Blogs Archive

Since the late 1990s, the courts have approached the issues of diagnosis and causation of Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome (“HAVS”), and quantification of general damages, by reference to HAVS’s two constituent components: vascular HAVS and sensorineural HAVS. There is also evidence, however, that hand-transmitted vibration can damage the musculoskeletal system. Vascular HAVS involves damage to the…

In the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] AC 1430, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between a doctor’s role when considering possible investigatory or treatment options and, their advisory role in discussing with a patient any risks of injury which may be involved in any recommended treatment and possible alternatives.  The former…

On 9 May 2023, Ritchie J sitting in the High Court handed down judgment in Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB) which addressed the question of whether the police had a duty to warn the Claimant that her violent ex-partner was lurking outside her home. A link to the judgment…

This is the first in a series of blogs that I shall be authoring on the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA”) and some of the current trends that I am seeing with claims brought against landlords under s. 4. Introduction  Claims under s. 4 of the DPA have, as a basic ingredient, notice as a…

The risks associated with exposure to vibration from hand-held tools in the workplace have been increasingly well publicised over the last half-century and have resulted in specialist regulation in an effort to reduce injury. Despite that, employees suffering injury as a result of vibration exposure is not a thing of the past. The most recent…

In the recent Northern Irish case of Carberry (Deceased) v Ministry of Defence [2023] NIKB 54, McAlinden J delivered an impressive and lengthy judgment arising from the shooting of the Deceased on 13 November 1974. The circumstances of the case stretch back to the period identified by the judge at [208] as ‘the darkest days…

On 26 April 2023, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2023] UKSC 15. Having reviewed all the leading authorities of the House of Lords and Supreme Court on vicarious liability from the last twenty or so years, the judgment set out five principles a court should…

E-scooters, much like Marmite, split opinions. Well, it seems our Parisian friends have spoken, and the answer is non! Not to Marmite, although one suspects the answer might be the same, but to e-scooters.  On 2 April 2023, the inhabitants of Paris were asked for their view and, with almost 90% of the vote, e-scooters will be…

In Jenkinson v Hertfordshire County Council [2023] EWHC 872 (KB) (judgment here), Andrew Baker J has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons on the question of when medical treatment following a tort can break the chain of causation.  The orthodox approach to this issue had been to follow the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Webb v…

In May 2014, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) published a command paper in which recommendations were made to add Dupuytren’s contracture, due to hand-transmitted vibration, to the list of prescribed diseases. The recommendation was to prescribe Dupuytren’s when severe enough to involve fixed flexion deformity and following exposure of at least 10 years in aggregate…

The appeal decision of Julian Knowles J in Après Lounge Limited v Wade [2023] EWHC 190 (KB) (judgment here) provides a useful reminder that the courts must not impose a counsel of perfection on defendants, who are required only to exercise reasonable care. The First-Instance Decision The Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant for…

‘Back in the day’ – not a phrase ever used back in the day – I recall mention in pupillage of three occupational conditions, farmer’s lung, bird fancier’s lung and bagpiper’s lung. They acquired a sort of mythological status as no such cases ever passed across the desks of my pupil supervisors. Farmer’s lung was…