THE NUMBER of clinical negligence claims has remained fairly static over recent years. The NHS Litigation Authority’s annual report records 5,426 claims in 2006-7; 5,697 in 2005-6; and 5,609 in 2004-5.
However, the adverse incident rate is still high, which leads to the conclusion that many people are not pursuing remedies for their injuries.
“NO MAN ought to be able to take advantage of his own false statements.”
That opinion, given in the case of Redgrave v Hurd 1881 involving the reliance on a misrepresentation as an inducement to buy a solicitor’s practice, was followed shortly thereafter in 1889 in the House of Lords in Derry v Peek, which defined fraud.
In Derry v Peek, the term ‘fraud’ was clearly defined and has been used as the leading case in deceit cases where misrepresentation was made to the victim.
AS AN accountant in general practice for over 20 years, I have come across commercial disputes in a variety of forms: between partners, shareholders, family members and trade competitors.
Disputes can become protracted, costly to settle and eventually result in a solution which satisfies neither party. However, there are alternatives which can offer a straightforward and structured method for the resolution of commercial disputes, and I am actively engaged in three of them.
UNLIKE the changeover to digital TV, you do have a choice whether to convert to digital dictation. If you don’t, however, what you regard as quaint eccentricity is likely to ensure that you attract the epithets ‘dinosaur’ and ‘Luddite’ and possibly worse.
There really is no reason for delaying a change to digital dictation. It is inexpensive, easy to install and the training time required is minimal.
EXPERTS HAVE been in the news recently, with high-profile cases where the competence and independence of experts has been brought into question. How can we, as solicitors, ensure that the experts we use are competent?
Historically, experts were not trained in how to be an expert witness.
