Negligence claim over divorce assets ruled to be time-barred – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 10th, 2020 in appeals, damages, divorce, law firms, negligence, news, time limits by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a law firm’s case that a £125,000 professional negligence claim against a firm for its handling of a divorce was issued too late. In Holt v Holley & Steer Solicitors (a firm), judges held that any alleged cause of action happened in the lead-up to divorce proceedings being finalised, and this was the starting point for the six-year limitation period.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 8th July 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Protected parties, anonymity orders and clinical negligence; PQ (a child by her litigation friend) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 1662 (QB) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘In PQ (a child, by her litigation friend) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Martin Spencer J was required to rule on an application that the identity of the Claimant and her family be anonymised, for the purposes of a liability-only clinical negligence trial. Although only a short, first-instance decision, the case effectively makes anonymisation orders in such circumstances all but inevitable.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 30th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Appeal judges reject divorcee’s negligence claim – Legal Futures

Posted July 8th, 2020 in appeals, damages, divorce, families, fees, law firms, negligence, news, solicitors, time limits by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that a negligence claim brought by a woman against her law firm over its work on her divorce was out of time.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 8th July 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Figures reveal low level of negligence claims against barristers – Legal Futures

Posted July 3rd, 2020 in barristers, negligence, news, professional conduct, statistics by sally

‘The average barrister only makes one notification of a possible professional negligence claim every 20 years, figures from the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) have revealed.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 3rd July 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Evans v Betesh Partnership and McGinty [2020] EWHC 1589 (QB) – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘High Court decision (24/06/20) concerning solicitor/barrister professional negligence arising out of a personal injury case.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 24th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Women launch group action over mesh implants – Litigation Futures

‘Another group action has gone live this week, with more than 250 women left permanently injured by mesh implant surgery suing a group of pharmaceutical giants.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

De Sena v Notaro [2020] EWHC 1031 (Ch): The family, the demerger and the expert who wasn’t an expert – Hailsham Chambers

‘The case arose out of a corporate demerger which took place in relation to a family owned company, S Notaro Holdings (“Holdings”), on 28 April 2011. The First Claimant (C1), and the First Defendant (D1) were siblings. Prior to the demerger, they were both shareholders in and directors of Holdings. Neither were majority shareholders. D1 held 43.75% of the shares in Holdings, and C1 held 31.25%. In the demerger, C1 gave up her shares in Holdings in exchange for some assets of Holdings or its subsidiaries being transferred to the Second Claimant (C2), a company formed for that purpose, owned and controlled by C1.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB): A glimmer of hope for secondary victims? – St Philips Chambers

‘The law relating to secondary victims, who suffer psychiatric injury as a result of witnessing a shocking event, has long been an area of contention.’

Full Story

St Philips Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: st-philips.com

Relief from sanctions overturned for “egregious” conduct – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court judge has overturned relief from sanctions granted to a claimant in a medical negligence case, partly because of her solicitor’s “egregious” conduct.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 15th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Negligent advice warning over coronavirus jobs scheme – Legal Futures

Posted June 16th, 2020 in coronavirus, law firms, negligence, news, remuneration by sally

‘Lawyers and others who advised clients on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) are at risk of claims as the government looks to claw back payments to which recipients were not entitled, a professional negligence specialist has warned.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 16th June 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Adding Allegations to a Clinical Negligence Claim: a brief summary of Mangala Janakarajah v (1) Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (2) Mario Petrou [2020)] QBD (Soole J) 03/06/2020 – Parklane Plowden Chambers

‘In clinical negligence cases things change. That’s often because new expert evidence, witness evidence, or medical records come to light. So, when can you add to your existing case?’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 5th June 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

MEF v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 11th, 2020 in birth, costs, hospitals, negligence, news, personal injuries, time limits by sally

‘Mr Justice Morris dismissed the Defendant’s appeal seeking to overturn Master Rowley’s decision that a Calderbank Offer without a time limit was capable of being accepted two days into a detailed assessment hearing.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Clin neg trial could be held remotely “as last resort” – Litigation Futures

Posted June 11th, 2020 in case management, coronavirus, hospitals, negligence, news, remote hearings by sally

