There may be unfortunate moments in someone’s life where they become a witness to the scene of a traumatic event.  You could be entirely independent of the person injured or killed (as in a mere bystander) or a close member of the family of someone who is injured or killed.

These claims relate to psychiatric injury or mental illness triggered by witnessing the traumatic event or in some cases being told about a family member being involved in a traumatic event.

If you are a close family member, you need not even witness the event.

You may be able to seek compensation for the development of any psychiatric or mental injury that you suffer.

Often these claims might arise in the context of a motor vehicle crash as an example, but they are certainly not restricted to those particular events.  Another example are cases involving serious or fatal injuries to someone at work and the close family members who are left to pick up the pieces.

And what of first responders to the scene.  It is well-known that first responders like police officers, ambulance officers and firies often attend very traumatic motor vehicle crash scenes.

In recent years, the Queensland Courts have recognised that even emergency responders may have entitlements to pursue a CTP claim against any “at fault” driver for nervous shock.

As always, it is important to seek legal advice as soon as possible following any traumatic event particularly those resulting in serious or fatal injuries so you can take early steps to obtain rehabilitation.

If you have a psychiatric injury or mental illness triggered by witnessing the traumatic event or being told about a family member being involved in a traumatic event contact our experienced compensation lawyers.

Our last blog reviewed the decision of Hegarty relating to vicarious trauma for Ambulance Officers and firs responders.  But what about lawyers?

Often, in our own line of work, we are exposed to:-

• Daily communications with a range of people who are under great stress;
• Performing difficult court work;
• Viewing photographs, audio and visual material of a traumatic nature;
• Taking statements and examining sometimes thousands of pages of material about traumatic scenes or events and the subsequent injuries or sometimes even fatalities.

It is not an easy job by any means.  It is often challenging intellectually, physically and emotionally.

As lawyers, we are trained (or should be trained) at keeping emotionally distant from our client’s issues, conflicts or trauma, but we are humans after all.

So lets look at a recent case involving vicarious trauma involving the legal profession.

Kozarov v Victoria [2022] HCA 12

Ms Kozarov was a lawyer working in the Specialist Sexual Offences Unit (“SSOU”) of Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions (“OPP”).

She suffered a psychiatric injury resulting from vicarious trauma during the course of her employment.

The Court found that the State of Victoria’s (“Victoria”) duty was “not merely to provide [that] safe system of work” but to “establish, maintain and enforce such a system”.  Victoria conceded that its duty required it to do “almost everything” it could (short of forcing a rotation” to protect Ms Kozarov from the risk of psychiatric injury.

Victoria had in fact established an OH&S framework and vicarious trauma training from 2007 and a formal policy enacted by the beginning of 2008.  So, Victoria had recognised Vicarious Trauma as an occupational health and safety issues, particularly within the SSOU.

Here’s a summary of the main events raised by Ms Kozarov: –

• She commenced work with SSOU in June 2009;
• She dealt with cases of abhorrent child rape and offences of gross depravity;
• She had to consider, among other things, witness statements, video and audio recorded evidence which contained graphic and disturbing content; and
• she was also required to watch explicit child pornography;
• In 2009 – 2010, she attended a workshop on vicarious trauma. She gave examples of how her work was affecting her as a mother and spoke of being uncomfortable even leaving her children with their grandparents because of thoughts of inappropriate behaviour.
• By late 2010 Ms Kozarov was increasingly vocal at monthly staff meetings including instigating discussions on how work was affecting the daily lives of staff.
• In March 2011 Ms Kozarov attended an after hours staff meeting held without management present and during this meeting “significant concerns” were raised about how the SSOU staff were struggling and felt they did not have the support they needed.
• In April 2011 Ms Kozarov signed a staff memorandum setting out “stress related symptoms experienced by solicitors” in the SSOU.
• She was also communicating with her superiors about her workload, specific cases and her health.
• Then she resisted the allocation of the “Lim case” due to her workload, but was unsuccessful. During that case, she reported feeling unwell, dizzy.  She took sick leave for 2 weeks.
• During her leave, Ms Kozarov became aware that the complainants in the Lim case had attempted to commit suicide.

