‘A prosecution against the owners of the UK’s largest power station has been dropped by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it has been announced.’
BBC News, 23rd February 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘AXX (A protected party by his litigation friend XRE) v. Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463 is the first reported case in the High Court (KBD) concerning the ‘new’ CPR Practice Direction 1A which requires the court to take all proportionate measures to address any impediment to a party’s participation in proceedings caused by their ‘vulnerability’. Master McCloud granted an application made on behalf of the Claimant (who was a protected party due to a psychotic condition which had arisen after his accident) for a trial of causation as a preliminary issue on the basis that, if successful at that stage, the Claimant could seek interim funding for treatment to address his psychiatric symptoms and allow him to participate fully in the subsequent quantum trial. The Master also refused an application from the Defendant for an ‘unless’ order (whereby the claim would be stayed unless the Claimant cooperated with examinations to be performed by the Defendant’s instructed medical experts) because of concerns about the Claimant’s capacity to consent to examination. This decision illustrates the important role that PD1A has in shaping case management decisions to protect the interests of parties with vulnerabilities.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Professional experience and the reported cases (considered below) suggest issues of breach, causation and contributory negligence are invariably intertwined. The advisor’s role is to carefully unpick the strands. Whilst there is a factual and legal overlap, the issues need to be considered separately on their individual merits.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘In this post Rebecca Khan, a Legal Support Assistant at Matrix Chambers, comments on the case of Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 – handed down on the 18th of June 2021. This appeal raised important questions about the application of the scope of duty principle in clinical negligence cases. The judgment is handed down together with the court’s judgment in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20.’
UKSC Blog, 4th January 2023
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Does a local planning authority owe a duty of care to an applicant for planning permission? Simon Ricketts analyses a recent High Court ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th November 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The diagnosis and treatment of suspected strokes and transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) is a very broad topic. Depending on the context, determination of the issue of breach of duty is likely to involve consideration of relevant NICE guidance and individual NHS Trust guidelines. It is invariably fact-sensitive and involves detailed expert evidence. Even when breach of duty is not in issue and/or is established in evidence, causation is likely to be contentious in all but the clearest of cases due to the absence of definitive evidence or trial data regarding the efficacy of anticoagulant treatment.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 11th October 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Tom Bourne-Arton reviews the relatively recent case of Richins v Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 847 (QB) in which HHJ Kelly had to consider, amongst other matters, whether it was appropriate to apply “Claimant benevolence” otherwise known as “Keefe benevolence” when determining causation.’
Farrar's Building, 4th May 2022
Source: www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk
‘As lawyers representing parties in clinical negligence cases, we will often encounter scenarios where the injured party has been involved in a road traffic accident or an accident at work and subsequently seeks medical assistance for the purpose of treating their injuries. As a result of negligent medical treatment, the Claimant’s injuries are aggravated, or further injury is suffered. In such circumstances, there may be multiple potential Defendants to any legal claim.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 17th February 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘When you call for an ambulance, you generally want it now. To you, it’s an emergency and an emergency requires an immediate response.
The reality of a modern NHS generally and Ambulance Trusts specifically mean that such an expectation is rarely met. Thankfully, in the vast majority of cases the timing of the arrival of the paramedic is of no real consequence. More important to outcome can be what happens once the paramedic alights from the ambulance and attends to the patient, how long it takes from that point until admission to A&E or the unit to which the patient is taken for necessary specialist care. These latter issues can all have a bearing on the timing, the quality and the nature of care received by the patient.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog , 3rd February 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘On 20 January 2022, Hugh Southey QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) handed down judgment in the case of Dalchow v St George’s University NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 100 (QB). The decision gives rise to some interesting considerations on causation and the judicial assessment of expert evidence, and provides a useful illustration of the application of Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR P324.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog , 25th January 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Former Flat jockey Freddy Tylicki’s £6m negligence claim against fellow rider Graham Gibbons has begun in the High Court.’
BBC News, 29th November 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The claim related to an opportunity to develop a Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) dealership in Wolverhampton (the Wolverhampton Opportunity), which the claimants alleged was lost due to the negligence of the defendant solicitors.’
Hailsham Chambers, 8th October 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘This blog deals with the causation aspects of Thorley v Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 2604 (QB). Philip Godfrey dealt with the factual background and breach of duty aspects of this case in his recent blog. In short, Soole J preferred the evidence of the Defendant’s expert and dismissed the claim on that basis. In so doing, however, he concluded that as a matter of law the material contribution approach to causation does not apply when there is a single tortfeasor and an indivisible injury.
Soole J is surely right to acknowledge that this is an issue “ripe for authoritative review” (see [151]), but it is suggested that his reasons for reaching the above conclusion are somewhat questionable.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 26th October 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘This case considered the interplay between hospital guidelines and breach of duty in the clinical negligence setting.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 12th October 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Leading London law firm Withers has fought off a £12m claim on the basis of causation after the High Court ruled that it gave negligent advice to a property developer.
However, His Honour Judge Pelling QC, sitting as a High Court judge, found that the firm gave negligent advice on a settlement agreement, leading to an award of £270,000 in damages.’
Legal Futures, 1st October 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘James Thompson and Suzanne El-Safty consider the importance of underwriting evidence for insurers attempting policy avoidance, in the context of Zurich Insurance plc v Niramax Group Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 590 (“the Niramax case”) and Jones v Zurich Insurance plc [2021] EWHC 1320 (Comm) (“the Jones case”).’
Mills & Reeve, 30th July 2021
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘In Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Ms Meadows’ appeal, finding that there was no principled basis for excluding a clinical negligence claim from the ambit of the ‘scope of duty principle’ in the tort of negligence. The judgment can be read here. This short blog looks at the majority’s reasoning.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 24th June 20201
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In Khan v. Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court has revisited the principles to be applied in “wrongful birth” claims: claims for the cost of bringing up a disabled child who would not have been born but for a doctor’s negligent medical advice/treatment. However, the judgment has implications beyond the world of clinical negligence litigation. The Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the components or ingredients of the tort negligence more generally. In particular, the Court has affirmed the importance of the “scope of duty” principle: a principle which limits the recoverability of damages wherever it applies. In particular, it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish that – with competent advice – they would have made a different decision about their treatment or care. They must also demonstrate that the particular harm that they have suffered fell within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th June 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In GMP v Aston we receive a helpful reminder of the approach to be applied in cases where there are multiple protected disclosures spanning a significant period and allegations of multiple detriments involving multiple perpetrators and multiple victims. The case also involves an alleged detriment consisting of evidence given in other tribunal proceedings which was subject to judicial proceedings immunity (JPI) and deals with the issue of whether evidence which is covered by JPI can amount to a detriment. Finally, where the issue of JPI had not been raised before the first instance Tribunal, the Appeal Tribunal considered whether it had to deal with this newly argued point (i.e. whether it was mandatory) or whether it had a discretion to consider the newly argued point (i.e. whether it was discretionary). The considerations when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion are also set out.’
3PB, 10th June 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘A claimant who receives a defence is not required to take any further step in relation to the statements of case. It can consider the pleadings closed and seek to move on to directions, disclosure, evidence and ultimately trial. Nevertheless, sometimes the claimant will want to react to or deal with the allegations made in the defence.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 9th June 2021
© Inner Temple Library 2025