Will The Online Safety Bill Impact Your Rights? – Each Other

‘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.’

Full Story

Each Other, 23rd September 2021

Source: eachother.org.uk

Vicarious Liability and the Non-Delegable Duty in the Context of Dental Negligence Claims: Hughes v Rattan – Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 7th September 2021

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

A solid investment? – Carmelite Chambers

Posted August 31st, 2021 in consumer protection, duty of care, financial regulation, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Carmelite Chambers, 19th August 2021

Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk

Dental Negligence, Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duty: A Test Case – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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”.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Whose Job Is It To Fix The Normalisation Of Sexual Abuse In Schools? – Each Other

Posted August 3rd, 2021 in duty of care, education, human rights, news, school children, sexual offences by sally

‘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?’

Full Story

Each Other, 2nd August 2021

Source: eachother.org.uk

Supreme Court Revisits Wrongful Birth Claims – Quarterly Medical Law Review

‘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.’

Full Story

Quarterly Medical Law Review, 28th July 2021

Source: 1corqmlr.com

Khan (Respondent) v Meadows (Appellant) [2021] UKSC 21 – Hailsham Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 21st July 2021

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Dove v HM Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2021] EWHC 1738 (Admin) – Inquests and Inquiries Law Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

Inquests and Inquiries Law Blog, 29th June 2021

Source: inquestsandinquirieslawblog.com

Meadows v Khan in the Supreme Court: Scope of Duty in Clinical Negligence Claims – Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 24th June 20201

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Supreme Court Revisits Wrongful Birth Claims: an extended look — Robert Kellar QC and Owain Thomas QC – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 24th June 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Ombudsman criticises London borough over failures as corporate parent to former looked-after child who alleged abuse – Local Government Lawyer

‘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.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 22nd June 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Supreme Court clarifies duty test in Grant Thornton ruling – Law Society’s Gazette

‘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.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 18th June 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

High Court rejects ‘failure to remove’ abuse claim – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In a significant adverse judgment for child abuse claimants, DFX v Coventry City Council [2021] EWHC 1382 (QB), Mrs Justice Lambert rejected a claim brought by a number of claimants who alleged that the defendant council’s social services negligently delayed in instigating care proceedings and that had they been removed from the family home earlier they would have avoided serial abuse at the hands of their parents.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 14th June 2021

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Failure to remove claims and section 20 accommodation – Local Government Lawyer

‘A High Court Master has recently considered whether in ‘failure to remove’ cases where a child has been accommodated under section 20, the accommodation of the child gives rise to a duty of care by way of assumption of responsibility, even if other steps taken by the local authority do not do so. Paul Stagg analyses the ruling.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 11th June 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Duty of care for the acts of third parties – Law Society’s Gazette

‘In Begum v Maran (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 326, the Court of Appeal recently refused to dismiss a claim seeking damages from a UK-domiciled company following its sale of a ship to a third party, which arranged for its disposal in an unsafe manner. Although limited to arguability, it offers key insights into how duties could evolve into the consequences of corporates’ interactions with third parties.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 7th June 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Kent council fined after mother and son left to live in tent in pandemic – The Guardian

‘A council has been fined after it removed a homeless teenager and his mother from temporary housing during the pandemic, leaving them to sofa surf and live in a tent for two months.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 23rd April 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Liability for abuse suffered by claimant place in private care home – Local Government Lawyer

‘Steven Ford QC analyses a ruling where, in the absence of fault, a local authority was not liable for sexual assaults committed by an employee of the private residential care home at which it placed the claimant. The relationship between the abusive employee and the placing authority was not akin to employment and the duty of care owed by the authority to the claimant was not non-delegable.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 16th April 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Universities ignoring rape culture warnings, say campaigners – The Guardian

‘Universities have ignored repeated warnings to tackle rape culture on campus, and left themselves exposed to lawsuits and reputational damage, according to lawyers and campaigners.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 15th April 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘Not a mini-trial’: Supreme Court explains the correct approach in jurisdiction challenges – Littleton Chambers

‘In The Spiliada [1987] AC 460, 465 Lord Templeman hoped that in jurisdiction disputes, “the judge will be allowed to study the evidence and refresh his memory of [the legal principles] in the quiet of his room without expense to the parties; that he will not be referred to other decisions on other facts; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days.”‘

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 3rd March 2021

Source: littletonchambers.com

‘Failure to remove’ claims – the decision in HXA v Surrey County Council – Local Government Lawyer

‘Paul Stagg analyses an important decision this month on “failure to remove” claims and also summarises the other case law to date, before looking at pending cases and the likely way forward to the higher courts.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 26th February 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk