Blake Lapthorn, one of the leading law firms in the UK, is pleased to announce that its Motoring Offences team has acted for P who was charged by Thames Valley Police with failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis when required to do so.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 02/08/2011 -- The team was instructed soon after P was charged with the offence. P maintained that when he was taken to the police station and told that he had to provide two specimens of breath, he tried his best but was only able to provide one. He took issue with the way the officer had required him to blow into the device and argued that the officer asked him to blow into the device for too long, thus his attempts failed.

P pleaded not guilty to the charge and Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team represented him through to his trial at Banbury Magistrates' Court.

The officer who conducted the procedure was required to give evidence in the case. When he was questioned about the instructions that he had given, the officer admitted that it was his usual practice for suspects to blow for such a period that 80% of the stars, which appear on the device, became illuminated. This is far too long and is actually at odds with the instructions given by the manufacturer.

After the officer had finished giving his evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service sought a brief adjournment to speak to their device expert about what the officer had said. The expert advised that in light of the officer's evidence about the way he operated the device, there was no realistic prospect of conviction and the case was dropped. The case against P was then dismissed and the court ordered that his costs be payable from Central Funds. P left court with his good character intact as well as his entitlement to drive in place.

If found guilty, he would have lost his licence for a period of at least one year (probably far longer) and would also have had to have paid a considerable fine. Moreover, he would have been treated as a 'high risk offender', which means that when he applied for his licence to be returned to him, he would have to take a medical examination to satisfy the Driver's Medical Department at DVLA that he was not, or at least no longer, dependent on alcohol.

This case has important implications for those charged with offences of failing to provide a specimen for breath in the Oxford / Thames Valley area. The officer in question is an experienced police officer who has been involved in many prosecutions against motorists. If this is how the officer conducted the procedure in this case then there is a real risk that he has conducted other breath tests in the same, incorrect, manner. Furthermore, if the officer has been trained recently, then we are concerned that other officers operating in the Thames Valley may be making the same crucial and fundamental mistakes.

This case serves to highlight the importance of obtaining specialist advice at the very start of proceedings. Even in cases where the evidence appears to be strong at first sight, an expert eye is still needed to analyse that evidence and ensure that the prosecution case really is made out on all the facts.

Contact:
http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/motoring_offences.aspx
Daniel Baber, PR Manager
Tel: 020 7814 5489 / 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-77555.htm

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 01/08/2011 -- Blake Lapthorn, one of the leading law firms in the UK, is pleased to announce that its client Amy Smith has been awarded significant compensation from Northwick Park Hospital in respect of negligent treatment at the time of her birth.

At a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday 9 December 2010, the Court approved an agreed settlement and ordered that Amy should receive compensation totalling just under £9million. The money will be paid as a lump sum and annual payments each year for the rest of Amy's life. The monies will be held in the Court of Protection and used to help to provide accommodation, care and equipment that she will need.

Amy was born on 10 September 2002, 20 minutes after her twin sister. The Defendant Trust has admitted that as a result of its failure to deliver Amy within five minutes of her twin sister in the presences of signs of fetal distress, Amy suffered brain damage. The brain damage has manifested itself into severe dyskinetic cerebral palsy, and learning difficulties.

Amy has a poor sense of safety and requires care and attention around the clock.

Any property that she lives in will require substantial modification and she will never be able to manage her own affairs or earn her own living. She will need constant care for the rest of her life.

Amy's parents have cared for her lovingly but they brought a claim because they are concerned that they will not be able to provide the degree of care and attention that Amy will need for the rest of her life. The award will enable such care to be provided even when Amy's parents are no longer there to care for her as she is likely to live until she is at least 70.

Sue Jarvis who is a partner at Blake Lapthorn and heads the firm's Cerebral Palsy team dealing with Clinical Negligence cases in Oxford said: "This is a very good settlement for Amy because her family now have the reassurance that she will receive care for the rest of her life."

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/clinical_negligence.aspx

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-73227.htm

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 11/30/2010 -- Caron Heyes, head of Blake Lapthorn's Clinical Negligence team in London, as part of her role volunteering with AvMA , has been assisting its chief executive in preparing for giving evidence at the Public Enquiry. He gave his opening statement on 18 November, straight after 'Cure the NHS', a formidable organisation started by families of patients who died, unnecessarily and often with a lack of dignity, whilst under the care of the Trust. We will be following the inquiry closely, given AvMA's involvement in it as a core participant and more information can also be found on the AvMA and the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust Public Enquiry websites.

