‘In King v Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust [2021] 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
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘A bus driver has been jailed after injuring 41 children by crashing a double-decker into a railway bridge.’
The Independent, 10th July 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Actor Jamie King has lost a High Court bid against an NHS trust after claiming he lost work, including a role in the film Dunkirk, after his son died.’
BBC News, 17th June 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In The Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] 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 [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th March 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘On 5 February 2021, Master Cook handed down judgment in the case of Polmear and another v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] 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
Source: www.no5.com
‘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 [1992] 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
Source: lexlinks.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘A former Wales international footballer who developed dementia had died after heading heavy leather balls during his career, an inquest heard on Thursday.’
The Guardian, 15th October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In Episode 119 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Gideon Barth about secondary victim claims, and the recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.’
Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 26th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has ruled it was wrong to strike out secondary victim claims from daughters who witnessed their father die after he was allegedly victim of clinical negligence.’
Law Society's Gazette, 12th June 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
St Philips Chambers, 8th June 2020
Source: st-philips.com
‘One month window to challenge convictions in England and Wales means women who have experienced trauma are unfairly criminalised, campaigners say.’
The Guardian, 17th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
St John's Chambers, 4th June 2020
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘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
‘The High Court has insisted that there must be a “level playing field” when it comes to recording medical examinations.’
Litigation Futures, 21st April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Andrew Hogan gives his insight into the Rise and Fall of Subtle Brain Injury in his latest Personal Injury Update.’
Rope Walk Chambers, 1st April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘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
‘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
Source: www.exchangechambers.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
© Inner Temple Library 2024