‘Following the sad news of the first death in custody from COVID-19, a question arises: what are likely to be the issues at inquests into the deaths in custody from COVID-19?’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th April 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The High Court has rejected a “fanciful” £600,000 conveyancing negligence claim against the law firm Gateley, based on an error admitted by the firm.’
Legal Futures, 6th April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The term “PPE” has become one of general comment and concern. Here our newest recruit at Kings Jasmine Chan explains the Regulations, the duties owed and the government guidance in relation to PPE and coronavirus.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 2nd April 2020
‘An analysis of the ethical and legal considerations underpinning a decision to inform a patient’s relatives about a diagnosis of a genetic disorder in light of the recent judgment handed down in ABC v St Georges Healthcare and Others [2020] EWHC 455 (QB).’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘The former Coronavirus Bill is now the Coronavirus Act 2020. The bill was not significantly amended in relation to the proposed changes to the Care Act – however, per s.87(2) of the Coronavirus Act, the changes relating to the Care Act will not come into force until further regulations are made to that effect. Arianna Kelly outlines the key points.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 26th March 2020
‘The UK government’s Emergency Coronavirus Bill paves the way for widespread changes to legislation that could potentially have an alarming impact on our human rights, especially in the area of mental health.’
Each Other, 24th March 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘The first thing to say is that you should learn as much about holding and transacting with cryptocurrencies as you have time for.’
New Square Chambers, March 2020
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘In 2007 C’s father (XX) killed his wife, C’s mother. He was made the subject of a hospital order. He was treated by D1’s multidisciplinary team. In 2009 his care was transferred to Dr O, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. C took part in family therapy sessions through D2. There was a suspicion that XX had Huntington’s disease but he refused to undergo genetic testing. He did not want C or her sister to know. His patient confidentiality was respected by D1 and D2. About this time C became pregnant. In 2013 C tested positive for Huntington’s. C was accidentally informed that XX had tested positive.’
No. 5 Chambers, 10th March 2020
Source: www.no5.com
‘The 1957 Act was enacted to regulate the duty of care which an occupier of premises owes to its visitors. The occupier owes the same duty of care to all its visitors, except in so far as the duty may be extended, restricted, modified or excluded in some circumstances.’
Becket Chambers, 4th March 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘ABC v St George’s Healthcare Trust and others [2020] EWHC 455 (QB). The High Court has ruled that the health authorities owed a duty of care to the daughter of their patient who suffered from the hereditary neurodegenerative order Huntington’s Chorea, to inform her about his condition. But in the circumstances, Yip J concluded that the duty was not breached and that causation had not been established.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th February 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Tenants and building owners frequently devolve management of their repair and maintenance responsibilities to management companies, who often enter into agreements with contractors for the repair and maintenance of the buildings they manage. This can be an attractive prospect from an administrative point of view, keeping such contractual arrangements at arm’s length from an occupier who lacks the resource, expertise or appetite to manage and monitor such relationships. However, devolving responsibility for entering into maintenance contracts is not without risk if no provision is made for recourse should things go awry as illustrated by the recent first instance case of John Innes Foundation and others v Vertiv Infrastructure Ltd.’
Practical Law Construction Blog, 26th February 2020
‘The government is set to ban the placement of children in care under the age of 16 in unregulated homes in England, following a BBC investigation.’
BBC News, 12th February 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A recorder had been correct not to strike out a negligence claim against a police force brought by the owner of cargo stolen from a lorry parked in a secluded lay-by at night while the driver was held at a police station on suspicion of drink driving. The possibility of a duty of care owed by the police was not precluded by statute, and there were no authorities that resolved the issue. The matter needed a full trial of the evidence.’
St Pauls Chambers, 31st January 2020
Source: www.stpaulschambers.com
‘The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has agreed to consider service resources and “the changes it needs to make to work in line with the law” after a Local Government and Social Ombudsman investigation into how a pregnant woman, who approached the council for help when she was made homeless, was left in an unfurnished flat, miles from her support network.’
Local Government Lawyer, January 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Litigants do not owe a duty of care to their opponents, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’
Litigation Futures, 18th December 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘t’s Christmas party season, which for many workers means pulling on their festive jumpers and having a few glasses of warm prosecco with colleagues at the office bash. But the fun can sometimes leave bosses with more than just a headache the following day, when the behaviour of their employees lands them in court.’
The Guardian, 19th December 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A transplant patient died after a surgeon failed to disclose he had spilt stomach contents on organs which went on to be used in NHS operations.’
BBC News, 21st November 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Last week, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Singularis Holdings Ltd v. Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50. That case got the attention that it did because of the tension with the result in Stone & Rolls Ltd v. Moore Stephens. Others have dealt with the detail of the decision in Singularis (including an excellent article by my colleague, Mark Cannon QC). I want to look more generally at the issues created by attribution in a corporate context, and how the courts in recent years have approached them.’
4 New Square, 6th November 2019
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘There is a “Happy Halloween” present from the Supreme Court for commercial fraud claimant litigators. In the important case of Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) -v- Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, handed down on 30 October 2019, the Supreme Court has upheld the existence of a bank’s Quincecare duty of care, even where the instructions which resulted in a claimant company being defrauded was given by that company’s sole director and controlling mind, and have also finally laying to rest the much criticised case of Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens [2009] UKHL 39; [2009] 1 AC 1391 that had been used to attribute the fraud of a director of a one-man company to the company itself.’
39 Essex Chambers, 31st October 2019
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The Administrative Court has revisited the issue of the denial of social care support to persons subject to immigration control, and the line between local authority social care support under the Care Act 2014, and accommodation and support provided by the Home Office. Jonathan Auburn analyses the ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st November 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023