The Enquiry opened on Monday 8 November; eagerly anticipated by families, there was huge disappointment that they were separated from the main participants in the Enquiry and had to view evidence fed live onto a screen, rather than seeing the witnesses in person. Given the Enquiry is looking into why there were so many avoidable deaths at Stafford Hospital between 2005 and 2008, why there was a culture of denial within the Trust, and why regulators failed to pick up the very problems they were set up to identify and prevent, it is rather sad that those, who have been most closely and personally affected by the failings of the Trust, being kept at arms' length from the Enquiry itself.

By way of background, the inquiry will look at why the health care system tolerated a terrible standard of service from the trust, and even allowed it to gain foundation status, because it supposedly was providing a top tier healthcare service. Monitor, the regulator with specific responsibility for Foundation Trusts, gave the Hospital a clean bill of health and made it a Foundation Trust a month before the Healthcare Commission began its first investigation.

Previous investigations into the care at Stafford condemned conditions at the hospital, which are said to have caused hundreds of avoidable deaths. However, none looked closely at how the regulatory system failed in this case and what lesson could be learnt to avoid such a grotesque failure in the healthcare system happening again. Thus the Public Enquiry will look beyond the walls of Stafford Hospital at the way the NHS is managed and will examine millions of pages of documentation setting out testimonies from doctors, staff and patients from other parts of the country recording similar experiences.

Consequently, the key to the Enquiry will be the role of the statutory regulators. It is to be hoped that the Enquiry's recommendations should change the way safety in our hospitals is monitored and maintain the high standards of healthcare England and Wales' NHS is capable of providing.

For more information, please contact Caron Heyes, head of Blake Lapthorn's Clinical Negligence team in London, on 020 7814 6902 or email caron.heyes@bllaw.co.uk.

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/clinical_negligence.aspx

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-66384.htm

London, London -- (SBWIRE) -- 10/21/2010 -- In July 2007 Mr GK, a 33 year old father and husband, went into Harefield Hospital for routine heart surgery. He and his wife had every faith in the competency and skill of Professor Dreyfus, the heart surgeon who would be operating on GK.

On Wednesday 6 October, the General Medical Council (GMC) found that that confidence was misplaced. In the course of treating GK, Professor Dreyfus failed to obtain GK's informed consent to a change in the operation method, which meant the surgery was no longer routine and was much riskier.

Professor Dreyfus carried out surgery that he was inadequately trained and prepared for, which as a consequence increased the risk of GK not surviving and when, after the theatre team attempted to take GK out of heart bypass, and restart the heart, it became apparent that the patient had suffered major injury. However, Professor Dreyfus failed to see the patients' relatives to tell them of the outcome and complications of the surgery after he had left the theatre, but rather, after a period of time in the hospital, went home and did not speak with the family until the following afternoon, at their request. Furthermore, he did not delegate this task to any of the other doctors who had been in theatre with him so the family were given no explanation of what had happened until 2pm the following day.

The GMC found that this conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor, that it risks bringing the profession into disrepute and that it must not be repeated. Furthermore, a formal warning has been placed on Professor Dreyfus's record for five years.

Caron Heyes, head of the London Clinical Negligence at Blake Lapthorn represents the family in their civil claim against Professor Dreyfus's employers, the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust. She has specialist expertise in heart surgery medical negligence claims.

Caron said: 'It is right that it has been recognised by the GMC that what Professor Dreyfus did was wrong, and it has gone on record – that is the most important thing. The family are relieved that it is now accepted that this happened and what went wrong.

"For the family to finally have recorded as a judgement what happened is a good outcome of a long and difficult process for them. The family didn't go there for him to be struck off, unless the GMC had held that was the right thing to do, they wanted the truth to come out, and for Professor Dreyfus and his team, and other doctors in heart surgery to learn from his mistakes, and to prevent this tragedy ever happening again."

