Iddon v Warner: a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a clinical negligence case – Parklane Plowden

Posted April 16th, 2021 in cancer, chambers articles, damages, deceit, doctors, negligence, news by sally

‘The Claimant brought a claim for damages against her General Practitioner for a missed diagnosis of breast cancer. As a result of the negligence, the Claimant had to undergo a mastectomy and axillary dissection, which would otherwise have been unnecessary. The Claimant argued that these treatments had left her with incapacitating chronic pain. The Defendant admitted breach of duty and causation, but contended that her claim should be dismissed because she had been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 1st April 2021

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

“Lost years claims”: a rare re-opening following determination on damages – 3PB

‘This was a Court of Appeal decision following a hearing in December 2020. The parties to the Claim were the estate of the late Appellant, Michael Head and his former employer the Culver Heating Company Limited as Respondent.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd March 2021

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Widow sues NHS over deaf husband’s ‘diabolical’ care – The Guardian

‘A woman is taking legal action against an NHS trust over the “diabolical” and discriminatory treatment of her profoundly deaf husband, who died of cancer in May last year.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 7th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Surgeons fear wave of lawsuits over delays to cancer treatment – The Guardian

Posted March 8th, 2021 in cancer, compensation, coronavirus, delay, doctors, hospitals, medical treatment, news by tracey

‘The NHS is facing what doctors fear is “a legal storm” of claims for compensation from patients who could not get cancer treatment during the pandemic. Leading cancer surgeons are warning that patients who could not have surgery at the planned time, or a scan, or see their GP because of Covid-related disruption to services may sue if their cancer subsequently spread.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 7th March 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Successful insurers’ A1P1 claim concerning benefits reimbursement in asbestos claims – UK Human Rights Blog

‘R (o.t.a of Aviva & Swiss Re) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWHC 3118 (Admin). At first sight, a rather abstruse dispute, but the 63 page judgment of Henshaw J gives rise to a host of important and difficult human rights points. But his central conclusion is that a statute which was not challengeable at the time of its enactment became so, because of the subsequent evolution of the law, principally common law, to the detriment of insurers.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 25th November 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Land-use Conflict – Supreme Court Rules on the Discharge of Restrictive Covenants: Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 – 39 Essex Chambers

‘The appeal in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 was the first time that either the Supreme Court or the House of Lords had considered the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants affecting land under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The case confirms important principles affecting the interplay between private law property rights, planning and land use. Lord Burrows, giving the only substantive judgment of the Supreme Court, agreed with the Court of Appeal that the Upper Tribunal’s decision was wrong, but disagreed in a number of important respects with the speech of Sales LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal ([2018] EWCA Civ 2679). For a number of reasons, it is likely that we shall be reading and re-reading this Supreme Court decision for many years to come.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 9th November 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Capacity and Serious Medical Treatment – Pump Court Chambers

‘This case concerned a young woman, K, who was assessed to lack capacity. K was diagnosed with cancer. The proposed treatment was “complex”, “intrusive” and was described as a “life-altering complexion”.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 6th August 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Case Preview: Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd – UKSC Blog

Posted July 7th, 2020 in cancer, employment, industrial injuries, insurance, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this case preview, Neil Beighton, Simon Kilgour, Diane Jerry and Sarah Day, who all work within the CMS Insurance and Reinsurance Group, discuss the appeal due to be heard this week by the UK Supreme Court in this matter of Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 6th July 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Capacity to consent to chemotherapy? – UK Human Rights Law Blog

Posted July 2nd, 2020 in cancer, consent, Court of Protection, medical treatment, news by tracey

‘University Hospital and Warwickshire NHS Trust v K and another [2020] EWCOP 31, This case is a timely illustration of the unenviable task faced by judges, doctors and mental health professionals during Lockdown.

