Jun 12

Seeking redress for women affected by PIP scandal

Posted in Guest bloggers, Personal Injury Claims

Author: Fiona Hedges, Mercury Legal

For over a decade PIP breast implants, also known as M-implants, have been produced and distributed worldwide by French manufacturer Poly Implant Prothese.

It is estimated that over 500,000 implants were sold worldwide before it was discovered that the manufacturer had been filling the PIP implants with industrial-grade silicone, a product more typically used as mattress filler.

In March 2012 the High Court recommended that a Group Litigation Order be pursued in relation to personal injury claims for women who have received PIP breast implants. The Group Litigation order will potentially allow the estimated 50,000 women in the UK affected by the scandal to pursue claims for compensation.

Class actions such as the PIP Group Litigation Order, whilst not unheard of, are uncommon and there are many hurdles to overcome to pursue a claim however at this stage we are extremely confident that we will ultimately be successful and justice will prevail.

The PIP Group Litigation Order is made especially complex due to the sheer volume of clinics and surgeon’s, both private and public, who supplied PIP implants to women across the UK. Due to the unregulated nature of the UK cosmetic industry it can be a difficult task to track down not only a defendant company but also their insurers (if the defendant company is no longer trading).  In addition to this, consideration must be given as to whether a claim ought to be brought under negligence or contract laws.

Mercury legal solicitors have established an excellent reputation in the personal injury arena and so when concerns started to be raised about the PIP breast implant difficulties it was little surprise that we were contacted by companies representing a large number of women affected by the implants to see if we would be able to help.

Although time is running out on the Group Litigation Order, we believe that victims will be able to claim up until the end of 2014 as most people were not informed of the fundamental problems with the implants until the beginning of 2011.

However, we will not know the challenges bringing these cases will bring post the closer of the Group Litigation Order.  But when we do, Mercury Legal will be leading the way representing the victims affected by the scandal on a no win no fee basis and publishing advice on our dedicated  PIP breast implant website.

Once your case is accepted by Mercury Legal they will work tirelessly on your behalf on a strict no win no fee basis so you will keep 100% of the compensation you deserve. Mercury Legal work alongside Box Legal to make sure that you are protected every step of the way and will never be asked to pay any fees even if your case is unsuccessful through no fault of your own. Thanks to the backing of Box Legal after the event insurance thousands of women affected by the PIP scandal are now able to seek legal advice without the worrying about legal costs.

comments: Comments Off
Nov 30

A Night of Glamour and Awards

Posted in Guest bloggers
On a clear night in London last week, Thursday 24th November, dressed in their finery,   the Box Legal Team consisting of myself (Kirsten), Daniel, Simon and Jon headed to the Riverbank Plaza Hotel for the Personal Injury Awards sponsored by Eclipse. As mentioned in Daniel’s previous blog, part of our sponsorship package was a magician who did a great act of disappearing and we unfortunately did not get to see him perform – ingenious!  Although we have been assured by many people there, he did a great turn using our logo as part of his tricks.

We were sat with Clerksroom and ate a fabulous meal of tomato soup and steak as we listened to comedian Stewart Francis. We were delighted when Stephen Ward of Clerksroom who sat next to me, won Practice/Operations Manager of the Year. His nomination had been seconded by Cherie Blair QC no less.

However, we were even more thrilled when one of our panel firms JMW won PI team of the year. A fabulous and well deserved award that I would expect had them celebrating well into the night. Congratulations to them and to all the winners and the Personal Injury Awards 2011. A photo below shows JMW accepting their award from comedian Stewart Francis.    

For more information about Box Legal and ATE, please contact Kirsten Arnold on 0870 766 99758 or at kirsten@boxlegal.co.uk

comments: Comments Off
Oct 31

Scary Referral Fee Ban

Posted in General, Guest bloggers, Personal Injury Claims, Road Accidents, Solicitors

It’s Halloween.

Last year my teenage daughter forgot it was the 31st of October and answered the front door in the dark to be confronted by some pretty scary masks – she let out an ear piercing scream and slammed our front door in some poor kids faces – oh dear, we seemed to get dirty looks from our neighbours for months afterwards!

