‘Mr Justice Morris dismissed the Defendant’s appeal seeking to overturn Master Rowley’s decision that a Calderbank Offer without a time limit was capable of being accepted two days into a detailed assessment hearing.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘A clinical negligence hearing is set to begin in person in the High Court today, although the judge ruled last week that it could be conducted remotely if there was no other option.’
Litigation Futures, 8th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Carillion v KPMG, the liquidators of this once substantial company sought pre-action disclosure from its former auditors. They intend to bring professional negligence proceedings for not detecting that the financial statements were unreliable. The Commercial Court refused the application. One might think that given auditors’ negligence claims in large part turn on professional judgment as to the audit procedures performed, the evidence obtained and the conclusions drawn, clear sight of the materials produced and relied on by the auditors would enable better focussed pleadings. Nonetheless the Commercial Court refused the application (which had admittedly spun into a substantial hearing with apparently more than £500,000 costs on each side). It pointed out that generally such applications were unlikely to succeed in Commercial Court cases and on the facts was not appropriate. The Judge seems to have been most impressed by the fact that Carillion had been able to articulate a detailed case in negligence already, rendering pre-action disclosure perhaps redundant and likely to be duplicated when it came to conventional disclosure.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘Since lockdown the courts (and legal representatives) have been striving to hold remote hearings where possible. This had led to a flurry of new guidance (see for example CPR section AA Guidance for Queen’s Bench Division Court Users) — and the ability to view bookshelves in the studies of judges and legal representatives.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of XX (Respondent) v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 14, on 1 April 2020, fundamentally changed the landscape in the United Kingdom for recovering the cost of surrogacy arrangements. By a majority, it determined that a person may claim damages to fund the cost of surrogacy, both commercial in a country where it is lawful and non-commercial, using her own or donor eggs.’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘In November 2019 Master Cook had struck out the secondary victim claims brought by the Claimants as a result of witnessing the heart attack and subsequent death of their father some 14 ½ months after the alleged negligent omission of the Defendant Trust. This was on the basis that the claims were bound to fail on a strict application of binding authorities including Taylor -v- A. Novo [2014] QB 150 because the shocking event in question was not proximate in time to the breach of duty. In Taylor v A. Novo the Court of Appeal had dismissed a secondary victim claim where the claimant’s mother had been injured by a falling stack of boards due to the negligence of a colleague at work and had subsequently collapsed and died at home as result of deep vein thrombosis secondary to the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother collapsing at home but not the accident itself. Her claim failed on proximity because the death of the claimant’s mother was not the relevant shocking “event”, which was the accident itself, and so the control mechanisms were not satisfied.’
St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘NHS Resolution has added one provider to its mediation panel following what it said was a “highly competitive retender” process that saw the existing three reappointed.’
Litigation Futures, 9th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In Cameron v East Coast Main Line Company Limited UKEAT/0212/19/BA,1 the EAT dealt with the question of whether length of service is a relevant consideration when asking whether a dismissal is wrongful.’
3PB, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘CPR 45.29C sets out the amount of fixed costs payable in Fast Track claims where a claim no longer continues under the RTA Protocol. Where a claim is disposed of at trial, costs of £2,655.00 are payable, alongside 20% of the damages agreed or awarded and the relevant trial advocacy fee. The protocol for EL/PL claims works in a similar way. It is trite that where the claim settles at Court on the day listed for trial, the advocacy fee is still payable.’
No. 5 Chambers, 18th May 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘Personal injury and clinical negligence practices, as with much of life, are undergoing sudden and profound changes during this Covid-19 pandemic and the current ‘lockdown’. There are obvious effects, such as the adjournment of trials ‘en masse’ and the embracing of digital platforms. Implementation of the governments’ whiplash reforms has been put back until April 2021 and the much-awaited appeal in Swift v Carpenter was delayed once again. But the economic consequences of the pandemic will also influence PI and CN litigation, in some subtle but important ways.’
No. 5 Chambers, 26th May 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘The multimillionaire founder of Matalan is suing his accountants for allegedly giving him ineffective tax avoidance advice – weeks after his retail empire received tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer support during the Covid-19 pandemic.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In this recent case, the Defendant was the professional indemnity insurer of Westoe 19 (formerly Colin Lilley Surveying Limited) referred to throughout the Judgment as “CLS”. CLS was a limited company whose business was property valuation.’
Park Square Barristers, 12th May 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The claimant had a long history of mental health difficulties arising from her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Following a period spent in hospital detention, the claimant received outpatient psychiatric treatment. During this time, her condition deteriorated and she stabbed her mother to death while experiencing a serious psychotic episode. She was charged with murder and pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. An independent investigation found that failings by the Trust in her care and treatment meant that a serious incident of some kind was foreseeable based on her behaviour in previous psychotic episodes. The Trust admitted liability to the effect that the claimant’s mother would not have been killed but for its breaches of duty in failing to respond adequately to the claimant’s deterioration in mental health.’
UKSC Blog, 11th May 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Rosalind English discusses with William Edis QC a recent Supreme Court ruling that a woman could claim against the NHS damages that covered a commercial surrogacy arrangement that would be illegal in this country. The principle is now clear, and there is no parliamentary appetite to overturn it. You can get compensation to make a commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, if negligence has deprived you of the ability of bearing your own children.’
Law Pod UK, 1st May 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘Nigel Poole QC considers the question: how will the Coronavirus pandemic affect clinical negligence litigation in England and Wales?’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 30th April 2020
‘As a consequence of the admitted negligence of the Whittington Hospital in failing to detect signs of cancer, the claimant developed cancer of the cervix for which she required chemoradiotherapy treatment that led to infertility. The claimant decided to have their own biological children by surrogacy. The experts for the parties agreed that on the balance of probabilities the claimant would achieve two live births from her 12 cryopreserved eggs. If her cryopreserved eggs do not result in 3-4 children, the claimant intends to use donor eggs. Her first choice of surrogacy is California, primarily because surrogacy is lawful and binding there. She claimed damages in respect of the expenses of four pregnancies either in California or the UK using her own eggs and, if necessary, donor eggs.’
UKSC Blog, 27th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The basic position is well-known: in principle, the costs of an inquest are recoverable in a subsequent clinical negligence claim. The leading case in this regard, also well-known, is Roach -v- Home Office [2010] QB 256.’
Ropewalk Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Defendants employed a 30 year old man “Hughes” as a kitchen porter from 15 October 1990 to 10 July 1991 at their school for girls. He was provided with accommodation on the school premises. The Defendants were not aware that Hughes had a criminal record, including offences of indecent assault on a female and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15. Had the Defendants been aware of these convictions, Hughes would not have been offered employment.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘It is no secret that Covid-19 is placing huge strain on the NHS, with ramifications across all parts of an already stretched organisation. Hospitals nationwide have been told to prepare for a tsunami of patients demanding very high levels of care. They are having to do so while facing staff shortages and worries over the supply of essential equipment. In an effort to cope, retired doctors and not-yet-fully qualified doctors have been drafted in. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that accidents will happen and errors will be made. Once all of this is over, it is a regrettable fact that litigation will ensue. Will the law step up to protect the professionals who have done so much to save lives and ready the nation for the post-corona world? This short article argues that it can and should, most obviously by recognising that desperate circumstances should be reflected in the standard of care applied to hospitals and medical professionals working in response to Covid-19.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024