It was found, and upheld in the High Court of Australia, that Victoria breached its duty of care to Ms Kozarov in that: –

• The OH&S framework within the SSOU was “woefully inadequate” and did not include a sufficient program of rigorous training for staff and management on this issue;
• Did not provide training to assist management to identify ‘red flags’;
• When a welfare enquiry was plainly required (around end of August 2011), it did not occur and there was no offer of occupational screening;
• There was no system in place to respond to the outcome of any such screening.

 The Court found in these circumstances that had Ms Kozarov been offered an appropriate welfare enquiry, she would have taken them up on that offer and any screening by a clinician at or about August 2011 would have probably revealed Ms Kozarov work-related symptoms of PTSD.

The Court found that Ms Kozarov would have cooperated and her exposure to trauma would have been reduced.

Vicarious Trauma is a known occupational hazard for a number of professions.  Often these are:

• First responders – police, ambulance and fire fighters;
• Doctors and other health professionals (particularly nurses, psychiatrists and psychologists);
• Lawyers
• Social workers.

So what is Vicarious Trauma.  The Vicarious Trauma Institute (USA) defines it as the “indirect exposure to trauma through a first-hand account or narrative of a traumatic event”.

This is an interesting topic and there have been recent developments in this area.

It is well established that employers have a duty of care to their employees to provide a safe working environment and that duty is non-delegable.  That means that employers cannot escape liability by suggesting that someone or some other company was responsible for a certain aspect of training, safety, provision of suitable plant and equipment.

In certain settings, employers may be liable to their employees if they fail to have appropriate Vicarious Trauma training and policies to manage this high occupational risk.

However, it may not be as straightforward as it seems.

Let’s do a case review: –

Hegarty v Queensland Ambulance Service [2007] QCA 366. 

This case involved a Queensland Ambulance Officer who developed a severe PTSD and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as a consequence of his work as an ambulance officer.  There were a number of quite traumatic and distressing scenes in this Mr Hegarty was required to attend.

The case looked at the QAS program known as “Priority One” which was a program developed in May 1992 and progressively introduced.  This was in recognition of the occupational stress in emergency services personnel.

It was confirmed that an employer has a duty of care to an employee in respect of any psychiatric injury that develops which is “reasonably foreseeable”.  Mr Hegarty won his case at trial, however on Appeal in the Queensland Court of Appeal he lost his appeal.

Some of the issues that leant against the liability of QAS to Mr Hegarty in this instance were:-

• He remained proficient in his duties;
• He remained ambitious;
• His apparent physical problems and reasonable requests for a transfer

The Court found that it would have been difficult to see how a “layman” in the position of Mr Hegarty’s supervisors, even if they were trained, could have alerted his supervisors (thereby his employer) that his cluster of complaints as a “signal” that he was not coping with the stress of his job.

This was a sad outcome for Mr Hegarty and this case has led the way particularly in Queensland against the protection for vicarious trauma for our emergency services personnel.

As part of a compensation claim, lawyers need to establish that our client has suffered economic loss as a result of their injury.

To non-lawyers, calculating economic loss (or sometimes loss of earning capacity) is far more intricate than you might realise.

Often, clients will ask us – why do you need my tax records? Or why do you need income information if I only worked somewhere for a few days?

So what types of documents might we require as evidence of loss of income or earning capacity: –

• Tax records for at least 3 years before your injury;
• Medical records also assist as often you will tell your doctor about matters which cause your injury to worsen (sometimes called “aggravating factors”). This could be things like lifting, pushing, pulling, bending, walking, driving.  These might be activities that you need to perform as part of your work duties;
• Payslips;
• Employment records – employment contracts, evidence of pay-rises; overtime, leave history;
• Independent medical examination reports from a specialist for evidence of occupational limitations.

It is important to remember, that when we are considering these matters, we need to consider the impact of these injuries on you not just in the present, but until age 67 when you are expected to retire.  As we get older, your injury might not affect you the same way and this should be accounted for.  This is one of the main reasons we need medical evidence to substantiate the trajectory of someone’s permanent impairment.

Then, using this information, your lawyer can consider how your injury is likely to equate to loss of income or loss of earning capacity to your expected retirement.

If you need advice on a compensation claim, contact our experienced compensation lawyers via this link to discuss your enquiry on a no obligation basis.

Lockett McCullough Lawyers is now a proud participant of the Cancer Council Queensland’s Free Will Service for Queensland.  As proud supporters of the Cancer Council Queensland, our solicitors in our Toowong, Albany Creek and Noosa offices are prepared to help you with your estate planning needs.

