‘Public authorities do not generally owe a duty of care “where it has intervened but has done so ineffectually” in a way which fails to confer a benefit rather than “making matters worse”, the Court of Appeal ruled today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th January 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The government has been criticised by an employment tribunal for a “lack of coordination and pre-planning” that resulted in a solicitor-judge bringing a disability discrimination challenge against the justice secretary over her struggles to secure reasonable adjustments.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th January 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Tech giants have come under fresh fire after an investigation exposed hundreds of thousands of hate profiles online.’
The Independent, 12th January 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The drunkenness of a passenger seeking damages for injuries sustained in a car crash ‘will not avoid a finding of contributory negligence’ where the claimant should have appreciated that the driver was too drunk to drive safely, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 16th November 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Paul Stagg looks at the lessons from an important High Court ruling on ‘failure to remove’ claims.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th November 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A law firm now part of consolidator Metamorph Law has been only partially successful in striking out a claim over how it advised a client on his clinical negligence case.’
Legal Futures, 1st November 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Government has published new regulations and guidance setting out the level of support councils are required to provide to domestic abuse victims who need to escape home.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th October 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The internet is an untamed beast with sparse rules and regulations, so comprehensive moderation – whether desirable or not – seems an impossible task. Nonetheless, it is one with which the UK government is currently attempting to grapple.’
Each Other, 23rd September 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘For several years in the 2000s and 2010s, the law relating to vicarious liability and non-fault liability more generally was “on the move”. However, in the last couple of years, the case law dealing with non-fault liability has been far less fruitful for claimants (e.g. Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; SKX v Manchester City Council [2021] EWHC 782 (QB)). So the decision of Heather Williams QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in the case of Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB) provides an early sign that the tide may be turning back in favour of claimants, at least in the context of medical negligence claims.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 7th September 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘Will England and Mark Watson consider the proposed new duty of care, suggested by the Financial Conduct Authority and the issues it could bring in the current climate.’
Carmelite Chambers, 19th August 2021
Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk
‘In Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), the High Court was asked to answer the following question. Was the owner of a dental practice liable for the dental negligence of a self-employed dentist engaged to work in the practice? The claim arose from NHS care provided by three different associate dentists. The preliminary issue was whether the practice owner was liable by reason of: a) a non-delegable duty of care; or b) vicarious liability. The Court answered: “yes” and “yes”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The government released a report in June that revealed rampant sexual abuse in schools all over the country. Nine in ten girls surveyed said that sexist name-calling and being sent unwanted explicit imagery happened “a lot”, but whose responsibility is it to fix it?’
Each Other, 2nd August 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘In Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court has revisited the principles to be applied in “wrongful birth” claims: claims for the cost of bringing up a disabled child who would not have been born but for a doctor’s negligent medical advice/treatment. However, the judgment has implications beyond the world of clinical negligence litigation. The Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the components or ingredients of the tort of negligence more generally. In particular, the court has affirmed the importance of the “scope of duty” principle: a principle which limits the recoverability of damages wherever it applies.’
Quarterly Medical Law Review, 28th July 2021
Source: 1corqmlr.com
‘In this highly anticipated judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and held that the Defendant doctor was only liable for losses which fell within the scope of her duty of care, thereby significantly reducing the damages recoverable by the Claimant.’
Hailsham Chambers, 21st July 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘In this article, Richard Ive discusses the case of Dove v HM Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2021] EWHC 1738 (Admin), which raises important questions relating to Article 2 (the right to life). On 11 June 2021, the Administrative Court heard procedural arguments concerning a late application by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to join, as an interested party, a claim pursuant to the Coroners Act 1988 s.13 for a further inquest into the death of a highly vulnerable woman who took her own life shortly after all her Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”) benefits were stopped. The Secretary of State’s application was successful, providing her with the opportunity to make submissions at the full hearing heard by the Divisional Court on 22 June 2021.’
Inquests and Inquiries Law Blog, 29th June 2021
Source: inquestsandinquirieslawblog.com
‘In Meadows v Khan [2021] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Ms Meadows’ appeal, finding that there was no principled basis for excluding a clinical negligence claim from the ambit of the ‘scope of duty principle’ in the tort of negligence. The judgment can be read here. This short blog looks at the majority’s reasoning.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 24th June 20201
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In Khan v. Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 the Supreme Court has revisited the principles to be applied in “wrongful birth” claims: claims for the cost of bringing up a disabled child who would not have been born but for a doctor’s negligent medical advice/treatment. However, the judgment has implications beyond the world of clinical negligence litigation. The Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to clarify the components or ingredients of the tort negligence more generally. In particular, the Court has affirmed the importance of the “scope of duty” principle: a principle which limits the recoverability of damages wherever it applies. In particular, it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish that – with competent advice – they would have made a different decision about their treatment or care. They must also demonstrate that the particular harm that they have suffered fell within the scope of the defendant’s duty of care.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 24th June 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has said the London Borough of Lewisham exposed a former looked after child to “significant harm” after it failed to address her claims of abuse while in foster care properly.’
Local Government Lawyer, 22nd June 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has backed a building society’s claim against its former auditor, in a ruling that provides a “more generous” test for the duty of care owed by professional advisers.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th June 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023