Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

  • APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents


"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure"

PI Focus

Designed and written by leading claimant lawyers, APIL Personal Injury Law, Practice and Precedents, available in print or online, is a comprehensive and practical reference work dealing with every aspect of personal injury practice. Combining authoritative commentary, expertly drafted precedents and other key materials, it is the ideal resource for all claimant lawyers.

The most recent bulletin by Sana Bibi, Anthony Gold Solicitors, looks at cases from June to September 2017. An overview of the October Bulletin can be viewed here.

What is included?


Leading practitioners provide detailed and practical analysis on the basis of liability for each of the major types of personal injury actions, together with a thorough examination of the law relating to limitation, damages, funding and costs. The practice and procedure relating to PI claims is dealt with comprehensively and with particular emphasis placed on the needs of claimant lawyers.

Legislation and Procedure
 Over 60 key statutes and statutory instruments as well as extracts from the Civil Procedure Rules.

Expertly drafted precedents including over 70 model letters, 40 pleadings, draft applications, and model schedules of loss are provided.

 The full text of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Agreement 2008 and both the Untraced and Uninsured Drivers’ Agreements are reproduced, together with the text of the Highway Code.

Quantum materials
 Key materials such as the Ogden Tables and JSB Guidelines are included, as well as key statistics and calculations such as Multipliers for Periodic Loss, Interim Life Tables, Earnings, Interest, Prices, Income Tax and NI, Social Security Benefits, Court of Protection Fees, Motoring Costs, Fostering Costs, Nursing Costs and many more.

Funding and Costs
Model CFA agreements, Solicitors Regulation Authority materials, model risk assessments, court forms and APIL/PIBA 6.

The main work is supplemented by regular bulletins providing details of the latest cases, statutory and other developments with cross-references to the main work.

 The CD-ROM contains fillable Word documents of Model Letters; Statement; Pleadings; Applications and Orders; Schedules of Loss; and Instructions to Counsel.

To arrange your FREE trial to the online service or to find out how a print or online subscription to APIL Personal Injury Law, Practice and Precedents will benefit your day-to-day work contact our Account Management Team today.

10% discount for APIL Members on the main work price only, updates not discounted. To take advantage of this offer please call Customer Services on 0117 917 5085.

*This CD-ROM is designed to run on Windows based systems.


  • General Principles: Providing for Injury Victims
  • Road Traffic Accidents and the MIB
  • Accidents at Work
  • Occupational Illness Claims
  • Occupiers' Liability
  • Personal Injuries on the Highway
  • Psychological Injuries
  • Product Liability
  • Travel Claims
  • Sports Injury Claims
  • Actions Against the Police
  • Animals
  • Children
  • Employment Law and Personal Injury Law
  • Professional Negligence
  • Defendants
  • Insurance


  • Limitation Act 1980: 3-year Limitation Period
  • Cases Where Limitation Period is Less than 3 Years
  • Limitation Periods Longer than 3 Years
  • Infants and Protected Parties
  • Fatal Accidents
  • Date of Knowledge
  • Applications under Limitation Act 1980, s 33
  • Ammendments of Parties after Issue


  • Principles
  • General Damages
  • Loss of Earnings
  • The ‘Lost Years'
  • Pension Loss
  • Nursing Care
  • Private Health Care Costs
  • Accommodation
  • Schedules and Counter Schedules
  • Fatal Accidents
  • Non-compensatory Damages
  • Provisional Damages
  • Periodical Payments
  • Interest
  • Personal Injury Trusts
  • Recoupment of State Benefits
  • Inquests
  • Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  • Community Care
  • Remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998
  • Investment


  • The Retainer
  • Risk Assessment
  • Conditional Fee Agreements
  • Collective Conditional Fee Agreements
  • After the Event Insurance
  • Contingency Fees
  • Before the Event Insurance
  • Public Funding
  • Counsel and CFAs


  • Making Personal Injury Work Profitable
  • File Notes
  • The Indemnity Principle
  • Hourly Rates
  • Principles of Costs Recovery
  • Estimates, Budget and Caps
  • Fixed Costs
  • Payments on Account of Costs
  • Assessments
  • Charging the Client
  • Costs Consequences of Part 36 Offers


