Blogs Archive

The Claimant in Doyle v M&D Foundations & Building Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 927 was injured on a construction site in May 2014. His claim was, in the usual way, entered on the MoJ’s EL/PL Portal and dropped out when no liability response was received within the prescribed time limit. Proceedings were subsequently issued…

I blogged on law and practice in relation to fundamental dishonesty in January 2021, and now update that blog with further dispatches from the front line. The Incidence of Fundamental Dishonesty: An Unscientific Snapshot of 2022 In order to have a sense of how my own experience was mirrored by colleagues in Ropewalk Chambers, I conducted a…

A topic close to my (legal) heart, and one upon which I have been known to speak unprompted at some length, is the correct approach to fact-finding where several possible causes, or causal mechanisms, are suggested for the damage under investigation: a common feature of clinical negligence (and, more widely, personal injury) litigation. This raises…

On 3 March 2023, Johnson J gave judgment in Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB). A former Royal Marine was medically discharged at the age of 29 years with noise-induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) and tinnitus sustained after training exercises. Primary liability was admitted. The Ministry of Defence contended for contributory negligence (in failing to…

In Fawcett v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB), Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered an application by the Claimant to exclude the Defendant’s expert evidence in a personal injury trial. The application was dismissed. Background The Claimant sued the Defendant as administratrix of the estate of her late husband Mr…

This blog reviews the High Court decision in Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB) and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the application of the Moore et al. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Quantification of Military Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Those who practise in the field of noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) are waiting with bated breath for some authoritative…

Litkraft Ltd v (1) Cottrell (2) Williams (3) Goldsmith [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) has touched upon, but not decided, whether certain fee sharing arrangements could amount to a probited referral fee under section 56 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The court did however decide that a contractual claim for unpaid…

An interesting case came out of the Bear Garden at the end of February, which may be of interest to clinical negligence practitioners. The judgment in Read v Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 367 (KB) can be read here. Ms Rianna Read developed cauda equina syndrome following a sudden disc prolapse, which led to a critical stenosis of the spinal canal. On her case, avoidable delays in her…

Those practising in the field of noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) will be familiar with the Coles, Lutman and Buffin Guidelines 2000 (the “CLB Guidelines”) and the later Lutman, Coles and Buffin Guidelines 2015 (the “LCB Guidelines”) published to assist medical and legal practitioners in the diagnosis and quantification of hearing loss, respectively. In February…

This blog reviews the forthcoming changes to the QOCS regime which will reverse the effect of Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43 and other recent cases. The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023/105 (for brevity, ‘the Amendment Rules’) are about to amend the CPR’s QOCS provisions in an apparent attempt to negate the effects of various recent authorities,…

In Mundy v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 385 (Ch) (judgment available here), Collins Rice J heard an appeal which considered the implications of the Claimant’s Part 36 offer to split “liability” at 90%/10%. The Facts in Mundy The matter arose out of a claim for damages for ‘holiday sickness’ when the Claimant went on an all-inclusive package holiday…

This blog reviews the “Galbraith Plus” direction in light of the recent decision in R (Police Officer B50) v HM Coroner for East Yorkshire and Kingston Upon Hull [2023] EWHC 81 (Admin) (judgment here). In the case of B50, the Divisional Court considered whether it was safe to leave the conclusion of unlawful killing to an inquest jury. In still deciding the…