‘A clinical negligence hearing is set to begin in person in the High Court today, although the judge ruled last week that it could be conducted remotely if there was no other option.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 8th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Commercial Court dislikes pre-action disclosure in prof neg claims: even in mega-auditor’s negligence action – Hailsham Chambers

‘In Carillion v KPMG, the liquidators of this once substantial company sought pre-action disclosure from its former auditors. They intend to bring professional negligence proceedings for not detecting that the financial statements were unreliable. The Commercial Court refused the application. One might think that given auditors’ negligence claims in large part turn on professional judgment as to the audit procedures performed, the evidence obtained and the conclusions drawn, clear sight of the materials produced and relied on by the auditors would enable better focussed pleadings. Nonetheless the Commercial Court refused the application (which had admittedly spun into a substantial hearing with apparently more than £500,000 costs on each side). It pointed out that generally such applications were unlikely to succeed in Commercial Court cases and on the facts was not appropriate. The Judge seems to have been most impressed by the fact that Carillion had been able to articulate a detailed case in negligence already, rendering pre-action disclosure perhaps redundant and likely to be duplicated when it came to conventional disclosure.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Can a clinical negligence trial be heard remotely? – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted June 10th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, hospitals, negligence, news, remote hearings by sally

‘Since lockdown the courts (and legal representatives) have been striving to hold remote hearings where possible. This had led to a flurry of new guidance (see for example CPR section AA Guidance for Queen’s Bench Division Court Users) — and the ability to view bookshelves in the studies of judges and legal representatives.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

The changing legal landscape of claiming surrogacy costs – No. 5 Chambers

‘The judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in the case of XX (Respondent) v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 14, on 1 April 2020, fundamentally changed the landscape in the United Kingdom for recovering the cost of surrogacy arrangements. By a majority, it determined that a person may claim damages to fund the cost of surrogacy, both commercial in a country where it is lawful and non-commercial, using her own or donor eggs.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 4th June 2020

Source: www.no5.com

Appeal allowed against Strike out of Secondary Victim claims arising out of Clinical Negligence – St John’s Chambers

‘In November 2019 Master Cook had struck out the secondary victim claims brought by the Claimants as a result of witnessing the heart attack and subsequent death of their father some 14 ½ months after the alleged negligent omission of the Defendant Trust. This was on the basis that the claims were bound to fail on a strict application of binding authorities including Taylor -v- A. Novo [2014] QB 150 because the shocking event in question was not proximate in time to the breach of duty. In Taylor v A. Novo the Court of Appeal had dismissed a secondary victim claim where the claimant’s mother had been injured by a falling stack of boards due to the negligence of a colleague at work and had subsequently collapsed and died at home as result of deep vein thrombosis secondary to the accident. The claimant witnessed her mother collapsing at home but not the accident itself. Her claim failed on proximity because the death of the claimant’s mother was not the relevant shocking “event”, which was the accident itself, and so the control mechanisms were not satisfied.’

Full Story

St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020

Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk

NHS Resolution expands mediation panel – Litigation Futures

‘NHS Resolution has added one provider to its mediation panel following what it said was a “highly competitive retender” process that saw the existing three reappointed.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 9th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Wrongful dismissal – how not to go wrong: Cameron v East Coast Main Line Company Limited UKEAT/0212/19/BA – 3PB

‘In Cameron v East Coast Main Line Company Limited UKEAT/0212/19/BA,1 the EAT dealt with the question of whether length of service is a relevant consideration when asking whether a dismissal is wrongful.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Fixed Costs: The Impact of Contributory Negligence on Trial Advocacy Fees – No. 5 Chambers

Posted June 2nd, 2020 in civil procedure rules, contribution, costs, negligence, news, road traffic by sally

‘CPR 45.29C sets out the amount of fixed costs payable in Fast Track claims where a claim no longer continues under the RTA Protocol. Where a claim is disposed of at trial, costs of £2,655.00 are payable, alongside 20% of the damages agreed or awarded and the relevant trial advocacy fee. The protocol for EL/PL claims works in a similar way. It is trite that where the claim settles at Court on the day listed for trial, the advocacy fee is still payable.’

Full Story

No. 5 Chambers, 18th May 2020

Source: www.no5.com