‘The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has not yet ruled out the introduction of fixed recoverable costs (FRC) for low-value clinical negligence claims in April – despite no rules being published.’
Legal Futures, 15th February 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A woman who described the time in her life after a pelvic mesh implant as “soul destroying” said proposed government compensation was “disappointingly low”.’
BBC News, 15th February 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A woman who lost an arm and leg after being run over by two Tube trains has issued a legal claim at the High Court against Transport for London (TfL).’
BBC News, 7th February 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has launched a call for evidence on the whiplash tariff to inform the statutory review of the figures that it is required to carry out.’
Legal Futures, 7th February 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Families of children left disabled by an epilepsy drug and women injured by pelvic mesh implants should be given urgent financial help, England’s patient safety commissioner has said.’
BBC News, 7th February 2024
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has ruled out claims for physicatric harm suffered by family members witnessing death or serious injury as a result of medical negligence. Rosalind English talks to Judith Rogerson of 1 Crown Office Row about the implication of this ruling.’
Law Pod UK, 1st February 2024
Source: audioboom.com
‘The mother of a nine-year-old girl who became the first person in the UK to have air pollution cited on their death certificate has launched a high court claim against the government.’
The Guardian, 25th January 2024
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In this case, Catherine McAndrew, a Senior Associate in the Insurance and Reinsurance team at CMS, comments on the Supreme Court’s decision in TUI Limited v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48, which was handed down on 29 November 2023.’
UKSC Blog, 26th January 2024
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Lord Briggs, Liability for Mental Injury, Chichester University Lecture.’
Supreme Court, 19th January 2024
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘If you’ve ever felt perplexed by the concept of material contribution or its treatment of divisible and indivisible injuries, you’re not alone.’
Mills & Reeve, 18th January 2024
Source: www.mills-reeve.com
‘The daughter of murdered MP Sir David Amess is suing the police and government for failing to stop his death.’
The Independent, 17th January 2024
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, the Supreme Court had to decide whether (and, if so, when) an individual can make a claim for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing the death or other horrifying event of a close relative as a result of earlier clinical negligence. In dismissing the three conjoined appeals, a majority of the Supreme Court held that, while doctors owe a duty of care to protect the health of their patients, they do not owe a duty of care to members of the patient’s close family to protect them against the risk of illness from the experience of witnessing the death or medical crisis of their relative from a condition which the doctor has negligently failed to diagnose or treat.’
Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 11th January 2024
‘An insurer was not entitled to hold back evidence that a claimant was a friend of the owner of the vehicle he collided with, hoping the claimant would lie about it in his witness statement, the High Court has held.’
Legal Futures, 8th January 2024
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Andrew Roy KC considers the implications of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision CDE v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 1330 in respect of the vexed and important issue of material contribution.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 22nd November 2023
Source: clinicalnegligence.blog
‘In Mathieu v Hinds [2022] EWHC 924, [2022] All ER (D) 66 (Apr) the High Court (Hill J) considered the vexed question of the appropriate method of assessing future loss of earnings where the loss is subject to multiple uncertain contingencies. The case reflects a developing trend of moving away from broad-brush lump-sum ‘Blamire awards’ towards assessment on the more conventional multiplier/multiplicand approach (the multiplier approach).’
3 Hare Court, 10th November 2023
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘Henry Charles looks at a recent decision from the Court of Appeal which settles the longstanding question of whether material contribution applies to cases of divisible injury.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 28th November 2023
Source: clinicalnegligence.blog
‘The central question facing the Supreme Court in Griffiths v TUI UK Limited [2023] UKSC 48 concerned the extent to which a party must put criticisms of a witness’ evidence to him in cross-examination. The Supreme Court made clear that the general rule in civil cases is that a party is required to challenge by cross-examination the evidence of any witness (whether factual or expert) if he wishes to submit that the evidence should not be accepted by the court. Importantly, this rule is not confined to allegations that the witness is dishonest. The rule is, however, a flexible one; it will not always be necessary for every point of challenge to be put to a witness, and in some cases (such as where evidence is “manifestly incredible”) it may not apply at all. Although the Supreme Court gave a conceptually clear answer to the question before it, difficult practical issues are likely to continue to arise for trial advocates who wish to challenge factual or expert witness evidence.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd January 2024
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court today handed down its long-awaited judgment in the case of Griffths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48. It is a thorough, important, and helpful statement (or, depending on one’s view, re-statement) of the laws and rules of evidence, what must be put to a witness before that evidence can be challenged in closing submissions, and the limits on any Judge’s power to dismiss relevant evidence which has not been challenged (or challenged sufficiently) at trial. At the heart of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of what it means for the parties to have a fair trial.’
St John's Chambers, 29th November 2023
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024