  • Procedures
  • Instructions
  • Urgent Action
  • Rehabilitation
  • Obtaining Evidence
  • Medical Records
  • Pre-Action Protocols
  • The Claims Process: Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents
  • Expert Evidence
  • Counsel
  • Pre-issue Settlement
  • Court of Protection
  • Issue of Proceedings
  • Early Judgment
  • Interim Payments
  • Offers to Settle and Payments into Court
  • Small Claims
  • Fast Track
  • Multi-track
  • ADR
  • Pleadings
  • Trials
  • Group Litigation
  • Appeals


  • Model Letters
  • Statement
  • Pleadings
  • Applications and Orders
  • Schedules of Loss
  • Instructions to Counsel
  • Funding and Costs


  • Statutes
  • Statutory Instruments
  • CPR


  • Motor Insurers' Bureau
  • Highway Code
  • Criminal Injuries Compensation
  • Medical Materials
  • Addresses


  • JC Guidelines
  • Ogden Tables
  • Multipliers
  • Interim Life Tables
  • Earnings
  • Interest
  • Prices
  • Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions
  • Social Security Benefits
  • Court of Protection
  • Motoring Costs
  • Fostering Allowances
  • Nursing Costs
  • NHS Charges
"eloquent introduction ... described as being designed to provide a trusted resource ... practical and user friendly guide and to make current personal injury law and practice readily accessible. The aims are by and large achieved ... the section on RTA liability is particularly good and has already been well thumbed in our department ... There is also an online version, which is easy to use and navigate ... in the short time that I have had access to Personal Injury Law, Practice and Precedents ... it has become my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure. The fact that it is only two volumes definitely helps and I actually cannot recall when I last looked at Kemp or Butterworths for anything other than a quantum report ... if I were starting a library from scratch I would probably invest in Personal Injury Law, Practice and Precedents"

PI Focus
Sophie Beesley, Barrister, Old Square Chambers
Margaret Bickford-Smith QC, Crown Office Chambers
Lynne Bradey, Partner, Wrigleys Solicitors
Ben Bradley, Barrister, Outer Temple Chambers
Richard Copnall, Barrister, Park Lane Plowden Chambers
Richard Cropper, IFO, Personal Financial Planning
Robert Dickason, Barrister, Outer Temple Chambers
John Eames, Barrister; Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Christopher Edwards, Barrister, Old Square Chambers
Gordon Exall, Barrister, Zenith Chambers
Dominic Fairclough, Partner, Russell-Cooke
Jack Ferro, Crown Office Chambers
Chris Fry, Managing Partner, Unity Law
Katherine Fudakowski, Barrister, Old Square Chambers
Clive Garner, Partner and Head of International Travel Litigation Group, Irwin Mitchell
Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC, 1 Crown Office Row
Ian Gunn, Director, Personal Financial Planning Limited
Mark Harvey, Partner and Head of Claimant Division, Hugh James
Kirsten Heaven, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
Christopher Hough, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers
Peter Houghton, Barrister, Crown Office Chambers
Martin Huseyin, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
Michael Imperato, Watkins & Gunn

Douglas James, Barrister, Crown Office Chambers
Malcolm Johnson, Senior Solicitor, Blake Lapthorn
Harry Lambert, Barrister, Crown Office Chambers
Christopher Limb, Barrister, 18 St John Street Chambers
Isabel McArdle, 1 Crown Office Row
Fran McDonald, Barrister, Old Square Chambers
John McQuater, Head of Personal Injury, Atherton Godfrey
Simon Mallett, Barrister, KBW Chambers, and Consultant, Unity Law
Jan Markland, Partner, Augustines Injury Law
Andrew Morgan, Partner, Fieldfisher, London
Daniel Neill, Barrister, Guildhall Chambers
Robin Oppenheim QC, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers
Matthew Porter-Bryant, Barrister, Guildhall Chambers
Ian Potter, Solicitor, Wrigleys Solicitors
Louise Price, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers
Adam Samuel, Barrister, Old Square Chambers
John Snell, Barrister, Guildhall Chambers
Jackie Spinks, Partner, Anthony Gold
Abigail Stamp, Barrister, Guildhall Chambers
Catriona Stirling, Barrister, Cloisters
Austin Thornton, Solicitor, Wrigleys Solicitors
Tim Wallis, Mediator and Solicitor, Trust Mediation and Expedite Resolution
Marcus Weatherby, Partner, Pattinson & Brewer
Henry Witcomb, Barrister, 1 Crown Office Row



Basic principles

The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (LR(CN)A 1945), s 1 states that: ‘Where any person suffers damage as a result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons … the damages recoverable … shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.’

