‘The case of Sindra Bilal & Anor v St George’s University NHS Foundation [2023] EWCA Civ 605 provides a useful reminder to ensure issues are pleaded if they are to be advanced at trial.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 16th July 2023
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘In January 2023, Mr Justice Ritchie handed down an important decision dealing with Montgomery and causation in birth injury claims.’
QMLR, 18th July 2023
Source: 1corqmlr.com
‘Sidra Bilal, Hassaan Aziz Malik (Administrators on behalf of the estate of Mukhtar Malik, deceased) v St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, [2023] EWCA Civ 605 provides an interesting insight into the post-Montgomery landscape. It provides further clarification on informed consent as well as reminding practitioners of the importance of tightly crafted pleadings in clinical negligence claims.’
3PB, 12th July 2023
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘This case is concerned with the extent to which a doctor is required, under the duty of care owed to a patient, to inform the patient about alternative possible treatments to the one that is being recommended.’
UKSC Blog, 12th July 2023
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this post, Anna Walsh (Partner) and Nicole Ellerby (Associate) in CMS’ defendant medical malpractice team consider the awaited decision from the Supreme Court in the Scottish case of McCulloch and Ors v Forth Valley Health Board [2021] CSIH 21.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd July 2023
Source: ukscblog.com
‘What such an exceptional case might look like has remained a matter of speculation. Until now. On 9 May Ritchie J handed down judgment in Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2023] EWHC 1062 (KB), which, if it remains good law, is likely to have a significant impact upon the law concerning the liability of the police in the tort of negligence.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th June 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Mrs Dove’s daughter took her own life after DWP benefits were withdrawn. In September 2021, the Divisional Court refused her application under s13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash the Coroner’s determination and direct a new inquest. The Divisional Court considered that the question of ‘how’ someone died in a Jamieson inquest was directed only to the means by which the deceased died, and did not encompass the wider circumstances of their death. In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of ‘by what means’.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 29th March 2023
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘Last week [24 March] the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Dove [2023] EWCA Civ 289, an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision not to order a new inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting, in proceedings brought by her mother Joy Dove. Ms Whiting died a self-inflicted death in the community, after a mental health crisis, in which the decision of the Department of Work and Pensions to cease her benefits was said to have played a contributory role. An inquest in 2017 came to a conclusion of “suicide” (§1). In an earlier post I dealt with the first, successful, ground of appeal: that because of fresh evidence it was in the interests of justice to order a new Jamieson inquest. In this post I examine the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the case from the point of view of the engagement of Article 2 ECHR.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 24th March 2023
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Last week [20 March] the Court of Appeal gave judgment in Dove [2023] EWCA Civ 289, an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision not to order a new inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting, in proceedings brought by her mother Joy Dove. Ms Whiting died a self-inflicted death in the community, after a mental health crisis, in which the decision of the Department of Work and Pensions to cease her benefits was said to have played a contributory role. An inquest in 2017 came to a conclusion of “suicide” (§1).’
Doughty Street Chambers, 20th March 2023
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘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.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 14th March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
’12KBW pupil Corinne Novell gives an update on this case and the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing, in which challenges were brought with regard to Article 2 and seeking a fresh inquest.’
Inquests and Inquiries Law Blog, 29th March 2023
Source: inquestsandinquirieslawblog.com
‘An interesting case came out of the Bear Garden at the end of February, which may be of interest to clinical negligence practitioners – Read v Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 367 (KB)’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 8th March 2023
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘A prosecution against the owners of the UK’s largest power station has been dropped by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it has been announced.’
BBC News, 23rd February 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘AXX (A protected party by his litigation friend XRE) v. Zajac [2022] EWHC 2463 is the first reported case in the High Court (KBD) concerning the ‘new’ CPR Practice Direction 1A which requires the court to take all proportionate measures to address any impediment to a party’s participation in proceedings caused by their ‘vulnerability’. Master McCloud granted an application made on behalf of the Claimant (who was a protected party due to a psychotic condition which had arisen after his accident) for a trial of causation as a preliminary issue on the basis that, if successful at that stage, the Claimant could seek interim funding for treatment to address his psychiatric symptoms and allow him to participate fully in the subsequent quantum trial. The Master also refused an application from the Defendant for an ‘unless’ order (whereby the claim would be stayed unless the Claimant cooperated with examinations to be performed by the Defendant’s instructed medical experts) because of concerns about the Claimant’s capacity to consent to examination. This decision illustrates the important role that PD1A has in shaping case management decisions to protect the interests of parties with vulnerabilities.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Professional experience and the reported cases (considered below) suggest issues of breach, causation and contributory negligence are invariably intertwined. The advisor’s role is to carefully unpick the strands. Whilst there is a factual and legal overlap, the issues need to be considered separately on their individual merits.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd December 2022
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘In this post Rebecca Khan, a Legal Support Assistant at Matrix Chambers, comments on the case of Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 – handed down on the 18th of June 2021. This appeal raised important questions about the application of the scope of duty principle in clinical negligence cases. The judgment is handed down together with the court’s judgment in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20.’
UKSC Blog, 4th January 2023
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Does a local planning authority owe a duty of care to an applicant for planning permission? Simon Ricketts analyses a recent High Court ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th November 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The diagnosis and treatment of suspected strokes and transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) is a very broad topic. Depending on the context, determination of the issue of breach of duty is likely to involve consideration of relevant NICE guidance and individual NHS Trust guidelines. It is invariably fact-sensitive and involves detailed expert evidence. Even when breach of duty is not in issue and/or is established in evidence, causation is likely to be contentious in all but the clearest of cases due to the absence of definitive evidence or trial data regarding the efficacy of anticoagulant treatment.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 11th October 2022
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Tom Bourne-Arton reviews the relatively recent case of Richins v Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 847 (QB) in which HHJ Kelly had to consider, amongst other matters, whether it was appropriate to apply “Claimant benevolence” otherwise known as “Keefe benevolence” when determining causation.’
Farrar's Building, 4th May 2022
Source: www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023