Free Will Service

In order to be eligible to use our Free Will Service, you will need to include a bequest in your Will to Cancer Council Queensland and we will prepare a basis Will for you free of charge.

If your Will is likely to be complex, we may still be able to help – simply talk to us about what you require, and we will advise you of any likely costs for detailed provisions you may need.

Cancer Council Work

Cancer Council Queensland works tirelessly to improve the quality of life for people living with cancer, through research, patient care, prevention and early detection including:

• Research
  Cancer Council Queensland through their Cancer Research Grants, funds and conducts world-class research focusing on increasing survival and enhancing the quality of life.
• Patient care
  Cancer Council Queensland provides both practical and emotional support for people affected by cancer including their 13 11 20 information and support line, Peer Support Programs, Wig and Turban Service, Accommodation Lodges and Transport Services.
• Prevention
  Cancer Council Queensland empowers communities to reduce their cancer risk through initiatives such as the National SunSmart Program and Tackling Tobacco Queensland.

Please take a moment to look at the Cancer Council Queensland’s publication – Your Guide to Leaving a Gift in Your Will – when considering your gift to the Cancer Council Queensland.

Make an Appointment Today

To arrange your Free Will by our experienced estate planning solicitors please call any of our Lockett McCullough Lawyers offices directly at

• Toowong on 07 3870 8244
• Albany Creek on 07 3264 7692
• Noosa on 07 5449 7500

Our friendly staff will make an appointment with one of our experienced Estate Planning lawyers.

You can also make an appointment for any of our offices using the online form on our website.

Alternatively, feel free to contact the Cancer Council on 07 3634 5257, and they will assist you with your enquiries.

Thank you for considering this opportunity to make a difference to the lives of people who are affected – directly or indirectly – by one of the many forms of cancer.  We are excited to hear from you and assist with your estate planning needs.

A recent and intriguing case in Victoria has seen a couple barred from claiming a multimillion-dollar estate due to a small ink spot concealing their names as beneficiaries on a will.

Howard Thomas, aged 75, had a three-page will dated in 2011, but a black ink mark obscuring the names of the beneficiaries in two key clauses led the Supreme Court to rule that he intended to revoke his will.

Known to be somewhat quirky, Thomas lived in what his friends described as an “uninhabitable” residence. The will was found by a former colleagues two months after Thomas’ death in his kitchen amongst a pile of dirty papers.

While the court could find no immediate heirs or alternative beneficiaries, the nature of the black markings was seen as indicative of Thomas’s intent to annul the entire will.

The absence of such clarity can lead to unexpected outcomes in estate matters.

Thomas had initially left his estate, worth around $4.46 million, to his close friends, Richard and Deborah Nightingale.

Upon Thomas’s death in July 2021, it was found that he had no immediate family, domestic partner, or children. His only surviving kin were six cousins, one filing for intestacy.

How did the will look?

While the ink mark had almost completely covered the Nightingales’ names in two key clauses, no other alterations or marks were found on the will, leading to the conclusion that Thomas intended to revoke it.

“Assuming the markings on the Will were made by the deceased, I am satisfied that the deceased intended to revoke it” ruled Judge Steven Moore.

Further, “the markings effectively obliterate the names of the executors and the beneficiaries, on its face stripping the will of its essential elements” he said.

What happens when you die without a will?

As a result of the blot of ink marking out the beneficiaries’ names, Thomas was ruled to have died intestate, leaving his estate’s distribution to be governed by local laws and potentially forfeiting it to the state in the event that there were no other beneficiaries.

Unintentional revocation due to a subsequent marriage, misplacement of the original will, or improperly prepared wills are common reasons for intestacy.

Lawyers often find that testators store their wills in secure places but need to inform people, leading to difficulty locating them.

What can I do so this doesn’t happen to me?

While such cases are rare, they prove the importance of having an up-to-date, clearly drafted, and easily accessible will.

Make sure you renew your will regularly, particularly after any major life events like a death or divorce in the family.

Make sure your will is being stored at your solicitor’s office and that your executor knows where to find it.

Renewing your will at Lockett McCullough Lawyers

Our office has large safe custody facilities in each of our offices, which are available to our clients to use free of charge.

This ensures that our wills do not get lost or mishandled.

