News

Following Peacock Johnston’s nomination as finalists in the ‘Litigation Firm of the Year’ category for the Law Awards of Scotland 2011, the firm is delighted to announce their joint award as ‘Litigation Firm of the Year‘ for 2011.  Partners Andrew Pollock and Ken Waddell accepted the award on behalf of the firm, with the competition judges commenting on Peacock Johnston’s “work with a conscience” and “overall excellent client satisfaction.”

Litigation Firm of the Year

Peacock Johnston are pleased to announce their nomination, alongside some of Scotland’s largest litigation firms, as finalists in the ‘Litigation Firm of the Year’ category for the Law Awards of Scotland 2011.  Our nomination is a first from the Law Awards of Scotland, and to be selected as finalists for such a prestigious award demonstrates how far we have come in such a short space of time.  The firm is the smallest of the six firms to be nominated, with the winner set to be announced on 8^th September.

Medical Law Team

Two members of our Medical Law team, Andrew Pollock and Laura Ceresa, have recently acted as Course Leaders and Tutors in Medical Law at Edinburgh University’s Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice.

Ken Waddell

One of our partners, Ken Waddell, has recently been elected President of the Glasgow Bar Association, which is considered to be the voice of court practitioners in Glasgow and across the West of Scotland.

Ken has a tough job ahead of him given the recent government budget cuts to Legal Aid solicitors, and we wish him the best of luck.

Trainee Solicitor

Peacock Johnston is set to continue expanding, and we look forward to our second trainee solicitor in as many years. Clare Scott has a particular interest in Medical Law, following a lengthy and varied career in Nursing. She seems to have made a smooth transition from medicine to law, after topping her class in Medical Law at Edinburgh University.

Robert Johnston

Peacock Johnston announced the retirement of the remaining founding Partner of Peacock Johnston, Robert Johnston, on 1st July.

Throughout his career, Robert developed and maintained a reputation as a specialist in commercial and domestic conveyancing, as well as private client work – a gift which was recognised when he was offered his first partnership in 1974.

In 1981, he set up Peacock Johnston with the late Jim Peacock, with the intention of providing high quality, specialist advice at a modest price. It is our commitment to continue their mission long into the future. We wish Robert a long, happy and contented retirement.

After being created in a dormitory at Harvard University on 4th February 2004, Facebook has grown to the point where it has over 600 million active users, and other social networking sites are following suit. Of course, given the worldwide access to personal information and conversations (should you fail to adjust your privacy settings) it seems obvious that any individual who values their employment should avoid making any unhelpful reference to their work-life, or their employer for that matter.

However, there appears to be a growing trend of individuals who find themselves unable to contain themselves online, from the Virgin Airlines cabin crew who referred to their passengers as, ‘chavs,’ to a Blackpool Labour Councillor referring to his own constituents as, ‘donkey-botherers.’ It must be stated that, when it comes to discussing work, the rules of the workplace apply equally to the World Wide Web: do not discuss confidential matters with inappropriate persons; and do not verbally abuse your boss. If you have nothing nice to say, it is often best to say nothing at all.

Expert immunity, where a witness is immune from a civil action based upon expert evidence that they provide for Court proceedings, has existed in Scotland for over a century. In the case of Watson v McEwan (1905), a doctor was held not to be liable for a breaching confidentiality in detailing a patient’s medical history in the witness box and in a witness statement. This was confirmed in the more recent case of Karling v Purdue (2004), where it was held that an expert witness held absolute immunity from civil suit in the capacity as expert witness, no matter how incompetently their task was performed. As yet, the Scottish take on expert immunity has not been challenged, but the recent case of Jones v Kaney (2011) in England puts the position under threat.

Here, a majority decision in the Supreme Court held that experts were no longer entitled to the same level of immunity as previously thought. Ms Kaney was acting as the instructed medical expert for Mr Jones after he was injured in a road traffic accident. In her capacity as expert, she signed a joint statement with the insurer’s expert which diverged from her original medical opinion, and Mr Jones accordingly felt compelled to settle his case for a reduced award.

Mr Jones subsequently raised an action against Ms Kaney, who admitted that she did not agree with the joint statement, but felt pressured to sign the document. The Supreme Court concluded that an expert witness owed a general duty of care to both the Court and the client. This duty extended to acting with a reasonable level of probity and competence.

Although this decision is not yet to be applied in the Scottish Courts, it is an area to be watched; and, for the avoidance of doubt, expert witnesses should continue to exercise a reasonable duty of care when imparting their opinion, in both the witness box and written statements. Finally, always read a document fully before giving your signature!

The Damages (Scotland) Bill 2011 was passed by Parliament on 3rd March 2011, and received Royal Assent on 7th April. Peacock Johnston have since been informed by the Scottish Government’s Law Reform Division that the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 7th July.

The Act, which will apply to any action raised after 7th July 2011, will make major changes to the provision of damages in many wrongful death claims. There will be a simplified method of assessing compensation for loss of financial support suffered by the surviving family. This will now be calculated on the basis of 75% of the deceased’s net income, and will result in a fairer and more generous approach being taken by the Courts in cases involving the death of a family ‘breadwinner’.

Furthermore, the Act recognises the change in family dynamics that has taken place over previous years. Although only direct relatives are entitled to make a claim for the pain and suffering of losing a loved one, this has been extended to include half-blood relatives, such a step-siblings. Also, with regard to loss of support, someone accepted by the deceased as a grandchild will now become entitled to compensation. This is especially relevant given the current economic climate and the need to rely on extended families for childcare.