I recently acted for J who, whilst employed as a hospital porter, came into contact with incorrectly disposed of corrosive chemicals and suffered chemical burns to both hands. Continue reading
Anthony Gold Blogs
Recent Comments
Handling “mild” brain injury claims
Brain injuries, even those which at first appear to be minor, can have a very significant impact both on the injured person and on their family. The long term effects of a brain injury can take time to become apparent and it is therefore vital that any claim for compensation is not settled too early.
I recently acted for T who was at work in a retail store in 2008 when a colleague left a plank of wood on top of stock on a shelf in the stockroom. When T went to retrieve the stock, the wood fell and hit him on the head. At the time it was unclear whether he had lost consciousness but as he had suffered a head wound, he was taken to hospital by ambulance. On arrival at the hospital he was examined, his head was bandaged and he was then discharged with painkillers.
We were instructed soon after the accident and following a letter of claim, the store’s insurers admitted responsibility for the accident.
Meanwhile, T returned to work and tried to carry on as normal. However, after several months it became clear that T was having real problems managing. He found it difficult to remember what he was supposed to be doing and tasks which he found simple before the accident were now taking him much longer to complete. He was suffering with headaches and found it extremely difficult to concentrate. His friends and family also reported changes in his personality; he was less confident and outgoing and more prone to feeling down. Unfortunately, T was unable to carry on working and he left the company. His long term relationship also broke down, partially as a result of his depressive symptoms.
T had to take almost a year off work before he felt sufficiently recovered to find another job and begin working again.
In the meantime, I arranged for T to be seen by an expert neurologist and by a neuropsychiatrist. They concluded that T had suffered a mild traumatic brain injury with post concussional syndrome. At that stage, they were unable to give a final prognosis and asked to see T again once he had returned to work.
T returned to work in 2010 and fortunately was then able to carry out his job with minimal difficulties. I arranged for the medical experts to review T again and they concluded that he had now made a good recovery from his injury and that his depressive symptoms had largely resolved.
As the effects of T’s injury had now plateaued, I began what became protracted negotiations with the Defendant’s solicitors. The matter was listed for trial in June of this year but eventually I was able to agree a favourable settlement.
The effects of a mild brain injury can initially be subtle but have serious consequences as in T’s case. It is therefore important to ensure that a client’s symptoms have settled and that a proper prognosis can be given before contemplating settlement of their claim.
Posted in FLW article, FLW case note, Personal Injury, Personal Injury Case Notes
Tagged workplace injuries
Leave a comment
Restricting treatment for the smoking and obese population
The NHS was set up to deliver services free at the point of need to all of those who need it. The medical and nursing professions are supposed to provide care irrespective of who their patients are. In short, whatever the personal views of the person treating you, you are entitled to be treated. Continue reading
Posted in FLW article, FLW case note, Personal Injury
Leave a comment
Parenting Arrangements in Denmark
In 2007 the Parental Responsibility Act was introduced in Denmark following 10 years of research. It provided for 50:50 equal parenting time as the default arrangement in circumstances where parents could not agree an alternative parenting pattern. Continue reading
DIY detectives beware: Guidance on accessing documents and information belonging to your spouse or partner
The case of Imerman v Tchenguiz [2010] EWCA Civ 908 had wide-ranging implications for client and family lawyers alike, and provided detailed guidance in relation to the appropriation and use of documents concerning or belonging to a spouse or partner.
The facts of this seminal case can be summarised as follows. Lisa Tchenguiz married Vivian Imerman, the former owner of Del Monte Foods. Her brothers, property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchengui shared an office with Mr Imerman. When the marriage broke down, the Tchenguiz brothers locked Mr Imerman out of the office and downloaded between 250,000 and 1.5 million documents from his computer, which they then handed to their sister’s divorce lawyers. They did so because they believed he had no intention of making full and frank disclosure of his finances.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the information obtained by Ms Tchenguiz’s brothers could not be used to support her claim in her divorce case as it was private and confidential information to which she had no right.
The main implication of this judgment is that is that married couples are no longer excepted from the rule that each person has a right to privacy. “Self-help” is no longer acceptable or lawful and confidentiality exists between spouses as much as it does between anyone else.
The Court of Appeal stated that the key question to ask when assessing whether or not a document can be accessed is “would the other spouse consent to these documents being accessed and copied?”. If the answer is no, the document is confidential and accessing could be an actionable breach of confidence, trespass to goods, or criminal prosecution under the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Computer Misuse Act 1990.The court can also rule that the documents cannot be used as evidence in financial proceedings. In addition, where confidential information has been passed on to a solicitor, the court might order that the client ceases to instruct that solicitor.
Confidential documents are widely defined and include any document concerned with an individual’s private life. This could include financial documents (such as bank statements), personal journals, diaries, letters and any other documents connected with family or private life, personal and family assets, or business dealings.
Confidentiality is not dependent on lock and key or location, and is not lost just because a document is left lying around the house. The key test is always whether the spouse would consent to that being document being accessed.
When going through a separation or divorce, spouses and partners should respect these rules and be aware of their implications. DIY detectives should resist the urge to take matters into their own hands and instead rely on the exchange of information by way of agreed process or litigation, no matter how frustrating that might be.
To summarise, separating spouses and partners must always bear in mind the following:
• Confidential documents are widely defined but do not include those relating to joint assets.
• There are very limited circumstances where it is acceptable to look for information regarding finances.
• If a spouse does access confidential documents, they may be criticised by the courts and they may even be committing a criminal offence.
• Even documents in open files or communal areas are confidential if the other spouse would not consent to them being viewed or copied.
• If copies are taken, these should not be passed onto the solicitor.
• Any information that is sent to the solicitor has to be disclosed to the owner and his solicitor.
• Original documents should not under any circumstances be taken without agreement.
• Confidential documentation/information includes information that is contained on a computer.
