‘In King v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 1576 (QB), the High Court once again demonstrated the difficulties faced by Claimants who suffer psychiatric conditions as a result of witnessing loved ones (in this case, a new-born baby) die in hospital.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 12th July 2021
‘In The Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB  EWCA Civ 356, the Court of Appeal has offered further guidance on vicarious liability following Supreme Court decisions last year in VM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants  UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank v Various Claimants  UKSC 13.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th March 2021
‘On 5 February 2021, Master Cook handed down judgment in the case of Polmear and another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust  EWHC 196 (QB), dismissing the Defendant’s application to strike out the claims and/or for summary judgment. He gave permission to appeal and made an order “leapfrogging” the appeal to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to CPR 53.23.’
No. 5 Chambers, 8th February 2021
‘In the February 2021 edition of the personal injury newsletter:
Tactical Management: Taking charge for claimants
As a claimant-only advocate, Bill Braithwaite QC explains exactly why he believes that lawyers who represent severely injured claimants should understand the importance of having complete control over the recovery, rehabilitation and litigation process.
Child’s Play: Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97)
Will Waldron QC considers the case of Gul v Mcdonagh ((2021) Ewhc 97), amongst others, in relation to the often tricky question of whether to concede some finding of contributory negligence in a case involving a child.
Second bite of the cherry? Abuse of process post-Poku
In this article, Helen Rutherford covers abuse of process in credit hire cases following Isaac Osei-Wusu Poku v Abedin.
Another Hurdle for Nervous Shock Claims
In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  1 AC 310, the House of Lords established 4 hurdles which a secondary victim must overcome in order to establish liability. Although a number of cases have tested the limits of these hurdles, an issue which has never previously been considered is whether a secondary victim must prove that his shock resulted from an appreciation that the primary victim is a loved one who had been or might have been involved in the incident. David Knifton QC considers this issue, with reference to the case of Young v Downey.’
Exchange Chambers, February 2021
‘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  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.’
St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020
‘The issue of medical experts examining claimants and reporting to the courts during the Covid-19 crisis is a difficult one. Here Consultant Neuropsychologist Daniel Friedland provides some guidance.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 23rd 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  EWHC 455 (QB).’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020
‘In this article I will examine the issues surrounding the choice of experts in catastrophic brain injury claims. I will write about what experts are reasonably required and in what order the experts should be instructed. We will look at the various expertise available and just what it is they do and how they can help the Court to resolve the issues.’
Exchange Chambers, 25th March 2020