AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 6: COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLIENT

November 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Witness statements

Procter -v- Raleys Previous posts in this series have concentrated upon limitation issues. This post looks at the recent decision of Judge Gosnell in Procter –v- Raleys (Leeds County Court 6/11/2013). In particular what it demonstrates about the need to communicate with the client.

THE FACTS OF ...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Lawyer, Solicitor, Vibration White Finger

2 Responses

Richard Moorhead · March 1, 2014 at 11:56:05 · →

Very interesting and useful blog Gordon. It seems to me a less cautious interpretation of the judgment is possible – that verbal advice is necessary where there are indicators that clients may not understand. I’ve not read the judgment – just your very helpful note (the link to the judgment appears broken) – and I am certainly not saying my alternative interpretation is right. But if it were, then the question might be how specific were the indicators (here it might be that miners generally struggle, or that there were specific indicators that clients struggled to understand when they had service claims, then there was an obligation to pick up the phone).
gexall · March 1, 2014 at 22:08:04 · →

Thanks for that Richard. I have now put the case as an attachment. I think you will find it interesting reading. In relation to your general comments have a look at the choice of client names in the continuing education that went on. These cases may well be very fact specific, there are a number of cases going on and I understand a further batch is due to be heard soon. I would be interesting to see your views generally once you have read the entire judgment.