In Davies v Swan Motor Company Denning LJ set out the matters to be considered in determining the extent of contributory negligence:

‘Whilst causation is the decisive factor in determining whether there should be a reduced amount payable to the plaintiff, nevertheless, the amount of reduction is such an amount as may be found by the Court to be just and equitable having regard to the plaintiff’s share of responsibility for the damage. This involves consideration not only of the causative potency of a particular factor, but also its blameworthiness. The fact of standing on the steps of a dust cart is just as potent a factor in causing damage whether the person standing there was a servant acting negligently in the course of his employment or a boy in play or a youth doing it for a lark: but the degree of blameworthiness may be very different.’

This is why the reduction in respect of contributory negligence may differ between an adult and a child in the same factual circumstances: the causative potency of their actions may be the same but their blameworthiness differs. See also the case of Ryan St George v Home Office where the Court of Appeal held that the claimant’s injury was not partly the result (within the meaning of section 1(1) of the 1945 Act) of his becoming addicted to drugs and alcohol as a teenager.

‘Big and little children’

In Gough v Thorne Lord Denning stated that: ‘A very young child cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. An older child maybe; but it depends on the circumstances. A judge should only find a child guilty of contributory negligence if he or she is of such an age as reasonably to be expected to take precautions for his or her own safety.’

In Phipps v Rochester Corporation Devlin J (as he then was) drew a distinction between ‘big children’ and ‘little children’:

‘The Law recognises a sharp distinction between children and adults, but there might well, I think, be an equally well marked distinction between big children and little children. I shall use these broad terms to divide broadly the difference between children who know what they are about and children who do not. The latter sometimes referred to in the cases as children of tender years. Not having reached the age of reason or understanding they present a special problem. When it comes to taking care of themselves, there is a greater difference between big and little children than there is between big children and adults. Adults and big children can be found guilty of contributory negligence; a little child cannot.’

A cut-off point?

Notwithstanding Lord Denning’s dictum that ‘a very young child cannot be guilty of contributory negligence’, case-law does not identify a chronological age below which a child cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. The courts have approached the issue by applying an objective test: in effect, that of the ‘reasonable child’ of the age in question. In Gough v Thorne,1 a case involving a girl of 131⁄2, Salmon LJ said in the Court of Appeal that: ‘The question as to whether the plaintiff can be said to have been guilty of contributory negligence depends on whether any ordinary child of thirteen and a half could be expected to have done more than this child did. I say “any ordinary child”. I do not mean a paragon of prudence; nor do I mean a scatterbrained child; but the ordinary girl of thirteen and a half.’

The authorities tend to support the proposition that a finding of contributory negligence is unlikely to be made against a child under the age of 10, but this cannot be regarded as a hard-and-fast rule. The critical issue is the degree of blameworthiness attaching to an objective reasonable child of the claimant’s age. Blameworthiness is a question of fact; so each case turns strongly on its own facts.

In Toropdar v D a 10-year-old child was held to be one third responsible for the injuries he suffered in a collision with a car Clarke J said (at para 13):

‘D was of an age at which he could be reasonably be [sic] expected to take precautions for his own safety. He must have appreciated, if he thought about it, the dangers involved in running out into a City street which carried traffic from behind the front of parked bus … At the same time he could not be expected to have the same ingrained approach to safety and self-preservation as an adult or even a teenager.’

And (at para 41): ‘D was only 10, an age which, in my judgment, is markedly different for present purposes, from 12 or over.’

See however Rehman v Estate of Brady where the court refused to find any contributory negligence on the part of a 7-year-old child.