Yes – as we all know, a lot of things can look a much scarier than they really are at this time of year……and I am beginning to think that the Government’s ban on referral fees may be one of them.

It’s obvious of course, that the Government never really believed it could ban referral fees. It would loved to have done so, but could see it was impractical. Then Jack Straw embarrassed the Government by proposing it himself. He had just discovered that this sort of thing was going on, despite himself having been Justice Minister for more years than anyone could remember. The Government couldn’t afford to have the Opposition out do it on this issue, and promised it would introduce a ban (although even then, it acknowledged the difficulties by refusing to give any time limit for doing so).

The latest Government amendment may in fact bring us some warm cheer as the nights get colder. Ken Clarke’s latest amendment proposes that the ban on referral fees will not apply if the payment is made “as consideration for the provision of services”. After a moment of extreme puzzlement, things are beginning to become clearer.

The Government is not really planning to prevent Claims Management Companies charging for their services. This of course would have effectively put CMC’s out of business (or just forced them to form ABSs!) which would have been odd since it was the Government which was regulated them. The proposal is now that they can legally charge as long as they can show they are charging for a service which they have carried out. They will not normally struggle to show this, particularly since they often complete the Claim Notification Form for motor claims, or at least provide all of the information necessary to do so. They also tend to meet clients, explain documentation, get CFAs signed etc. etc. etc.

What will be banned is a payment to anyone who simply supplies a name and address in return for a fee – what might be termed a “pure referral”. This would cover motor insurers, the police and perhaps some body shops and vehicle recovery companies. They don’t perform any work for solicitors – they just receive payment for knowing who has had an accident.

The larger the organisation (motor insurers and the police) the harder it will be for them to sidestep such a ban but clearly the net effect of the Government’s current proposal is that if you carry out the normal work of a Claims Management Company then you are unlikely to be affected. Some people may think that legislation which prevented the large motor insurers from receiving a fee for “3rd Party Capture” might be the best Christmas present they could hope to receive.

We will have to wait and see. But as I said, at this time of year, things can look much scarier than they really are.

Simon Pinner

Director of Box Legal Limited

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

 

 

comments: 1 »
Mar 23

Guest Blogger: Death of a Client

Posted in General, Guest bloggers, Personal Injury Claims

We are starting a series of guest blogs with a very useful posting from Keith Hayward of Victory Costs: What happens to your retainer if your client dies?

Where you act under a CFA and your client dies before their claim is concluded, you might decide not to continue. After all the client is a major witness, particularly if liability is in dispute.  But should you decide to proceed it is important your CFA covers the situation and you understand what you need to do to ensure you retain the right to be paid both base costs and a success fee where the claim concludes successfully.

Whilst death does not in itself usually operate to end a contract ( see the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1934), the Law Society model CFA provides that the CFA will automatically terminate, and the estate become liable for all costs incurred to date. The model CFA then states:

“If your personal representatives wish to continue with your claim for damages we may offer them a new conditional fee agreement, as long as they agree to pay the success fee on our basic charges from the beginning of our agreement with you.”

So a new CFA is required. This can be retrospective from the date of death, being the date the original CFA was automatically terminated.  If you want to recover a success fee on the first CFA the Personal Representatives (PRs) need to agree to this. This can be achieved simply by writing to the PRs making it clear you will only offer them a new CFA if they confirm their agreement to be liable for a success fee should the claim be successful, or alternatively the new CFA should record the fact that the new CFA was entered into on that basis.

Remember that where the success fee is not fixed by Part 45 it will be assessed at the date the new CFA is signed. So you will have to reassess the success fee, and if an admission of liability has been received this will impact significantly on the success fee that can be recovered.

An alternative to this is to amend the model CFA to remove automatic termination and state that the solicitor MAY terminate if the client dies, and the solicitor can elect whether to continue or terminate. That way the original CFA continues and the success fee does not have to be reassessed. The estate would still be liable for all base fees incurred to date if either side terminate.

Keith Hayward
Victory Costs

Just thought I would add a bit about After the Event Insurance here. If you have an ATE Insurance policy in place and your client dies then the policy can be transferred into the names of the personal representatives if they wish to pursue the claim. Just email us or call and we will ask the underwriter to make the changes!

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off