Octoberbrochure - (Page 5) he would have continued in virtually full time employment until he retired. However, the multiplicand was then reduced by 10% to reflect the risk of unemployment and while the disabled reduction factor was not applied the residual earnings multiplicand was reduced by 50%. The result was the same as would have been achieved by a straight application of the tables, but demonstrates the increased willingness of the Courts to adjust and apply the figures in the Odgen Tables so as to reflect the characteristics of individual Claimants. Guidance in Kemp & Kemp states that “the relatively low threshold to the definition of ‘disabled’ will result in the need for poten- tially significant adjustment depending on the extent of the Claimant’s disabilities on a case-by-case basis.” The caselaw so far indicates a willingness to ‘tinker’ and make adjustments deemed appropriate. However, the basis of determining that a Claimant is more or less severely disabled than the averages represented in the Ogden Tables is unclear. There is no guidance on the levels of disability recorded in the research upon which the Ogden Tables are based. There is no current measurement of severity of disability. Some may be surprised that a manual worker amputee with a reduced grip in their dominant hand was found to be less disabled than the average employed disabled person. Dr Wass con- continue from page 4 tends that if, as suggested in Kemp & Kemp the definition of ‘disabled’ as too broad, “the impact is to bias the reduction factors upwards (and not downwards) because a wider definition of disability dilutes the impact on employment” (see JPIL 2 2008). The new tables have arguably led to compensation that is much more specific to a Claimant’s circumstances. However, the interpretation and application of the new Ogden Tables so far demonstrates wide variations in possible levels of compensation. A year on there still appears to be great uncertainty as to the impact of the new Ogden Tables. Catherine Atkinson Legal 500 Client Guide 2008 9 Gough Square’s ranking in Legal 500’s Client Guide to the legal profession has increased to 20 barrister listings in Personal Injury, Crime: Fraud, Clinical Negligence and Healthcare, Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law (incorporating Police Law) and Health and Safety with a new ranking for its Crime practice. Personal Injury In Personal Injury the Guide confirms that few sets match 9 Gough Square for sheer size and level of talent and the claimant-led set has clerks that deliver “reliable and attentive” service. Grahame Aldous QC is described as “approachable and user-friendly”, John Foy QC, as the “godfather of occupational disease claims”, and the set’s juniors tap “deep reservoirs of knowledge”. Chief among them is Andrew Ritchie, who has outstanding technical knowledge allied to “tough forensic skills” and a “personal and decisive approach”. Likewise, Roger Hiorns climbs a tier for his “clear, respectful” and “thorough” advice. “Quietly brilliant” Christopher Goddard is also recommended, as is Jacob Levy - “a complete perfectionist” and Stephen Glynn who appears in the listing for the first time in recognition of his leading work in asbestos claims. Nick Hillier continues to be highly ranked in this area. Fraud: Crime 9 Gough Square is ranked in Fraud: Crime and the Guide notes that Andrew Baillie QC successfully prosecuted the Independent Insurance fraud, and “did a fantastic job, with a deadly cross examination”. Rosina Cottage is “a strong advocate with a nice style that invites jurors to think for themselves”. Fred Ferguson is listed as a Leading Junior in Crime and is rated as “a very experienced fraud junior”. Martin Pinfold “moves the prosecution forward in a relentless, yet intelligent fashion. His understanding of investigations from his SFO experience enables him to interact positively with the police”. Phillip Henry is listed as a Leading Junior in Criminal Fraud, and is rated as a barrister with “great experience, who takes a good strategic view”. Tom Little is again recommended for Fraud: Crime in the Guide. Clinical Negligence and Healthcare Duncan Macleod continues to be recommended in Clinical Negligence and Healthcare. Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law (incorporating Police Law) The Guide has introduced a new section covering Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law (incorporating Police Law), and at 9 Gough Square it reports “the very experienced Duncan Macleod is “first class” and represented the Metropolitan Police in the inquest into the deaths of Lady Diana, the Princess of Wales and Dodi al Fayed. Other recommended juniors are Vince Williams, Jonathan Loades and Edwin Buckett. Raj Shetty appears in the Guide for the first time in recognition of his extensive Police Law practice. Crime In Crime 9 Gough Square has “real strength in depth” as they “instil confidence that a client will be thoughtfully yet robustly defended”. Rosina Cottage “pays attention to detail and drafts succinctly. Her advocacy can best be summed up as the iron fist in a velvet glove”. Simon Carr is highly regarded as a “specialist in sex cases”. Tom Little is “particularly strong for cases requiring wellconsidered cross examination of robust prosecution witnesses, and a keen eye on documentary evidence”. Health and Safety Christopher Goddard, is also listed as a leading junior in Health and Safety. View our news online at www.9goughsquare.co.uk 5 http://www.9goughsquare.co.uk
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Octoberbrochure Octoberbrochure Octoberbrochure - (Page 1) Octoberbrochure - (Page 2) Octoberbrochure - (Page 3) Octoberbrochure - (Page 4) Octoberbrochure - (Page 5) Octoberbrochure - (Page 6) Octoberbrochure - (Page 7) Octoberbrochure - (Page 8)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.