Speak to our experienced estate planning lawyers at Lockett McCullough Lawyers to assist you with writing or re-writing your will.

Electronic conveyancing is now the norm in Queensland with the new mandate having come into effect on Monday, 20 February 2023.

Queensland now joins Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria in having mandatory Electronic conveyancing in place.

The new mandate means that property transactions throughout Queensland will need to be completed electronically, through the use of the Electronic Lodgement Network (ELN).

From the mandate date of 20 February 2023, the majority of transactions/documents must be settled electronically – including transfers of land, mortgages, requests to record death on a title and caveats, which encompass the majority of transactions.

There are some exceptions to this, for example if the ELN does not have the required functionality to prepare or lodge a certain type of document, it will be required to be manually lodged via paper at the Titles Office.

For a full list of what is included and excluded, please click here to visit the Titles QLD Website.

Property Exchange Australia (PEXA), is the ELN that is used in Queensland. Established in 2010, PEXA operates nationally and will facilitate the hundreds of transactions that occur every day throughout Queensland.

The move towards electronic conveyancing is being driven by a desire to make the property buying and selling process more efficient and secure. By using PEXA, conveyancing practices will be able to lodge and withdraw documents, pay and receive funds, and exchange information with other parties in a secure online environment.

The Benefits of Electronic Conveyancing

One of the main benefits of electronic conveyancing is the speed and convenience it offers. Transactions can be completed faster, with less need for paper-based documents and in-person meetings. This can save time and money for all parties involved, as well as reducing the risk of errors and delays.

It also makes cross jurisdictional conveyancing much easier – for example if a client is selling a property in Queensland and simultaneously purchasing in New South Wales, these two transactions can be linked in PEXA so that the funds flow smoothly from the client’s sale through to their purchase.

Another major benefit is improved security. The ELN uses advanced encryption and authentication technologies to ensure that all transactions are secure and protected from fraud. This helps to give buyers and sellers peace of mind that their personal and financial information is safe and protected.

Both buyers and sellers have the ability to track the progress of their settlement and safely manage their account details through the use of the PEXA KEY. This is a smartphone app that allows clients to securely input their banking details, which eliminates risk of cybercrime via phishing, email interception and of course human error.

Sellers will receive their proceeds of sale the day of settlement (usually within the same hour), instead of waiting up to 3 business days for settlement monies to clear via bank cheque. Similarly, agents, council and water rates, body corporate levies etc will all be paid in clear funds on the settlement day, instead of waiting for a bank cheque to clear.

For the Buyers, the title is immediately transferred, putting the property in their name almost instantaneously with the settlement (instead of taking weeks manually via paper). Buyers will receive a Registration Confirmation Statement showing that they are the new registered owners of the property usually within half an hour of settlement being effected.

The mandate to use electronic conveyancing is a significant step forward for the property industry in Queensland. It will bring benefits for buyers, sellers, lawyers, real estate agents and banks, making the property buying and selling process quicker and more secure.

Contract updates

In response to the Electronic conveyancing mandate coming into effect, the Queensland Law Society and the Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ) have prepared updated REIQ contracts which have also been released this week.

These changes include:

1. Amendments to the current electronic settlement clauses
2. The cluse will apply if a transfer is required document under the Land Title Regulation 2022
3. The clause outlines a process for nominating an electronic lodgement network operator (ELNO) system by the seller
4. Where there was previously a right to withdraw from an electronic settlement, this option has now been removed.

We are #PEXAexperienced

Despite many law firms only subscribing to PEXA during 2020 in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic as a necessity, Lockett McCullough Lawyers first subscribed to PEXA in March 2019, long before any indication of electronic settlements becoming mandatory. We are among the most prolific users of PEXA among conveyancing practices in Queensland and proudly promote that we are not just #pexasubscribed but #pexaexperienced.

We have years of experience and have completed thousands of transactions on the platform. We completed our first ELN QLD property transaction via the PEXA platform in March 2019 and not long after that we were trying to settle as many transactions as possible through the PEXA platform.

Along with many conveyancers and solicitors around Queensland, we are genuinely excited for the mandate, and look forward to continuing to help thousands of buyers and sellers every year with their conveyancing.

If you are wanting to buy or sell and need a conveyancer, please don’t hesitate to contact our experienced conveyancing team:

Toowong – 07 3870 8244

Albany Creek – 07 3264 7692

Noosa – 07 5449 7500

It is that time of the year again – Christmas and New Year are fast approaching! It is quite common for us property lawyers and conveyancers to see the volume of contracts and settlements increase exponentially in late November and early December in anticipation of Christmas.

