The child’s claim, which has been issued in the High Court through his father, argues that had Irwin Mitchell advised him correctly, he would have received around £3m rather than the £650,000 payment he received in damages after he was violently shaken as a baby.
He is also claiming 8% interest on the £3m sum that he was hoping to receive in September 2000.
The claimant sustained ‘catastrophic’ injuries inflicted by his babysitter Theresa Bloomfield in 1995, leading to a claim against
RSA was not bound to make a payment after it recognised it was a criminal act. However, for commercial reasons, and under pressure from the National Association of Child Minders, the insurer agreed to make a payment to the claimant of £650,000 and £115,000 in costs to Irwin Mitchell.
According to the claim form, the child was advised to accept this payment as it would be difficult to enforce any substantial judgment against
As a result, a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) was discontinued after RSA’s payment, as it exceeded CICA’s maximum award of £500,000.
The claimant argues that Irwin Mitchell failed to make an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), failed to give sufficient consideration to the limitations of
Although Irwin Mitchell valued the claim at £3m in 2002, the precise value of the current claim, if successful, is to be assessed using expert evidence. The payment of £650,000 will be taken into consideration.
Regional firm Howes Percival is acting for the claimant, led by commercial litigation partner Julian Hayes. Reynolds Porter Chamberlain is defending Irwin Mitchell. The firms declined to comment on the proceedings.
More news, deals and comment on Irwin Mitchell
