Source: http://www.college-chambers.co.uk/component/barristers/barrister/26/david-lang
Timestamp: 2018-12-10 11:39:03
Document Index: 351763149

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 45', 'art 35', 'art 45', 'art 45', 'art 36', 'art 36']

David is a family law practitioner. He joined Chambers in 2013 upon successful completion of pupillage. Prior to joining Chambers he spent three months in 2010 working on death penalty cases and appeals in Houston, Texas. Following this he spent 18 months as an in-house advocate representing clients in civil and personal injury matters. David is authorised to undertake work on a Public Access basis.
David is regularly instructed in public children matters and has experience of representing local authorities, parents and children at all stages of proceedings including multi-day final hearings and applications for placement orders. His experience includes cases involving neglect, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, mental health and cases with an international element.
David represents parents at all stages of private children disputes, including at final hearing and finding of fact hearings. In addition to dealing with applications for Child Arrangements Orders he also has experience in other section 8 applications such as prohibited steps and specific issue orders. He has been instructed in internal and external relocation cases.
David has experience in representing Applicants and Respondents at first direction and financial dispute resolution appointments as well at final hearings.
David has prior experience of dealing with family law injunctions having volunteered with the National Centre for Domestic Violence before joining chambers. Now in private practice he frequently represents both Applicants and Respondents at all stages of injunction proceedings, including initial ex-parte applications, return and final hearings.
In addition to his family law practice David continues to accept instructions to represent interested persons at inquests. His experience includes shorter inquiries involving road traffic collisions, and multi day inquests connected to clinical negligence claims and those involving allegations of neglect.
Please click here for David's privacy policy.
RTA Protocol Update
The clampdown on costs associated with personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents continued as of 1st October 2014 with amendments to the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA Protocol). These latest amendments limit the amount of costs claimants can recover for medical evidence in soft tissue injury cases. The limitation, as outlined at paragraph 4.7, will only apply to cases where the Claim Notification Form is submitted on, or after 1st October 2014. This article is designed to provide a brief summary of the changes.
CPR Part 45.19 stipulates what disbursements are recoverable under the fixed costs of the RTA Protocol. Paragraph 2A stipulates that in a soft tissue injury claim to which the RTA Protocol applies, the only sums (exclusive of VAT) that are recoverable in respect of the cost of obtaining a fixed cost medical report or medical records are as follows—
obtaining the first report from any expert permitted under 1.1(12) of the RTA Protocol: £180;
obtaining a further report where justified from one of the following disciplines—
Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon (inclusive of a review of medical records where applicable): £420;
Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine: £360;
General Practitioner registered with the General Medical Council: £180; or
Physiotherapist registered with the Health and Care Professions Council: £180;
obtaining medical records: no more than £30 plus the direct cost from the holder of the records, and limited to £80 in total for each set of records required. Where relevant records are required from more than one holder of records, the fixed fee applies to each set of records required;
addendum report on medical records (except by Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon): £50; and
answer to questions under Part 35: £80
The newly inserted paragraph 16A of the RTA Protocol defines soft tissue injury claim as meaning a claim brought by an occupant of a motor vehicle where the significant physical injury caused is a soft tissue injury and includes claims where there is a minor psychological injury secondary in significance to the physical injury.
Both paragraph 2B of CPR Part 45.19 and paragraph 10A of the RTA Protocol seek to impose independence on the medical examiner who is providing the report through highlighting that only in exceptional circumstances can the costs of a report be claimed from someone providing, or proposing to provide the treatment, or someone associated with them (see paragraph 1A of the RTA Protocol for the definition of associate).
Paragraph 2C of Part 45.19 outlines that the cost of expert reports not stipulated in paragraph 2A are not fixed, however, the CPR is clear that the cost of obtaining that report will have to be justified.
In addition to the amendments highlighted above, practitioners should also be aware of the consequences these amendments have had on Part 36 Offers, and consideration will need to be had to the updates to CPR Part 36.
Clearly these new costs rules seek to continue to reduce the costs on defendant insurance companies in relatively straightforward cases and ensure there is independence in the medical evidence obtained. There will however be a school of thought that these amendments do not go far enough. The current application is limited to soft tissue injury claims. Claims where there are other minor injuries will not fall under the scope of this section which given the low value and lack of complexity in these claims may be seen as somewhat perverse.
Civil Justice System Changes
The 22nd April 2014 saw the formation of the Single County Court which will sit at different hearing centres throughout the Country. Judges will sit as Judges of the County Court. The formation of the single Family Court, means family matters will not be heard by the County Court, and it will therefore be a civil jurisdiction. In addition to the formation of the Single County Court, following recommendations from Sir Henry Brooke in his 2008 report, various reforms have been implemented to the Civil Justice System. The Commercial Bar Association has published a useful guide to these changes (which can be found here:
http://bit.ly/1kFo06q). In summary the following changes have come into effect:
The process for High Court Judges sitting in the County Court has been streamlined so the Lord Chancellor’s approval is no longer required.
Freezing Orders can be made in a County Court proceedings, however, the extended jurisdiction is limited to only nominated Circuit Judges.
There have been changes in the financial limit in equitable matters and High Court Matters. The County Court equitable limit has been increased to £350,000 and the lower financial limit for brining claims in the High Court has been increased to £100,000. Any claim below this limit should be brought in the County Court.
The High Court will obtain exclusive jurisdiction under an application to vary a trust under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 and an application for a reduction in share capital under the Companies Act 2006.
Some Court fees have increased.
Whilst these changes have come into effect, it is not designed that there will be an impact on where, or how, insolvency proceedings are issued.
It is clear these reforms are designed to make the Court system more efficient and cost effective, through the removal of certain administrative processes and the increase in financial jurisdiction. Clearly the major impact of these changes will be on high value claims and some of those which the High Court would have jurisdiction of.
2:1 LLB (Hons) The University of Kent (2009)
BVC (Very Competent) The City Law School (2010)
David is a lifelong Blackburn Rovers fan and in his spare time enjoys attending the theatre.