Blogs Archive

In Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court considered whether and to what extent Defendants can offset ‘costs against costs’ in a QOCS case.  Overturning the Court of Appeal, both below and in Howe v MIB (No.2) [2017] EWCA Civ 932, the Supreme Court accepted that “QOCS is intended to be a complete code…

This case considered the interplay between hospital guidelines and breach of duty in the clinical negligence setting. In summary, the Court found that: The guideline relied upon by the Claimant did not apply to the procedure that he underwent. In any event, even if it did apply: (a) Derogation from the guideline was not negligent…

Chambers’ expertise in the field of industrial disease has once again been recognised in the latest edition of the Legal 500. We have been described as providing “an excellent service together with outstanding barristers” as well as having “particular specialism related to the areas of industrial disease”. The full entry is here: “Nottingham-headquartered Ropewalk Chambers’…

Ropewalk Chambers is ranked as a top tier set in the field of personal injury in the latest edition of the Legal 500. This is an outstanding achievement for our personal injury barristers. We have been described as offering “an excellent service together with outstanding barristers” with “a team able to advise and represent individuals…

A man with longstanding mental health issues walks into a pub with a can of petrol and a knife. He proceeds to pour the petrol on himself and says he is going to burn the pub down. The police are called, he is arrested and whilst in police custody, he undergoes a Mental Health Act…

On 27 July 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Ministry of Defence v Sivaji [2021] EWCA Civ 1163 which addresses the procedural rules for “show cause” hearings under CPR PD3D. Occasionally, judges act unpredictably. This can range from an awkward question to an unexpected costs order. That is all par for the…

For several years in the 2000s and 2010s, the law relating to vicarious liability and non-fault liability more generally was ‘on the move’. However, in the last couple of years, the case law dealing with non-fault liability has been far less fruitful for claimants (e.g. Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; SKX…

“…it will be rare for a claim to be fundamentally dishonest without the Claimant also being fundamentally dishonest, although that might be a theoretical possibility, at least“ When Julian Knowles J made the above observation in London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (in liquidation) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 501 (QB) it was…

Andrew McNamara and Gareth McAloon consider the correct approach to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, three years on from the leading case of Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 190. It is now three and a half years since the noise induced hearing loss case of Carr v Panel Products…

The court in Covey v Harris [2021] EWHC 2211 (QB) acceded to the Defendant’s application to amend its defence to plead fundamental dishonesty made less than a month before trial. Given the court’s refusal of a similar application made by the Defendant in Mustard v Flower [2021] EWHC 846 (QB) (see Philip Davy’s blog here), one questions how…

The question this blog addresses is what to look out for, as “headline points”, in an industrial disease claim with a connection to a foreign jurisdiction: e.g. the alleged wrong was committed in a jurisdiction other than England and Wales, or the consequences, in terms of pain, suffering, and loss of amenity, and financial losses…

In the context of a potentially high value claim following a road traffic accident involving a young Claimant, HHJ Walden-Smith recently refused the Claimant’s application to vacate a trial to be listed in a trial window commencing November 2021 and to stay proceedings. The case was that of Lavender v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2021]…