Contacts:
Daniel Baber, PR Manager at Blake Lapthorn
Tel: 020 7814 5489
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk
http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_individuals/clinical_negligence.aspx

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-59786.htm

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 10/11/2010 -- On Monday 4 October 2010, Mrs Susan Embleton will go to Winchester Court to bring this case of alleged clinical negligence arising from the medical treatment which her late husband, Mr Mervyn Embleton, known to his friends and family as 'Danny', received at Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust (SUHNT). Danny died in a hospice on 17 October 2004 suffering from brain damage known as Leukoencephalopathy, which involves widespread scarring in the brain, loss of personality and thought processes.

In 2002 Danny was diagnosed as suffering from the condition of Lymphoma. He was treated with chemotherapy with a drug called Methotrexate. This was administered into the fluid around the brain and spinal cord and intravenously and he was also given cranial irradiation to his brain.

It is alleged on behalf of Mrs Embleton that: there was an overdosage with Methotrexate; proper consent to the extra treatment was not obtained from Danny; and the doctors should have been aware this treatment combination carried a high risk of Leukoencephalopathy. Further, the effects of the brain damage very significantly impaired the quality of Danny's final months of life and he needed significant care and assistance from Mrs Embleton.

SUHNT Trust denies the claim and their doctor has stated that this is a 'test case'. They deny that excessive Methotrexate was given and they argue that no alternative treatment was available. The Trust's position is that: Leukoencephalopathy has other causes; it is not routine practice to warn patients as to the risk of it occurring; nothing more could have been done to prevent the brain damage from progressing; and the treatment given was of a high standard and the development of the complication was unavoidable.

The case is to be heard before His Honour Judge Hughes, the Presiding Judge. Mrs Embleton is represented by Mr John White, of Blake Lapthorn solicitors, and barrister, Mr Paul Dean. SUHNT is represented by Beachcrofts' solicitors and their barrister is Mr John de Bono. The trial is expected to last four days.

Mr White said: "Mrs Embleton has always believed that her husband was overdosed with the chemotherapy and that this caused his condition of brain damage which made caring for him during the last months of his life so difficult as he became more and more affected by it. The hospital is denying the claim and therefore now the Court must decide."

Daniel Baber
Public Relations Manager, Blake Lapthorn

DDI: 020 7814 5489
Mobile: 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk
http://www.bllaw.co.uk

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-59756.htm

Blake Lapthorn, one of the leading law firms in the UK, is pleased to announce that it has secured a successful claim on behalf of Edward Jukes, the widower of Mrs Shanu Jukes, against the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 08/19/2010 -- Mr and Mrs Jukes lived in Caversham, Reading. Mr Jukes worked as an Accountant and his wife ran the family home. She suffered from diabetes and heart disease, and also had a previous history of occasional psychotic and confused episodes.

In February 2006, aged 68, she began to show signs of confusion. Conscious of the previous medical history of mental health, both her GP and her husband agreed that it would be prudent for her to be admitted to Prospect Park Hospital for observation. She was admitted there on Friday 24 February 2006, and it was noted that she had other medical conditions of heart disease and diabetes. Instructions were given to carry out daily glucose monitoring tests. The hospital was fully aware of her medical history and the fact that she was on medication that carried a high risk of causing a diabetic coma if she did not eat regularly. However, the glucose monitoring tests were not regularly done and no comprehensive care plan was put in place.

Between her admission on 24 February and the evening of 3 March, Mrs Jukes stopped eating, and became increasingly confused, lethargic and drowsy. Despite these symptoms, the hospital staff failed to notice her deteriorating condition or to realise that her lack of eating would cause problems for her diabetic condition.

Mrs Jukes fell asleep on the evening of 3 March and she was left by the hospital staff to sleep through the night. On the morning of 4 March, when they were doing morning rounds, she could not be roused and it was discovered that day that she had fallen into a diabetic coma.

Mrs Jukes was removed from Prospect Park Hospital and taken to the Royal Berkshire Hospital. However, her husband was told that due to the length of time she had been in a diabetic coma the chances of being able to successfully treat her and bring her back were very low. She passed away on 18 March 2006. As a result of the delays in recognising and treating her, the diabetic coma caused brain damage and caused her to develop bronchial pneumonia from which she died.

There was an inquest into her death on 20 February 2007 and the findings of the Coroner, Mr Peter Bedford, HM Coroner for Berkshire, were unequivocal. He concluded that Mrs Jukes' death was avoidable.