Quite simply, it is very convenient for buyers and sellers to use the Christmas/New Year period as an opportunity to move.

What happens if the building and pest condition, finance condition or Settlement Date fall over the Christmas / New Year period?

Do the solicitors and banks still have to work? Generally speaking – yes they do! This means that buyers and sellers need to be aware of the impact of the holiday period on the critical dates in their conveyancing contracts.

Under the standard REIQ Contracts (residential or commercial), they provide that if a critical date falls on a non-business day, then it must be done on the following business day. This means that if you are required to notify the seller whether you have finance on a Saturday, then this date will automatically hold over and fall due on the Monday (when everyone is back working).

In the most recent version of the REIQ Contract, the following applies:

“Business Day” is usually defined as meaning –

• Monday to Friday; except where there is a public holiday
• A day in the period 27 – 31 December 2019 (inclusive)

This year, the last business day of the year falls on Friday 23 December 2022 and the first business day after the shutdown period is Tuesday 3 January 2023, due to Monday 2 January 2023 being the Public Holiday for New Years Day.

This means that any conditions which fall between Saturday 24 December 2022 and 2 January 2023 will automatically default to Tuesday 3 January 2023.

From a practical point of view, all the work to prepare for settlement will need to be finalised by the banks and solicitors/conveyancers prior to Christmas to ensure a smooth Settlement in the New Year.

In saying this, not all banks will be ready to book before the Christmas holidays commence as loan documents may not all be returned or verified by the banks on time. It is crucial that you try to have your bankers and brokers escalate matters with your banks to try and avoid any settlement delays.

If it is possible, we recommend that the parties agree for contract dates to fall a couple of days into the New Year or a week into the New Year and not the first day back. That way, there is a better chance that the parties will be able to settle and the banks are able to provide funds.

It is good practice and prudent to have your solicitor confirm what version of the Contract you have signed, to ensure that the current version of the Contract is being used and that the above dates are effective.

Cooling Off Periods

Despite our advice above, the same does not apply to Cooling-Off periods. As the Cooling-Off period is imposed by statute, the period is not covered by the standard conditions in conveyancing contracts, but by legislation.

As a result, the non-public holidays between Christmas and New Year are counted in the calculation of the 5 business day cooling off period. If you are looking at signing a Contract to purchase a property over the next week, you should keep this in mind because it is likely that the cooling-off period for your Contract will expire during the time that most law firms and real estate agencies are closed.

If you think that you will need to terminate a Contract in the cooling-off period and the expiry of that period will fall in the holidays, you should contact our experienced conveyancers at Lockett McCullough Lawyers to discuss your options.

Other things to consider

• Please note that the calculation of dates above only applies to standard REIQ Contracts. It may not apply to Off The Plan Contracts or where there are special conditions to the contrary.
• For REIQ Contracts which are the 17^th edition (introduced from February 2023), there is the option under clause 6.2 for either party to extend Settlement for up to 5 business days without penalty. This may give you more time to prepare for Settlement is required.

Our Toowong, Noosa and Albany Creek offices will remain open over the Christmas and New Year period except for the Public Holidays. However, on the Public Holidays we will still be available by email should you wish for us to review a Contract of Sale for you.

With children back to school and vaccinations now available for school aged children, we are starting to see disputes arise between parents as to whether or not their children should be vaccinated. So how do you find a resolution?

If you are in dispute with the other parent about whether or not to vaccinate your child – whether it be a vaccination for COVID or any other vaccination – you should initially consult with the other parent and attempt to reach an agreement on the issue.

EQUAL SHARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Under the Family Law Act 1975, each parent is presumed to have equal shared parental responsibility in relation to the making of long term/significant issues affecting your children, including but not limited to:

1. Medical treatment
2. Education
3. Religion
4. Change of Name
5. Relocation

If you and the other parent are unable to reach an agreement in relation to the vaccination of your children, the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia has the power to make decisions about your child’s health and they will do so having regard to the paramount consideration – what is in the best interests of the child.