Full Story

UK Human Rights Law Blog, 1st July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Bra advert banned for claiming to ‘reduce risk of breast cancer’ – Daily Telegraph

Posted June 25th, 2020 in advertising, cancer, consumer protection, internet, news by sally

‘An advert for a bra has been banned for claiming it reduces the risk of breast cancer.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2020

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Mesothelioma compensation scheme considered at appellate level for the first time – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal has handed down judgment in DP v Topmark Claims Management Ltd [2020] UKUT 0106 (AAC), which is the first time the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (“DMPS”) has been considered at an appellate level. It gave guidance on the scope of the scheme, as well as wider points on the nature of an appeal before the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and on statutory interpretation.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd June 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

The changing legal landscape of claiming surrogacy costs – No. 5 Chambers

‘The judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of XX (Respondent) v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 14, on 1 April 2020, fundamentally changed the landscape in the United Kingdom for recovering the cost of surrogacy arrangements. By a majority, it determined that a person may claim damages to fund the cost of surrogacy, both commercial in a country where it is lawful and non-commercial, using her own or donor eggs.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 4th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Whittington Hospitals NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14 – Hailsham Chambers

Posted June 1st, 2020 in appeals, cancer, chambers articles, damages, hospitals, news, Supreme Court, surrogacy by sally

‘The dispute arose as a result of a delay, by the Trust, in diagnosing the Claimant (Respondent)’s cancer, and the infertility this caused.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 21st May 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

EP 110: Should the NHS be liable for commercial surrogacy expenses? – William Edis QC – Law Pod UK

‘Rosalind English discusses with William Edis QC a recent Supreme Court ruling that a woman could claim against the NHS damages that covered a commercial surrogacy arrangement that would be illegal in this country. The principle is now clear, and there is no parliamentary appetite to overturn it. You can get compensation to make a commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, if negligence has deprived you of the ability of bearing your own children.’

Full Story

Law Pod UK, 1st May 2020

Source: audioboom.com

Case Comment: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14 – UKSC Blog

Posted April 28th, 2020 in cancer, damages, hospitals, negligence, news, Supreme Court, surrogacy by sally

‘As a consequence of the admitted negligence of the Whittington Hospital in failing to detect signs of cancer, the claimant developed cancer of the cervix for which she required chemoradiotherapy treatment that led to infertility. The claimant decided to have their own biological children by surrogacy. The experts for the parties agreed that on the balance of probabilities the claimant would achieve two live births from her 12 cryopreserved eggs. If her cryopreserved eggs do not result in 3-4 children, the claimant intends to use donor eggs. Her first choice of surrogacy is California, primarily because surrogacy is lawful and binding there. She claimed damages in respect of the expenses of four pregnancies either in California or the UK using her own eggs and, if necessary, donor eggs.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 27th April 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14 – Old Square Chambers

‘The Respondent (X) had been rendered infertile due to the trust’s negligence. Liability was admitted.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 8th April 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Supreme Court holds hospital liable for commercial surrogacy — William Edis QC – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Supreme Court has held that a defendant hospital trust must pay for the cost of a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad despite such arrangements being unlawful in the UK.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd April 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

New Judgment: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14 – UKSC Blog

Posted April 6th, 2020 in appeals, cancer, damages, hospitals, negligence, news, pregnancy, Supreme Court, surrogacy by sally

‘The claimant in this case had a number of cervical smear tests carried out. Each test was negligently reported to the effect that the hospital failed to detect her cervical cancer, leaving her infertile. Before having chemo-radiotheraphy, the claimant had 8 eggs collected and frozen. She sought to have four children and her preference was for surrogacy arrangements in California on a commercial basis. The present appeal concerned the damages payable for the loss of her ability to have her own child. The High Court had dismissed the claimant’s claim for commercial surrogacy in California as contrary to public policy, and held that surrogacy using donor eggs was not restorative of the claimant’s fertility but allowed damags for own-egg surrogacies in the UK. The Court of Appeal found in favour of the claimant. The hospital appealed to the Supreme Court.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 1st April 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

UK woman wins claim for NHS to pay US surrogacy costs – The Guardian

Posted April 2nd, 2020 in cancer, children, damages, hospitals, negligence, news, pregnancy, surrogacy by sally

‘A woman who wants to have surrogate children through commercial agreements in California has won her claim that the NHS should pay for the treatment.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 1st April 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Sarah Witham (as Executrix of the Estate of Neil Witham, deceased) v Steve Hill Ltd. What counts as a dependency under the 1976 Act and how should you value it? – 12 King’s Bench Walk

‘Neil Witham died at the age of 55 from mesothelioma leaving behind his wife (the Claimant) and his two foster children. At the heart of the dispute between the parties in this case was the width and breadth of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the proper method to quantify the dependency if it fell within the scope of the Act.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 14th February 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk