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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll