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
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll