Blogs

Clinical negligence cases can be complex enough without the added difficulty of delay in bringing proceedings resulting in a limitation defence. When it is raised by Defendants it is currently common for cases to be managed so that limitation will be tried as a preliminary issue, perhaps because of the possibility of a major costs…

In R (on the application of (1) Aviva Insurance Ltd (2) Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] EWHC 30 (Admin), Henshaw J dealt with certain consequential matters arising from his earlier judgment dated 20 November 2020 which arose from the Claimants’ challenge to the onerous consequences of the Compensation Recovery…

In Knapman v Carbines [2020] EWHC 3586 (QB), HHJ Cotter QC considered the balancing exercise to be conducted upon a very late application to rely on an expert report. The Context Mr Knapman suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a road traffic accident in 2013. Liability was admitted and a trial on quantum was…

On 16 December 2020, Martin Spencer J handed down judgment in Young v Downey [2020] EWHC 3457 (QB), an interesting decision on secondary victims in nervous shock cases. In this blog post, Philip Turton and Katie McFarlane summarise and review the decision, which can be read here. Preamble Where a person suffers psychiatric as well as physical…

We are delighted to announce that Jayne Adams QC has been appointed a Master of the Bench of Gray’s Inn. Jayne’s appointment marks a recognition of her contribution to the law and her commitment to inclusion and social mobility. For more on Jayne’s practice, please click here.

The recent decision in Mathewson v Crump & Crump [2020] EWHC 3167 (QB) concerned a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. In determining the claim, two particularly interesting features arose: First, there was the fundamental issue of whether the Defendants had control over the property which the Claimant was visiting at the material time…

The word “causation” needs a careful degree of unpacking. There is medical causation: what injury does the Claimant prove he or she has been caused. There is legal causation: is it proved that such injury would not have been caused but for the breach or breaches of duty established. Allied to the latter, there is…

Claimants often rely on medical records as evidence to corroborate their case as to the nature and extent of their injuries in personal injury litigation.  Conversely, Defendants often use a Claimant’s medical records against them where those records contain information that undermines the Claimant’s account as to their injuries. In either case, it is important to understand the…

Since the pandemic, the issue of covert recordings of medical examinations has risen to the fore following the drastic increase in use of technology to deliver patient care (telephone consultations, video consultations), making covert recording easier than ever before. It is therefore relevant to revisit the most recent authority on the admissibility of covert recordings…

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has announced its intention to conduct a review of selected malignant and non-malignant respiratory diseases and their relationships with occupational exposures. The IIAC is the advisory body responsible for reviewing the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) scheme, which supports employees who are disabled as a result of an accident…

Followers of our Disease Blog may have noticed a slight trend in some of our posts which have focused on the potential for future claims for damages in respect of early onset dementia and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (“CTE”) for ex-sportsmen and sportswomen. In October, Alex Denton wrote about the decision of HM Senior Coroner John Gittens’…

The area of fatal accident claims is wide and occasionally very complicated. An understanding of the principles and the cases that historically have shaped the Court’s approach is necessary. It is an area in which once the statutory provision is understood, a ‘feel’ for what the Court will think appropriate in each fact-specific case is…