Following an admission by the defendant that their actions had caused the death of Mrs Jukes, negotiations were entered into between the parties to agree the valuation of the claim, which settled for the sum of £40,000 in total and, very importantly for Mr Jukes, a letter of apology from the Chief Executive of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

Mr Jukes is pleased the case is now concluded. He is making a donation from the proceeds of the litigation to Diabetes UK in memory of the life, love and laughter of Shanu Jukes.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-53956.htm

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 06/23/2010 -- Blake Lapthorn, one of the leading law firms in the UK, is pleased to announce that on 8 June 2010 in the High Court in Bristol, His Honour Judge Rutherford approved the settlement of £75,000 damages, which included formal apologies by the hospitals, Weston and Frenchay, for the clinical negligence claim brought on behalf of Lee Nicholls.

Lee passed away on 29 March 2005 at the age of 16 as a result of a brain haemorrhage caused by an untreated aneurysm of a blood vessel. The case was brought by his mother, Ms Kate Nicholls, on behalf of Lee and also for his daughter, E, who was unborn at the time of Lee's death. The majority of the awarded damages will be kept in a fund at court for E.

In November 2004 Lee suffered from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage and was taken to Bristol Royal Infirmary where he was treated by the radiological technique of coiling. The treatment appeared to have been successful when Lee was followed up in 2005 as an outpatient and he returned to Weston College where he was studying for a National Diploma in Animal Care.

On 4 March 2005 Lee was admitted to Weston Hospital with a headache and vomiting but he was diagnosed with viral meningitis. A CT brain scan and lumbar puncture were preformed. The scan was reported by a general radiologist but not by a specialist neuroradiologist and the lumbar puncture sample was due to be tested further but was lost and therefore never reported. Nor was Lee transferred to the expert neurosurgery unit at Frenchay Hospital and he was discharged home three days later still complaining of headaches and vomiting.

On 14 March Ms Nicholls took Lee to his GP because of his headaches and vomiting and she chased up the out-patient appointment at Weston Hospital. The following day, Ms Nicholls took Lee to Frenchay Hospital for a further neurosurgical review and he had another CT brain scan. Lee was seen by the neurosurgical specialist registrar and was told that the CT scan was normal and was sent home. The registrar was asked by the consultant to follow up the outcome of the investigations at Weston Hospital but that never happened. Lee's symptoms of headaches and vomiting continued.

On 26 March he collapsed at home and was taken to Frenchay Hospital. A further CT scan was undertaken and also a lumbar puncture and this time sub-arachnoid haemorrhage was diagnosed. On 29 March Lee collapsed, having suffered a fatal re-bleed from the aneurysm, and passed away later that day.

A post mortem demonstrated that the aneurysm had recurred and that was the cause of the fatal sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. Lee's death was the subject of an investigation by HM Coroner for North Somerset, Mr Brian Whitehouse. On 15 January 2009 Mr Whitehouse gave his verdict concluding that whilst Lee had died as a result of natural causes, neglect at Weston General Hospital and Frenchay Hospital had contributed to his death. Mr Whitehouse said: "The combination of errors and omissions including the failure to transfer Lee [to the specialist unit at Frenchay Hospital], the under-estimation of his condition and the failure to carry out the right tests significantly contributed to Lee's death. If it had not been for these failures, Lee would have survived or at least his life would have been prolonged."

In spite of the Coroner's findings the claim remained contested by the hospitals and Ms Nicholls commenced civil proceedings in negligence which were transferred to the High Court. The trial was due to take place at the beginning of June 2010 and various awards for damage were sought including: Lee's pain and suffering during his final illness; on behalf of the infant, E, in recognition of the loss of her father's role in her upbringing and the loss of care and support from him; and on behalf of Ms Nicholls, for the bereavement and the effects of Lee's death on her.

Ms Nicholls said: "For me this has always been a search for justice for Lee. I still feel very angry and badly let down by the hospitals, which is why I had to insist upon receiving formal written apologies with any settlement. The hospitals have now accepted on the standard of proof in the civil Courts that Lee's life would have been saved. No one can know with any certainty how good his functioning would have been after more neurosurgery but I know that he would have been a kind and loving father if he had been given that chance. Lee's death has left a huge gap in our family and it's one which can never be filled."

