What are you looking for?

Blogs Archive

Filters

29 Jun 2021

Master Davison closed the door, firmly, on costs budgeting in the Asbestos List in Smith v W Ford & Sons (Contractors) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1749 (QB). Philip Turton reports on the decision. The judgment can be read here. It has long been the practice in the Asbestos List to dispense with costs budgeting. In living mesothelioma claims…

Read more
24 Jun 2021

“That the tort of negligence is a mess goes almost without saying.” So said David Ibbetson in How the Romans Did for Us: Ancient Roots of the Tort of Negligence (2003) 26 UNSWLJ 475. As James Plunkett put it in The Duty of Care in Negligence (Hart Publishing, 2018), p. 76:  Since Donoghue v Stevenson…

Read more

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…

Read more
22 Jun 2021

In TUI v Morgan [2021] PIQR P12, the Respondent, Mrs Morgan, sustained injury whilst on a package holiday to Mauritius, which she purchased from the Appellant, TUI. She was walking along an outdoor, unlit sun terrace at the hotel where she was staying when she collided with a heavy wooden sunbed, fell and sustained injuries…

Read more
22 Jun 2021

In this blog, Nik Arora reviews the decision in Moutarde v SIG Logistics to limit the Claimant’s success fee in a mesothelioma claim to 27.5%. Q. When is a trial not a trial? A. When it’s a discrete dispute about costs. In the case of Moutarde v SIG Logistics [2021] EWHC 1670 (QB) Calver J refused…

Read more
17 Jun 2021

On 27 November 2020, the High Court handed down judgment in James West v Joseph Olakanpo [2020] EWHC 3830 (QB) which concerns both dishonesty and the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for costs exceeding fixed costs in low value personal injury claims under rule 45.29J of the Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 45.29J Section IIIA of Part 45 applies…

Read more
16 Jun 2021

In May 2021, following preparation by an advisory working group of its Professional Standards Unit, the British Psychological Society, Division of Neuropsychology, published Good Practice Guidelines on the recording of neuropsychological examinations and testing under the title “Guidance on the Recording of Neuropsychological Testing in Medicolegal Settings”. The Guidance is aimed at Clinical Neuropsychologists undertaking…

Read more
15 Jun 2021

Show me that you can divide the notes of a song; But first, show me that you can discern Between what can be divided And what cannot. An anonymous musical composition inspired by a classical Sanskrit poem.1 Introduction Two questions that often arise in disease litigation are whether a condition is divisible or indivisible and…

Read more
25 May 2021

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Concussion in Sport Inquiry committee has been holding consultations with leading experts, former professional sports athletes, the Chief Medical Officers and Chief Executives of Sports Governing Bodies as well as charities and campaigners to fully investigate brain injury in sport. The authors recently explored gender differences in…

Read more
18 May 2021

This blog looks back to the Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1003 and discuss how the concepts of risk and acceptable limits of exposure now operate in modern-day disease litigation. NIHL and the Code of Practice for Reducing Exposure of Employed Persons to Noise 1972 It is ten years…

Read more
17 May 2021

A good month for claimants in historic asbestos claims continues. Coming shortly after Scarborough College Ltd v Winter [2021] EWHC 1549 (QB), in which a Show Cause finding in a claimant’s favour was undisturbed on appeal (as discussed by Philip Godfrey and Alexandra Pountney recently on this blog), Sparkes v London Pension Funds Authority & Leigh Academies…

Read more

Imagine the following scenario. A patient, known to have mental health issues, has been consenting to a proposed or potential course of medical treatment. Then, as the need to embark on that treatment crystalizes and becomes urgent, consent is withdrawn. The treatment proposed is considered necessary to avoid a potentially fatal outcome for the patient.…

Read more

You have {number} profile in your brochure