In Paramasivan v Wicks the defendant was driving along a suburban road. The claimant was a 13-year-old boy, who was one of a group of about seven or eight of his own age congregating outside a shop on the defendant’s right. Suddenly he threw an ice cream at one of his friends, and then ran away across the road in front of the defendant’s vehicle. Lord Justice Hughes in the Court of Appeal said that the claimant was 13 and that was quite old enough to understand roads. It was, sadly, the claimant who created the hazard and he did it by doing something entirely unexpected and very careless. The defendant’s only fault was to fail to respond, as he should have done, in the briefest of moments. Once there was removed from the case the complaint that he was travelling too fast, the appropriate apportionment between these two parties was 75/25, or 75 per cent contributory negligence.

See also the judgment of Bean J in Cockbill v Riley where a 16-year-old dived head first into a paddling pool, suffering catastrophic injuries. Bean J was not satisfied that the defendant was in breach of his duty of care to the claimant but said that if he had found against the defendant, he would have assessed the claimant’s contributory negligence at two-thirds.

In Rainford v Lawrenson the claimant was walking with her sister to a bus stop to catch a bus to school. She was aged 14 years and 8 months, whilst her sister was 16 years and 4 months. As she crossed the road, she was knocked over by the defendant in a motor vehicle. Patterson J found that a reasonably prudent motorist having observed all that the defendant did ought to have assessed the risk that one or more of the children might step into the road or attempt to cross to the opposite dropped kerb to gain access to the other bus stop as one that was real. The defendant ought to have kept a proper lookout and could and should have taken precautionary action. In those circumstances, although the claimant was clearly aware of the Green Cross Code and was of a certain maturity, Patterson J did not think it appropriate to assess her contribution as greater than that of the driver. The proper percentage reduction inthis case to take account of the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant was 50%.
2018 Print Subscription Information
2 Volume looseleaf
4 updates per year (invoiced on publication). You will continue to receive updates until you countermand this.

10% discount for APIL Members on the main work price only, updates not discounted. To take advantage of this offer please call Customer Services on +44 (0)330 161 1234.

Update 44 October 2017

Update 44 contains amendments to Divisions A, C, D, E, F, H and J as follows:

Division A (Law and Liability) – Section A13 (Children) now covers failure to take into care, along with general updating and new case-law such as Anderson v Imrie, CICA v First Tier Tribunal and Y and the Court of Appeal’s decision in JL v Archbishop of Birmingham.

Division C (Damages) – Section C3 (Loss of Earnings) includes new case-law such as JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust along with developments on deductions for the cost of earnings and ‘lost years’ and the new discount rate to be applied to the Ogden Tables. The coverage of the magnitude of the risk in Section C12 (Provisional Damages) is expanded.

Division D (Funding) – Sections D3 (Conditional Fee Agreements) and D5A(Qualified One-Way Cost Shifting) are updated generally, including discussion of Catalano v Espley-Tylas Development Group.

Division E (Costs) – Along with general updating including new case-law in Sections E2 (File Notes), E5 (Principles of Costs Recovery), E6 (Estimates, Budgets and Caps) and E7 (Fixed Costs), Section E7 now includes a discussion of Lord Justice Jackson’s Supplemental Report on Fixed Recoverable Costs. Division F (Running the Case) – Section F18 (Alternative Dispute Resolution) incorporates new case-law such as Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates and Marsh v Ministry of Justice.

Division H (Statutory Materials) – takes account of recent changes to statutes, statutory instruments and the Civil Procedure Rules.

Division J (Quantum Facts and Figures) – Section J9 (Social Security Benefits) is updated with 2017–18 rates.

Fully updated Tables and Index are included with this update.

Have a question about this product? Please get in touch by completing the boxes below.

You May Also Like

APIL Guide to Evidence

APIL Guide to Evidence

Offers detailed and practical advice on evidential matters

APIL Guide to Costs and Funding

APIL Guide to Costs and Funding

Provides a practical overview of the changes to costs and funding

APIL Guide to Damages

APIL Guide to Damages

Substantially revised, updated and expanded to help you to construct a claim for damages