John White, head of Blake Lapthorn's Clinical Negligence team, and the solicitor who acted for Ms Nicholls, said: "I was delighted that the Coroner undertook such a thorough and detailed investigation and that he was so firm in his findings. It was therefore disappointing that the hospitals contested the civil proceedings to such a late stage before finally apologies were forthcoming. Kate's focus at all times has been on finding the explanation as to what went wrong with Lee's treatment and seeking justice for him. Nothing can replace his tragic loss at such a young age but I do now hope that the whole family will be able to feel some comfort from the answers we have found."

Contact:

Daniel Baber, PR Manager
Tel: 020 7814 5489 or 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-47835.htm

Blake Lapthorn' client, Matthew Peake, has lodged an application for permission to appeal with the UK Supreme Court with reference to a speeding allegation.

London, UK -- (SBWIRE) -- 06/18/2010 -- On 24 May 2007 Mr Peake was driving a car when the speed of the vehicle was checked by a mobile unit of the Hampshire Constabulary using a laser speed measuring device. The speed of Mr Peake's vehicle was recorded in excess of the 40 mph speed limit on the A27 Southampton Road, Titchfield, Fareham, Hampshire.

Hampshire Constabulary arranged for a summons to be issued, which was dealt with at trial by Mr District Judge Gillibrand sitting at Alton Magistrates' Court on 9 September 2008. Mr Peake's defence was that there were fundamental flaws in the signing of the 40 mph speed limit in the vicinity of the enforcement site. In particular, Mr Peake claimed that there was the absence of 40 mph paired terminal signing at three junctions leading to where the mobile speed camera was situated. At the conclusion of the trial District Judge Gillibrand ruled that Mr Peake must have passed three 40 mph repeater signs before his speed was checked by the mobile unit and that, accordingly, such repeater signing could provide adequate guidance of the 40 mph speed limit despite the absence of paired terminal signing at the three junctions. Mr Peake was sentenced to a fine of £50, his driving licence was endorsed with three penalty points and he was ordered to make a contribution to prosecution costs of £350 and to pay the victim surcharge of £15.

Mr Peake lodged an appeal to the High Court of Justice, which ruled against him in a judgment that was delivered on 19 February 2010. However, on the application of Mr Peake, the High Court of Justice by order dated 20 April 2010 certified the point of law involved in the case to be one of general public importance. The question of law is posed in the terms of where a defendant motorist is facing an allegation that he drove a motor vehicle on a road where no such system of street or carriageway lighting as is mentioned in Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is provided on the road, at a speed exceeding the limit of speed for that road, what is the nature and extent of the speed limit signing that the prosecution must prove was in place at the time of the alleged offence to avoid the operation of Section 85(4) of that Act?

Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 imposes on the courts a statutory prohibition of conviction where the road is not a restricted road by virtue of street lighting and where adequate guidance of the applicable speed limit is not given to drivers. A body of case law dating back as far as 1967 appeared to establish precedent that the statutory prohibition on conviction would operate if the speed limit was not signed in strict accordance with the Secretary of State's Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions. Accordingly, the case law appeared to establish that if required paired terminal signing and / or required regular repeater signing was not in place, the statutory prohibition on conviction would come into operation.

The High Court of Justice did not follow the previous case law and decided to apply a purposive approach to statutory interpretation. The High Court ruled that the purpose of Section 85 is to ensure that as far as possible motorists drive at safe speeds, that they are enabled to do so by adequate guidance and that they should only be penalised if such guidance is available on the road on which the limit is exceeded. As the section of road leading to the speed camera had three repeater signs in place this was deemed to be adequate guidance.

The ruling of the High Court of Justice in Mr Peake's case does not sit easily with a judgment of a differently constituted High Court of Justice thirteen days later where the High Court ruled that the absence of illuminated terminal signing on the route to the enforcement site triggered the application of the statutory prohibition on conviction, despite the existence of repeater signing of the 40 mph speed limit.

