header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 August 2008 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Future proof (2)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Auguring the future. Nicholas Bevan concludes his analysis of Thompstone

Severely injured claimants may not be receiving appropriate legal and financial advice on the alternative compensatory options available to address their future losses. The financial implications flowing from the lump sum/periodical payments dilemma can be profound. Where legal and financial advisers fail to give due consideration to these factors, they will expose themselves to the risk of professional negligence claims.

Low interest in periodical payments

Master Denzil Lush recently observed, in the preface to Future Loss in Practice: Periodical Payments and Lump Sums, that in two-thirds of damages cases submitted to the Court of Protection the claimants' legal advisers had failed to commission a financial adviser's report. That is an alarming statistic because it seems reasonable to assume that many personal injury practitioners are ill-equipped to provide the detailed financial advice and comparative analysis necessary to enable a claimant to make an informed decision.

The shortcomings of the lump sum award were touched upon in the first article in this series (see “Future proof?(1)”,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll