Damages for wrongful birth: how far does a doctor’s responsibility go? – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted November 29th, 2017 in birth, causation, damages, doctors, negligence, news by sally

‘Can a mother who consults a doctor with a view to avoiding the birth of a child with one disability recover damages for the costs associated with another disability?’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 28th November 2017

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Supreme Court finds difference in value should not be offset against loss for breach of contract – OUT-LAW.Com

Posted July 3rd, 2017 in arbitration, causation, charterparties, damages, news by tracey

‘A ship owner who sold a vessel after a charterer breached its contract, making more money than it would have done selling the ship at the end of the breached contract, does not have to offset that difference in value against its claim for loss of earnings, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 29th June 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Asbestos: Breach, Causation and Damages, David Kearns v Delta Steeplejacks Limited [2017] EWHC 149 (QB) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted February 15th, 2017 in apportionment, asbestos, causation, damages, news, personal injuries by sally

‘Where an apportionment for exposure to asbestos was carried out using a time based apportionment as opposed to a dose based apportionment.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 15th February 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Expert Evidence, Independence and Objectivity: Exp v Barker [2017] EWCA Civ 63 – Zenith PI Blog

‘In EXP v Barker, the trial judge and Court of Appeal were faced with an unusual situation. An expert witness – although undoubtedly skilled and experienced in his field – had omitted to mention a close personal connection to the party instructing him.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 13th February 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Right to be Forgotten? – Nearly Legal

Posted September 20th, 2016 in appeals, causation, homelessness, housing, news by tracey

‘When does temporary accommodation become settled so as to break the chain of causation of intentional homelessness? The appeal in Huda v LB Redbridge [2016] EWCA Civ 709 concerned a homeless applicant and his family, who were effectively forgotten about by the council following a final decision on their application.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 18th September 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

Chetwynd and another v Tunmore and another – WLR Daily

Posted June 17th, 2016 in causation, fisheries, law reports, statutory duty, water by tracey

Chetwynd and another v Tunmore and another: [2016] EWHC 156 (QB)

‘The claimants alleged that the excavation of lakes by the defendants on the defendants’ land, and the abstraction of underground water as a result, had adversely affected the claimants’ fishery, in particular the water levels in the ponds therein. They issued a claim against the defendants, inter alia, under section 48A of the Water Resources Act 1991, seeking damages for the loss of fish from the ponds, the loss of income from the fishery, the costs of remediating the ponds, expenses incurred and for loss of amenity. The defendants denied liability on the basis that, under section 48A, they could only be liable for loss or damage caused by the abstraction which could reasonably have been foreseen by them and that, in any event, the claimants had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants’ abstraction of water by the excavation of the lakes was the effective cause of the claimants’ alleged loss or damage.’

WLR Daily, 4th February 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Child in the Road Part 2 – Zenith PI Blog

‘Six months ago I discussed at some length the issues arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Jackson v Murray [2015] PIQR P249. More recently in Sabir v Osei-Kwabena [2016] PIQR Q56, the problem cropped up again, this time in the Court of Appeal.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 7th March 2016

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – WLR Daily

Posted March 7th, 2016 in causation, contribution, damages, delay, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by tracey

John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: [2016] EWHC 407 (QB)

‘The claimant suffered a head injury and was taken to a hospital managed by the defendant. A CT scan was performed some six hours after his admission and he was transferred to another hospital where he underwent surgery. He was left with cognitive and neuropsychological deficits. He claimed damages in negligence against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant’s negligent delay in undertaking the CT scan had resulted in a period of raised intra-cranial pressure which had caused or materially contributed to his brain damage. The defendant contended that only if the claimant could establish that damaging raised intra-cranial pressure caused by the defendant’s negligence had caused his brain injury that, applying the classic “but for” test of causation, he could recover as against the defendant, and that it was insufficient to establish “material contribution”.’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Appeal court: profits from sale of ship should be treated as mitigation of loss from breach of contract – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 8th, 2016 in causation, charterparties, contracts, economic loss, news, shipping law by tracey

‘A High Court judge “overcomplicated matters” by attempting to develop a set of principles governing whether the innocent party to a breach of contract should have its award of damages reduced to reflect a benefit it obtained from that breach of contract, an expert has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 8th January 2016

Source: www.out-law.com

Wellesley v Withers: A significant change in the analysis of remoteness of damage – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in causation, contracts, drafting, limited liability partnerships, negligence, news by sally

‘In Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146 the Court of Appeal made an important change to the law of causation. From now onwards, the contractual approach causation shall apply instead of the tortious principles of remoteness in cases of concurrent liability. The effect of this case will be to materially change causation analyses in professional negligence matters, albeit the conclusion (as demonstrated in the Wellesley case itself) through the two analytical frameworks may well be identical.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

High Court: solicitors had duty to advise on commercial element of deal – Legal Futures

Posted July 13th, 2015 in causation, competition, covenants, negligence, news, restraint of trade, solicitors by tracey

‘The High Court has dismissed a claim against a firm of solicitors, despite finding it negligent in failing to raise the absence of a covenant in restraint of competition during the purchase of a commercial property.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 13th July 2015

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others – WLR Daily

McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others [2015] EWCA Civ 380; [2015] WLR (D) 183

‘Where a claimant’s injury had two separate causes, one of which was his own criminal conduct in a joint enterprise with another, amounting to turpitude for the purposes of the defence of ex turpi causa, and one of which was a third party’s negligence, the relationship between the claimant’s turpitude and his negligence claim against the third party was not such as to debar his claim against the defendant in reliance on the principle of ex turpi causa. The correct approach of the court in such cases was to give effect to both causes of the injury by allowing the claimant to claim in negligence against the third party but, if negligence was established, by reducing any recoverable damages in accordance with the principles of contributory negligence so as to reflect the claimant’s own fault and responsibility for the injury.’

WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

“No proper justification” for challenge based on draft judgment – Litigation Futures

Posted January 14th, 2015 in accountants, causation, judgments, negligence, news, taxation by tracey

‘There was “no proper justification” for a claimant seeking to reopen an issue based on the circulation of a draft judgment, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 13th January 2015

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Multiple Defendants: Who to sue? – Cloisters

Posted November 18th, 2014 in causation, costs, joint liability, news, prosecutions, vicarious liability by sally

‘Claims involving multiple defendants are often complex in terms of the facts, the law and the expert medical evidence. They are claims that we all have some experience of, and the issues involved have no doubt troubled us all to a greater or lesser degree at times.’

Full story

Cloisters, 3rd October 2014

Source: www.cloisters.com

Novoship (UK) Ltd and others v Nikitin and others – WLR Daily

Posted July 9th, 2014 in bribery, causation, charterparties, debts, fiduciary duty, interest, law reports by sally

Novoship (UK) Ltd and others v Nikitin and others [2014] EWCA 908; [2014] WLR (D) 297

‘The remedy of an account of profits was available against one who dishonestly assisted a fiduciary to breach his fiduciary obligations, even if that breach did not involve a misapplication of trust property.

WLR Daily, 4th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The English law of causation and the passing-on defence – Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers

Posted June 30th, 2014 in causation, competition, damages, defences, news by sally

‘One of the big questions of English competition law is whether there is such a thing as a “passing-on defence” – – i.e. whether the damages suffered by a purchaser of a cartelized product are reduced or mitigated if he “passes on” some of the overcharge to his own customers. Two follow-on damages actions were due to be heard this term, arising out of the synthetic rubber cartel and the gas insulated switchgear cartel, both of which raised the question of passing-on but both of which have now settled.’

Full story

Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 30th June 2014

Source: www.competitionbulletin.com

Santander UK Plc v RA Legal Solicitors: A shift in balance in favour of lenders? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted April 8th, 2014 in banking, breach of trust, causation, law firms, news, solicitors, trusts by sally

‘Section 61 of the Trustee Act 1925 gives the court power to relieve from liability a trustee who has committed a breach of trust, if he: (i) acted honestly and reasonably; and (ii) ought fairly to be excused for the breach.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th March 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court

Posted November 25th, 2013 in causation, contracts, equity, mistake, rectification, restitution, speeches, trusts by tracey

‘Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court. ACTAPS lecture 2013, delivered 20th November 2013.’

Full speech

Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st November 2013

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

“The press would have us believe that criminals can do what they like and then merrily sue all and sundry for the unfortunate consequences of those actions. Sadly for tabloid journalists this is simply not true as the Court of Appeal recently remind us in Joyce v O’Brien [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 202 (May). The case is a useful reminder of the rule often shortened to “ex turpi”, namely that the court will not allow a party to profit from a loss arising from that party’s own criminal or immoral activity.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 27th June 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

Joyce v O’Brien and another [2013] EWCA Civ 546; [2013] WLR (D) 182

“Where the character of a joint criminal enterprise was such that it was foreseeable that a party or parties might be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialised, the harm could properly be said to have been caused by the criminal act of the party suffering it even if it resulted from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the criminal enterprise. Therefore, in such circumstances the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would provide the negligent party with a defence to a claim for negligence by the injured party.”

WLR Daily, 17th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk