When the Judicial College published its 18th Edition Guidelines on 9 April 2026, it introduced a significant change for practitioners handling less visible brain and head injury claims. The most notable update was not the
The Civil Justice Council (CJC) Working Group, chaired by Lord Justice Birss, recently concluded its high-profile consultation on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in preparing court documents. With the public consultation window having officially
Following the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) critical report on the “two decades of inaction” regarding clinical negligence costs, the Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed that its strategy now rests on the ongoing
The recent UK Supreme Court decision allowing severely injured children to claim damages for earnings during the “lost years” of life expectancy is set to influence how catastrophic clinical negligence claims are valued. The ruling
MPs at PAC concluded that litigation data contains valuable safety insights — but the NHS lacks a consistent system to turn those lessons into prevention. Clinical negligence claims are typically viewed through the lens of
In a significant shift for Q1 2026, the Court of Appeal has penalised a defendant with indemnity costs following a failed application to dismiss a claim under Section 57. The ruling in Hakmi v Various
MPs accuse Department of Health of failing to act despite 24 years of warnings—government response due by 30 March. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has issued its strongest criticism yet of the government’s failure to
Government figures show that personal injury (PI) claim volumes have continued to fall across England and Wales, extending a multi-year downward trend that is reshaping the PI landscape. Recent data, drawn from the Compensation Recovery
The National Audit Office’s (NAO) Costs of Clinical Negligence report (October 2025) shows that while maternity cases represent fewer than one in ten claims, they account for more than 60% of the total value. The
In a recent judgment from the Court of Session, the court found that an eight-month delay in accepting a settlement tender was unreasonable and had costs consequences. The tender had been available throughout, but the
