The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report is the only ranking of international law firms by litigation and arbitration revenue and is essential reading for anyone seeking to benchmark their litigation and dispute resolution practices...
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.
Injuries: Claimant was knocked off of cycle when 12 years old and suffered brain damage. It is now unlikely he will ever lead an independent life. Court told that lights were not fitted to cycle and there were no rear brakes. Damages awarded on the basis that he was old enough to ride on the roads and therefore had to take some responsibility for his own safety
Award: £425,000 agreed damages
Judge: Mr Justice Garland
Plaintiff's counsel: Augustus Ullstein QC
Plaintiff's solicitor: Dakers Green Brett
Jones v Jones QBD 2 February 1998
Claimant: Christian Jones, 25
Incident: Road traffic accident
Injuries: Claimant suffered severe head injuries when car driven by his father (defendant) crashed into another vehicle on an icy road in Norway. He has been left partially sighted, speaks with difficulty, has an impaired memory but is able to communicate through the use of a computer
Award: £1,208,924 agreed damages. Mother to receive £45,000
Farthing v North East Essex Health Authority CA 3 December 1998
Incident and appeal contentions: Defendant's appeal from order of Judge Bradbury, Colchester and Clacton County Court, 2 January 1997, that notwithstanding plaintiff had instituted proceedings outside limitation period prescribed by s11(4) of Limitation Act 1980 it was equitable to allow her action to proceed in exercise of discretion conferred by s33 of Act. Appellant contends judge wrong to exercise discretion not to apply primary limitation period under s33 in that having found that respondent's date of knowledge for purposes of s11 and s1 of act was in or about December 1981, failed to take into account that proceedings had not been commenced until August 1985, about 11 years outside limitation period prescribed by s11(4)