Patient confidentiality – to breach or not to breach? – No. 5 Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 10th March 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Occupier’s Liability – Who Do You Owe a Duty of Care To? – Becket Chambers

Posted March 23rd, 2020 in chambers articles, duty of care, news by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Becket Chambers, 4th March 2020

Source: becket-chambers.co.uk

Doctor/patient confidentiality in genetic disease case – UK Human Rights Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 29th February 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

I tort I was covered? Management companies procuring maintenance works – a common pitfall – Practical Law Construction Blog

Posted February 27th, 2020 in building law, contracts, duty of care, landlord & tenant, news by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Practical Law Construction Blog, 26th February 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Government ‘to ban’ placing children in unregulated homes – BBC News

‘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.’

Full Story

BBC News, 12th February 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Chief Constable of Essex Police v Transport Arendonk BVBA (2020) – St Pauls Chambers

Posted February 6th, 2020 in chambers articles, duty of care, negligence, news, police, statutory duty by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

St Pauls Chambers, 31st January 2020

Source: www.stpaulschambers.com

Council rapped over treatment of pregnant woman who was made homeless – Local Government Lawyer

Posted January 8th, 2020 in duty of care, homelessness, housing, local government, news, ombudsmen, pregnancy by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, January 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

CA: Litigants do not owe duty of care to opponents – Litigation Futures

‘Litigants do not owe a duty of care to their opponents, the Court of Appeal has made clear.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 18th December 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Landmarks in law: the office Christmas party that ended in court – The Guardian

‘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.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th December 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Patient died after ‘transplant surgeon error’ in Welsh hospital – BBC News

‘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.’

Full Story

BBC News, 21st November 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Whose knowledge counts? Singularis v. Daiwa and Attribution – 4 New Square

Posted November 20th, 2019 in agency, company directors, company law, duty of care, fraud, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 6th November 2019

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Singularis Holdings in the Supreme Court: The Quincecare Duty of Care is Alive and Well, While the Case of Stone & Rolls Ltd is Finally Laid to Rest – 39 Essex Chambers

Posted November 7th, 2019 in appeals, banking, duty of care, fraud, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 31st October 2019

Source: www.39essex.com

Social care support and persons subject to immigration control – Local Government Lawyer

‘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.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 1st November 2019

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

New Judgment: Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) (A Company Incorporated in the Cayman Islands) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50 – UKSC Blog

Posted October 31st, 2019 in banking, duty of care, fraud, illegality, news by sally

‘An implied term of the contract between a bank and its customer is that the bank owes a duty of care not to execute the customer’s order if it knows the order to be dishonestly given, or shuts its eyes to obvious dishonesty, or acts recklessly in failing to make inquiries. This is known as the Quincecare duty of care, following the 1992 case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 30th October 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

Court of Appeal orders council to pay cost of attendance of young woman at weekly placement – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that North East Lincolnshire Council should have paid the cost of a disabled young woman attending a weekly placement, overturning an earlier High Court decision.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 11th October 2019

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Family courts hearing FGM cases do not have jurisdiction to injunct Home Secretary on asylum matters, rules senior judge – Local Government Lawyer

‘There is no jurisdiction for a family court to make a FGM (female genital mutilation) protection order against the Home Secretary to control the exercise of her jurisdiction with respect to matters of immigration and asylum, the President of the Family Division has concluded.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 30th September 2019

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

The 1COR Quarterly Medical Law Review – Summer 2019 – Issue 2 – 1COR

‘Welcome to the second issue of the Quarterly Medical Law Review, brought to you by barristers at 1 Crown Office Row. This quarterly publication aims to provide summaries and comment on recent cases in medical law, including clinical negligence, regulatory, and inquests.’

Full Story

1COR, 7th August 2019

Source: www.1cor.com

Duty of care: inadequate safety nets? – No. 5 Chambers

Posted August 29th, 2019 in detention, duty of care, hospital orders, human rights, news, self-harm, suicide by sally

‘It was recently confirmed in Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal [2019] ECHR 106 (no.78103/14, 31 January 2019) that a state’s positive obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies not only to compulsorily detained patients, but also to those in hospital. However, there was a disappointing caveat. The European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that “a stricter standard of scrutiny” might be applied to patients detained “involuntarily” following judicial order (para.124). Indeed, no Article 2 violation was found. In a partly dissenting Minority Opinion (MO), Portugal’s Judge Pinto De Albuquerque and Judge Harutyunyan describe the decision scathingly as “the result of a creative exercise of judicial adjudication for an imagined country” (MO, para.16). This article analyses the case law the ECtHR failed to apply, contends that the decision is plainly wrong, and argues that no differentiation between voluntary and involuntary patients can be justified.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 6th August 2019

Source: www.no5.com

Investigation prompts rapid upgrades to asylum seekers’ homes – The Guardian

‘Hundreds of asylum seekers crammed into a network of “guest houses” provided by a Home Office contractor that are overrun by cockroaches, rats and mice have seen a raft of improvements in the past few days after the Guardian exposed their dire living conditions.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 27th August 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Caparo Illusion: The Three-Stage Test Has Gone. What Happens Next? – 4 New Square

Posted August 23rd, 2019 in appeals, duty of care, negligence, news, Supreme Court by sally

‘In Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2014] EWCA Civ 15 the Court of Appeal held that “the Caparo test applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence”. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court that well-known three-stage test had been held to be of no practical application. How and why did this volte-face occur? And where does that leave lawyers and judges when deciding whether a duty of care is owed or not? Mark Cannon QC and Joshua Folkard discuss.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 13th August 2019

Source: www.4newsquare.com