Mr Peake hopes that if he is granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court this will give it an opportunity to deliver a comprehensive ruling on circumstances in which the courts must apply the statutory prohibition on conviction enshrined in Section 85(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Contacts
Daniel Baber, PR Manager
Tel: 020 7814 5489 / 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk
http://www.bllaw.co.uk/
Blake Lapthorn Driving Offences Team

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-47824.htm

Blake Lapthorn, one of the leading law firms in the UK, has partnered with JSA, one of the foremost providers of specialised accountancy solutions to the global freelance market, to provide legal services to its freelance contractors.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 05/06/2010 -- Blake Lapthorn's Private Client Services group has agreed with JSA to offer personal legal advice as part of JSA's benefit scheme to its freelance contractors at both fixed and discounted rates. Blake Lapthorn will offer JSA's customers, through a new internet-based scheme, full access to a selection of its legal services at preferential rates in the areas of Wills and Probate, Family, Residential Property, Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence and Motoring Offences.

At the end of 2009 JSA launched a portfolio of wide-ranging benefits to its customers, which ran across all of its partner companies. As part of this, the company was looking for a provider who was able to offer its employee base reliable and accurate legal advice, primarily based around a standard offering of legal services. Having agreed commercial terms for the partnership, JSA has been actively promoting the services to its customers and employee base, which comprises well in excess of 3,000 employees in the UK.

The project, entitled 'JSA Your Benefits with Blake Lapthorn', comprises a legal services microsite that has been developed exclusively by Blake Lapthorn for JSA customers and staff. The microsite provides almost everything needed to help manage JSA's customers' personal legal affairs including regular news and updates and information sheets. Blake Lapthorn also offers direct access to a lawyer who will co-ordinate all enquiries and savings of up to 50% on the cost of those legal services.

JSA's Finance Director, Andy Yates, commented: "We are delighted to announce this partnership with Blake Lapthorn, which will see legal services offered to our workforce at preferential rates. At a time when the economy is going through such an uncertain period, these discounted services will be a welcome relief for those who need them."

Rachel Brooks, Head of the Private Client Services group at Blake Lapthorn, said: "As the legal profession approaches a period of significant change, we are very pleased to be able to offer these services to JSA customers and employees in a way that has not been done before. We very much look forward to working with the JSA team and building what we hope will be a long-lasting relationship."

Notes to editors

Contacts

Daniel Baber, PR Manager
Tel: 020 7814 5489 / 07771 930 084
Email: daniel.baber@bllaw.co.uk
http://www.bllaw.co.uk

Lydia Drukarz, PR Consultant
Tel: 01923 257 3336
Email: lydiad@jsagroup.co.uk
http://www.jsagroup.co.uk

JSA - background information

JSA is one of the foremost providers of specialised accountancy solutions to the global freelance market. Established in 1989, JSA works globally, nationally, regionally and locally with corporate offices in London and Mumbai.

As one of the four largest contractors accountancy firms in the UK, JSA has earned its reputation as an industry leader by consistently delivering premium quality in the full range of freelance and contractor trading and accounting solutions; limited company, umbrella company, payroll, and business advisory services.

JSA's purpose is to create 100% client satisfaction by offering compliant, trustworthy solutions and specialised expertise which demonstrates a sense of caring, community and dedication.

Blake Lapthorn - background information

Blake Lapthorn is one of the UK's leading full-service law firms, providing the full range of legal services needed by companies and organisations, with an industry-focused approach through its specialist sector groups. The firm also provides key services for individuals and families. More than 350 lawyers and other specialists deliver these services, based across key locations in London and Southern England. Combining specialist legal expertise with a strong commercial approach, the firm delivers results for its clients, whether they are multinational companies, owner-managed businesses, Government agencies, charities or private individuals.

The firm's size and locations give it the breadth of experience and the depth of resources to provide the highest levels of service and the capacity to handle large and complex projects. As well as the full range of corporate and commercial services, the firm's industry sector groups draw together leading advisers from different legal disciplines, to provide tailored advice built on a thorough understanding of the issues faced by a particular sector.

Voted in the Top 25 of UK private client law firms by Private Client Practitioner magazine in 2010, Blake Lapthorn's Private Client Services group is made up of over 50 solicitors and legal advisers. All are specialists in their own area of law and dedicated to providing a caring, high quality service.

