are up to speed with legal developments and will include a discussion of <em>Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust</em>, H<em>o v Adelekun</em>, and <em>Hughes v Rattan</em>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} --> <p class="has-text-align-center">--0--</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>From the latest procedural tips, these sessions are ideal for busy practitioners who want to enjoy their lunch break while updating their legal knowledge.&nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>These events are free, and we expect them to be popular, please book early to avoid disappointment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>For further enquiries or to register, please email <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a></span></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->