‘The Coronavirus pandemic is likely to lead to litigation in various forms1; indeed, two doctors are reported to have already intimated a public law challenge to the lawfulness of the personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance published by the Department of Health and Social Care, and Public Health England.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 4th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The media is currently saturated with reports concerning the absence of adequate Personal Protective Equipment (‘PPE’) in clinical settings. To date, commentators have understandably focused on the extent to which employers may be breaching health and safety legislation by failing to provide staff with PPE and whether staff are protected under whistleblowing legislation if they speak out. Moreover, this month two doctors launched an urgent legal challenge to guidance by NHS England on PPE. In this blog, Dee Masters and Jen Danvers look at a different aspect to the PPE debate, namely whether there is scope for sex discrimination claims arising from equipment which has been designed to fit the average man rather than their female colleagues.’
Cloisters, 29th April 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Inevitably the COVID-19 pandemic will result in a significant increase in the workload of coroners and the number of inquests being heard. Cases where the virus may have been contracted in the workplace setting including frontline workers because of the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) may be one significant area of potential inquiry.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 4th May 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘Nigel Poole QC considers the question: how will the Coronavirus pandemic affect clinical negligence litigation in England and Wales?’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 30th April 2020
‘Inquests into coronavirus deaths among NHS workers should avoid examining systemic failures in provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), coroners have been told, in a move described by Labour as “very worrying”.’
The Guardian, 29th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On Thursday (23 April), the couple launched a legal challenge against the government’s guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE), which they argue exposes them to coronavirus infections.’
Each Other, 28th April 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Two doctors are launching a legal challenge over government guidance on personal protective equipment which they say exposes them to coronavirus infections.’
The Guardian, 24th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘If there have been systemic flaws over PPE, ministers could be in breach of the European convention on human rights.’
The Guardian, 25th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government faces being taken to court if it refuses to disclose the findings of an exercise confirming the UK could not cope with a flu pandemic.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It is no secret that Covid-19 is placing huge strain on the NHS, with ramifications across all parts of an already stretched organisation. Hospitals nationwide have been told to prepare for a tsunami of patients demanding very high levels of care. They are having to do so while facing staff shortages and worries over the supply of essential equipment. In an effort to cope, retired doctors and not-yet-fully qualified doctors have been drafted in. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that accidents will happen and errors will be made. Once all of this is over, it is a regrettable fact that litigation will ensue. Will the law step up to protect the professionals who have done so much to save lives and ready the nation for the post-corona world? This short article argues that it can and should, most obviously by recognising that desperate circumstances should be reflected in the standard of care applied to hospitals and medical professionals working in response to Covid-19.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The High Court has insisted that there must be a “level playing field” when it comes to recording medical examinations.’
Litigation Futures, 21st April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Two judgments from the Supreme Court have set restrictions on the scope of vicarious liability. In Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 the test was whether the tortfeasor was in fact the ‘employee’ of the employer. The claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the bank to carry out medical assessments of employees.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Alaina Wadsworth, Chris Horsefield and Ben Brown, who all work within the Insurance & Reinsurance Group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this month, in the matter of Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UKSC Blog, 20th April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The NHS could be faced with billions of pounds of medical negligence claims if it does not grant some form of legal immunity to medics risking their lives during the pandemic, the government has been warned. The Medical Defence Union (MDU), which provides legal support to around 200,000 doctors, nurses, dentists and other healthcare workers, is calling for a debate over the need for emergency legislation.’
The Guardian, 19th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The law around vicarious liability has been “on the move” since at least the 2012 landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 (the “Christian Brothers case”). However, after years of expansion, the Supreme Court has now held in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 that liability will not always be imposed for the acts of an independent contractor.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd April 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in two conjoined Vicarious Liability cases: WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13. In this article, Michael Patrick reviews those judgments and considers their impact on the law of Vicarious Liability.’
Hailsham Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has handed down two new judgments addressing the legal limits of vicarious liability in employment and non-employment cases.’
Old Square Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘On the inauspicious April Fool’s Day, the Supreme Court brought a stop to the expanding course of the law of vicarious liability in two decisions which bear careful consideration and will have a significant impact on the scope for liability in the law of tort generally, beyond the particular contexts of sexual abuse and data protection litigation.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 14th April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025