Blake Lapthorn also has strong international links through its affiliation with TAGLaw, a global alliance of independent law firms; Computer Law Association, Euro IT Counsel; INSOL and the international network of aviation law firms, L2B Aviation. The firm also has an experienced French team that is able to provide services regarding French estates, divorce issues involving French real estate assets and the preparation of French Wills.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-43751.htm

The unprecedented situation in the UK following the impact of volcanic activity in Iceland gives rise to the pertinent question as to what rights consumers have to a refund, alternative flights, help and assistance and compensation for delay.

Southampton, Hampshire -- (SBWIRE) -- 04/31/2010 -- Most travel claim cases will be resolved with airlines and tour operators directly without the need for assistance from a solicitor, especially where the sums in dispute are likely to fall into the small claims track for cases brought in the UK courts. Here are some useful tips for those who are found stranded:

Flights To/From EU Countries:

Those flying between EU member states will be protected by the denied boarding regulations (Regulation (EC) 261/2004). Due to the financial impact the drama of the volcanic ash will have on airlines, many will argue that EU consumer protection was not envisaged for this level of disruption. Nevertheless, where flights are delayed for a set number of hours, customers are entitled to:

- Re-routing or a refund where the delay is over 5 hours. The airline must cover the cost of any transfers to alternative airports

- Where a flight is delayed for over 2 hours, customers are entitled to free meals, refreshments, hotel accommodation if appropriate and access to a telephone or other communication such as email or fax. This protection is only likely to apply to those who were already at the airport when the situation arose, hence the advice not to travel to the airport before contacting your airline.

The usual rules for financial compensation are unlikely to apply given the "extraordinary" nature of the volcanic ash saga.

Flights From/To Non-EU Countries:

The same protection for denied boarding or cancellation does not apply where the airline is not EU based or the flight is not to/from an EU country. Here the airline's terms and conditions, together with provisions under the Montreal Convention, will apply.

Most airlines will offer a refund or arrange alternative flights or transport under their terms and conditions. Again, it is important to carefully scrutinise your terms and conditions of carriage and check with the airline what rights you have in the event of cancellation or delay.

The Montreal Convention will only apply if the airline is based in a signatory State or the flight is to/from signatory States. Most airlines' terms and conditions will exclude compensation for losses flowing from the cancellation or delay. Here the provisions under the Montreal Convention may be useful but this is subject to a limit of about £3000.00.

Package Holidays:
Under the Package Travel Regulations, tour operators have a duty to ensure alternative arrangements are made for those whose holidays are delayed due to flight cancellation. Assistance must also be provided to those who are already in resort under the Regulations.

Similar provisions apply in other EU States for those who have booked a "package holiday" with a non-UK based tour operator.

Travel Insurance Protection:

Many travel insurance policies will offer additional protection to those stranded and experiencing delayed departure or those who are yet to depart. The advice here is that consumers should check their individual policy wording and, if in doubt as to the extent of cover, check with their travel insurer.

Not all policies will cover volcanic activity or eruptions and the impact this has on travel arrangements. Where travel insurance does not cover volcanic activity, consumers will need to rely on the other means of legal protection set out above.

Travel policies taken out since the volcanic activity and related disruption will not offer any cover for delayed departure or cancellation which result directly from the volcanic ash situation.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-43216.htm

On Monday 15 March at the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Ouseley approved the award in respect of Mrs Grannia East's clinical negligence claim against the MoD valued at £3.45 million.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/17/2010 -- The case arises from Mrs East's condition of severe brain damage resulting from failures in care at the Royal Hospital Haslar, near Portsmouth, formerly run by the MoD, when she was undergoing treatment there for gallstones in 2001.

Mrs East, who is now aged 44 years, will receive an award with a capitalised value of £3.45 million, which will be paid to her both in a lump sum and annual payments to meet the costs of caring for her. She has widespread defects of memory and concentration and is dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. She has been totally reliant upon her husband, Mr Shawn East, to look after her and provide the day-to-day care and support she needs.

Mr East said: "We have had a very hard fight getting compensation for Grannia but we have a magnificent legal team who fought brilliantly for us all the way. In 2007, the case went to the High Court and we won but then the MoD appealed and in July 2008 we won in the Court of Appeal. I am very pleased that the case has now settled before we had to go through another trial. It means that we can now get on and adapt a property for Grannia that is a suitable place to care for her."

