Lord Briggs, Liability for Mental Injury – Supreme Court
‘Lord Briggs, Liability for Mental Injury, Chichester University Lecture.’
Supreme Court, 19th January 2024
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Category: personal injuries
A material difference in material contribution claims – Mills & Reeve
‘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
Daughter of murdered MP David Amess taking legal action against police and Home Office – The Independent
‘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
We all die: what are doctors’ duties to shield families from the sight of death? – Mental Capacity Law and Policy
‘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
Insurer not entitled to hold back evidence of potential PI fraud – Legal Futures
‘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
CDE v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust; the material contribution elephant in the room – 12 King’s Bench Walk
‘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
Personal Injury: In the face of uncertainty – 3 Hare Court
‘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
Material Contribution and Holmes v Poeton Holdings Limited: One Issue Down, More to Go – 12 King’s Bench Walk
‘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
Griffiths v. TUI UK Limited: Evidence, Challenge and Fairness – UK Human Rights 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
Griffiths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48: The Supreme Court unanimously agrees with MC Hammer – “U can’t touch this” – St John’s Chambers
‘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
The Serious Incident Investigation Report (Root Cause Analysis) is being phased out. Will this benefit patients and what are the implications for clinical negligence litigation? – St John’s Chambers
‘A criticism of the NHS generally is that it does not learn from mistakes. Despite the “never event” framework, the number of such incidents remains stubbornly high. In response to the perceived failures to the improvement of patient safety, NHS England are introducing the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (“PSIRF” pronounced “pea surf”) to replace the Serious Incident Framework. The transition to PSIRF from the Serious Incident Framework should be completed by autumn 2023.’
St John's Chambers, 30th November 2023
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
General Damages for Asbestosis – Ropewalk Chambers
‘An award of damages in an asbestosis claim is reasonably substantial, often in the region of six figures. It is almost always made on a provisional basis, a consequence of which is that, unless the return clauses are activated, special damages are usually lower than general damages. Therefore, the award for general damages is likely to be the main component of the relatively large total award of damages in such claims.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 9th November 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
Toxic Torts – Law Pod UK
‘Join chemist Professor Roy Harrison and environmental law silk David Hart, for a review of recent personal injury lawsuits where claimants seek damages for exposure to toxic substances. Despite the technical challenges, this litigation is key to environmental protection.’
Law Pod UK, 18th December 2023
Source: audioboom.com
Collision course: Rugby union’s landmark brain injuries claims – Law Society’s Gazette
‘Lawyers and journalists filled court 75 at London’s Royal Courts of Justice last Friday for the latest development in claims being brought by 295 rugby union players against World Rugby Limited, Welsh Rugby Union Limited and England’s Rugby Football Union over brain injuries. Senior Master Cook heard an application by the claimants for a group litigation order (GLO) – but it soon became clear that no such order would be made, with Cook telling the parties early on that this would be “premature”.’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th December 2023
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Lord Sales, Exploring the Interface Between the Common Law of Tort and Statute Law – Supreme Court
‘Annual Richard Davies Lecture for the Personal Injuries Bar Association, 29 November 2023.’
Supreme Court, 29th November 2023
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Rugby concussion: Wales’ Henson and Charvis named in lawsuit – BBC News
‘Former Wales stars Gavin Henson and Colin Charvis are among 295 ex-players suing the rugby authorities over brain injuries, it has emerged. The High Court heard on Friday that an application for the cases to be heard collectively would be made next year.’
BBC News, 2nd December 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
MoJ identifies where, but not why, OIC cases are being delayed – Legal Futures
‘The period between a liability decision and the insurer making a first offer is where the ever-lengthening delays in the Official Injury Claim (OIC) portal are occurring, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said yesterday.’
Legal Futures, 30th November 2023
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Non-fatal strangulation: origins, injuries, and challenges – 3PB
‘The act of strangling or suffocating as part of an assault has long formed the part of allegations involving other offences such as battery and assaults resulting in actual harm (ABH) or serious harm. However as of 7th June 2022 section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has produced section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015, creating an offence of non-fatal strangulation or non-fatal suffocation. This article is focussed more on the former. It is becoming more
commonplace both to see this offence charged and to advise on whether it should be charged. There has also been recent case law in the Court of Appeal concerning sentencing in these cases and Jonathan Underhill has written an article about this which goes hand in hand with this piece.’
3PB, 20th October 2023
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
How Smith v Finch has been run over by a Boris bike – Gatehouse Chambers
‘Cycle helmets are likely to remain a bone of contention between PI litigants for years to come. At least, as far as social cycling is concerned. Different considerations apply to competitive and organized cycling events.’
Gatehouse Chambers, 20th October 2023
Source: gatehouselaw.co.uk