THE NATIONAL COVID-19 LIST

A National COVID-19 List has been created to deal with issues that have arisen as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic. If an application is made for inclusion in the COVID-19 List, your application will be listed generally within 36 hours of the date of filing it. The first Court date is before a Registrar however and therefor the court can only make orders on that day by agreement unless the matter is set down before a Judge.

Ultimately, if a Judge is required to determine the issue at a Hearing, arguments may be made to the Court as to the detrimental impacts of the vaccination. However, in our experience, unless there is some expert medical evidence supporting that there would be an adverse effect on the particular child or children of having the vaccination, given the State and Federal Government policy in support of vaccinations, the Courts have been minded to make orders in support of the child or children being vaccinated.

The recent case of Makinen & Taube [2021] FCCA 1878 saw the Federal Circuit Court of Australia order that the Father have sole parental responsibility in relation to the issue of vaccinations and for that purpose, it was intended that the child’s vaccinations occur in accordance with the National Immunisation Program or as recommended by the children’s treating medical practitioner.

If you have a dispute with your former partner about whether your children should receive the COVID-19 vaccination, you should ensure hat you have expert medical evidence supporting how the vaccination would have an adverse impact on your children.

Otherwise, without any evidence of risk to the particular child, the Courts are likely to determine that it is in a child’s best interests to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and in accordance with the National Immunisation Program.

FILING AN APPLICATION

If you would like to file an application for inclusion in the COVID-19 List to deal with a COVID-19 vaccination issue, please contact our experienced family lawyers to seek advice as to whether you will meet the criteria for an application.

Toowong Family Lawyers – (07) 3870 8244

Albany Creek Family Lawyers – (07) 3264 7692

Noosa Family Lawyers – (07) 5449 7500

Everybody assumes that personal injury lawyers are expensive.  This is true to a certain extent.  Often we have a file for 2 years or more.  When a compensation lawyer tells you that their bill could be as much as $20,000 or $30,000 it gives us a momentary cardiac arrest.

The thing to remember is these estimates are given knowing that a compensation claim will on average be managed by that compensation lawyer for no less than 12 months, and sometimes up to 2 years.  And that is only to a Compulsory Conference.

There are many variables which impact how much a compensation claim costs to run for a compensation lawyer.  These are: –

• How bad is the injury?

The more serious the injury, the bigger the medical history is that we need to obtain and review, the more medical investigations we need to undertake, the more likely the insurer on the other side is to be difficult and usually (which is very unfortunate), the less likely to settle in the short term.

• Are there any issues on liability? What this means is – is there an argument about whether or not the other person (insurer) is at fault?

If there is, there could be additional costs in investigating these issues.  These could be: –

• Making a request for information or documents from the insurer;
• Maybe there is expert evidence to be obtained from an engineer about the incident or the cause of the incident (particularly in a work injury type claim);
• How many witnesses are there? Do we need to use a private investigator to track down any of these witnesses?

These types of issues also mean that there is resistance from the insurer about resolving the matter early in the piece.

Unfortunately there is no shortcuts in a compensation claim.  However, how do you attempt to keep costs down.

Things are undoubtedly stressful when you are going through this process.  You may feel the need to ‘vent’ to your compensation lawyer.  I’m sure they’re happy to listen, but remember the clock starts ticking the minute they pick up the phone.

The more you talk to them, the more you email them or send them documents – the bigger their bill is likely to be.

However, a compensation lawyer really needs to have all the information.  It is VITAL that you give them everything relevant to the claim.  If you’re not sure, you should give it to them and let them decide if it’s relevant or not.

So how do you keep costs down?  What are the DO’s and DON’Ts for communicating with a compensation lawyer.

• If you talk to your compensation lawyer on the phone – be prepared and have your questions ready.
• If you communicate with your compensation lawyer by email – this is a good way of keeping your costs down.

However be mindful – the more emails the higher your bill.

We would suggest keeping a personal note of what information or documents you want to send to the compensation lawyer and send the compensation lawyer ONE email only with all the issues.  Perhaps save them up and send one email every fortnight or so.  If you send your compensation lawyer an email every day you are going to get charged for each email.  If you send them one email with all of those matters addressed, you will get charged for the time it takes for the compensation lawyer to read that one email.  There is no question, it will be cheaper to read just the one email.

• If you have bundles of documents – send them in one email not in multiple emails.

If you need advice on a compensation claim, contact our experienced compensation lawyers via this link to discuss your enquiry on a no obligation basis.