John White, the family's solicitor said: "This is a landmark case and important points of clinical negligence law were decided in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Grannia has suffered terrible injuries with tragic effects on her life. After the battles establishing liability I am delighted that we have achieved an excellent award, which will meet Grannia's complex care, accommodation and therapeutic needs."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-40435.htm

Matthew Tew consulted Barry Culshaw of the Motoring Offences Team with regard to a count of speeding. Mr Tew had contravened a 30 mph speed limit in the Eastleigh area of Southampton by travelling at 41 mph. Hampshire Constabulary prosecuted Mr Tew for the offence and the matter came before the Justices at New Forest Magistrates Court on 28 January 2010.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/17/2010 -- Mr Tew was liable to a period of disqualification under the "totting up" provisions as he already had 9 penalty points on his driving licence and due to a prior period of disqualification over the relevant 3 year period he was liable to be disqualified by the Justices for a minimum period of 12 months. The Justices proceeded to impose a fine for the offence and did impose a 12 month period of disqualification from driving.

Barry Culshaw advised Mr Tew to lodge an immediate appeal against sentence and the Justices saw fit to suspend the period of disqualification pending the outcome of the appeal. In the meantime, Barry Culshaw advised Mr Tew to voluntarily attend a full days Road Risk and Behaviour Training Course. This course was satisfactorily completed on 12 February 2010.

Mr Tew's appeal against sentence came before His Honour Judge Leigh QC and two Justices sitting at the Southampton Crown Court on 12 March 2010. The thrust of the appeal was that the voluntary and successful attendance at such a Road Risk and Behaviour Training Course could amount to a mitigating circumstance which is not excluded by virtue of section 35(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and that, despite Mr Tew not having an exceptional hardship argument, the court was entitled to mitigate the normal consequences of a minimum period of disqualification of 12 months. In upholding Barry Culshaw's submissions and in thanking Mr Culshaw for the "fluent and excellent way" in which the submissions were made His Honour Judge Leigh in delivering the Judgment of the court reduced the period of disqualification from 12 months to 3 months and confirmed that the course was capable of amounting to a mitigating circumstance not excluded by the legislation.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-40445.htm

On Thursday 28 January 2010, HM Coroner for Bournemouth, Poole and Eastern Dorset District, Mr Payne, gave his verdict on the death of Mrs Pamela Emment who died aged 69 years.

London, England -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/17/2010 -- Mrs Emment was admitted to Poole Hospital on 18 May 2009 for investigations to determine the cause of her iron deficiency anaemia. On 19 May she had a gastroscopy which identified the possibility of a small gastric varix (dilated blood vessel) in her stomach. Further tests identified liver problems causing increased pressure on the veins around Mrs Emment's liver and a build up of fluid in the abdomen.

She was referred to one of the gastroenterologists at the hospital with a special interest in liver problems and he ordered further tests. Unfortunately however there was a breakdown in communication and Mrs Emment was placed as an emergency on the first available list for further endoscopy. The surgeon performing that list was unaware of the result of the previous gastroscopy and the medical history and recent diagnosis of liver disease.

On 26 May 2009 Mrs Emment underwent the further gastroscopy. The surgeon took a biopsy of the gastric varix and she sustained massive bleeding. Mrs Emment required emergency resuscitation and attempts were made to stop the bleeding by insertion of a special tube into her stomach to press on the site of the biopsy. She was transferred urgently to the Royal Free Hospital in London further procedures to seal the varix.

Unfortunately, Mrs Emment's condition deteriorated over the next few days. She started to develop lung problems and went in to multi-organ failure. In spite of intensive treatment at the hospital in London, she died on 4 June 2009.

The Coroner took the evidence and identified significant failings in communication and documentation by Poole Hospital. The surgeon performing the gastroscopy on the 26 May did not review Mrs Emment's medical records before undertaking the procedure or clarify the order of tests required when he did not understand the significance of the instructions on the endoscopy referral form. He issued a narrative verdict.

The Coroner has also issued a letter under Rule 43 and formally requested clarification from Poole Hospital as to the steps they will now take to ensure that a similar incident does not leave another family grieving for the loss of a loved family member.

John White, solicitor from Blake Lapthorn, represented the family at the Inquest hearing. He said that the enquiry had uncovered a series of catastrophic failures in communication at Poole Hospital which caused this disaster.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-40446.htm