The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
South East firm ASB Law is facing a £100,000 negligence claim brought by a former client of the firm's personal injury department.
Elaine Fairfax instructed ASB in relation to a claim she brought against hardware retailer B&Q when she hurt her back in one of its stores. ASB won £11,000 in damages and £18,000 in costs from B&Q, but according to her claim, Fairfax argues that she could have received damages of more than £200,000.
ASB first issued a claim against B&Q for between £5,000 and £15,000. However, after the claim was filed, Fairfax and her husband's business hit financial difficulties, and she took a job in London, which further aggravated her injury.
ASB then wrote to B&Q's law firm Berrymans, saying it wished to increase the maximum damages and claim for future loss of earnings. Although there was correspondence from Berryman's, it made no reference to the prospect of an amended schedule.
At the hearing Judge Lloyd refused the claimant permission to rely upon the amended schedule of loss.
In the latest claim Fairfax says that ASB acted negligently and is now seeking an award which accounts for the full extent of damages, as well as seeking damages for distress, anxiety and disappointment from the firm.
"It's not our practice to comment on any claims that are made against the firm," said ASB chief executive Christopher Honeyman Brown.