Blogs Archive

I blogged on law and practice in relation to fundamental dishonesty in January 2021, and now update that blog with further dispatches from the front line. The Incidence of Fundamental Dishonesty: An Unscientific Snapshot of 2022 In order to have a sense of how my own experience was mirrored by colleagues in Ropewalk Chambers, I conducted a…

In Fawcett v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB), Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered an application by the Claimant to exclude the Defendant’s expert evidence in a personal injury trial. The application was dismissed. Background The Claimant sued the Defendant as administratrix of the estate of her late husband Mr…

This blog reviews the High Court decision in Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 459 (KB) and the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the application of the Moore et al. Guidelines for Diagnosis and Quantification of Military Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Those who practise in the field of noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) are waiting with bated breath for some authoritative…

Litkraft Ltd v (1) Cottrell (2) Williams (3) Goldsmith [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) has touched upon, but not decided, whether certain fee sharing arrangements could amount to a probited referral fee under section 56 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The court did however decide that a contractual claim for unpaid…

An interesting case came out of the Bear Garden at the end of February, which may be of interest to clinical negligence practitioners. The judgment in Read v Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 367 (KB) can be read here. Ms Rianna Read developed cauda equina syndrome following a sudden disc prolapse, which led to a critical stenosis of the spinal canal. On her case, avoidable delays in her…

Those practising in the field of noise induced hearing loss (“NIHL”) will be familiar with the Coles, Lutman and Buffin Guidelines 2000 (“CLB Guidelines”) and the later Lutman, Coles and Buffin Guidelines 2015 (“LCB Guidelines”) published to assist medical and legal practitioners in the diagnosis and quantification of hearing loss, respectively. In February 2022, a…

This blog reviews the forthcoming changes to the QOCS regime which will reverse the effect of Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43 and other recent cases. The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023/105 (for brevity, ‘the Amendment Rules’) are about to amend the CPR’s QOCS provisions in an apparent attempt to negate the effects of various recent authorities,…

In Mundy v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 385 (Ch) (judgment available here), Collins Rice J heard an appeal which considered the implications of the Claimant’s Part 36 offer to split “liability” at 90%/10%. The Facts in Mundy The matter arose out of a claim for damages for ‘holiday sickness’ when the Claimant went on an all-inclusive package holiday…

This blog reviews the “Galbraith Plus” direction in light of the recent decision in R (Police Officer B50) v HM Coroner for East Yorkshire and Kingston Upon Hull [2023] EWHC 81 (Admin) (judgment here). In the case of B50, the Divisional Court considered whether it was safe to leave the conclusion of unlawful killing to an inquest jury. In still deciding the…

Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd [2023] EWHC 382 (KB) (judgment here) concerned a claim by the widow of Mr Brian Briggs, who died in 2017 after contracting mesothelioma. The Claimant brought a claim against one of her husband’s former employers, Drylined Homes Ltd (“DHL”). DHL had engaged Mr Briggs between approximately 1975 and 1979 to carry out ‘drylining’, namely putting…

This blog reviews direct liability for acoustic shock, where the Defendant is an emanation of the state. Take the following scenario: A Claimant works in a call centre and alleges tinnitus caused by spikes of excessive noise from his headset. By reason of section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the Claimant cannot…

In Rabot v Hassam; Briggs v Laditan [2023] EWCA Civ 19 the Court of Appeal considered how to assess quantum for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (“PSLA”) where a claimant suffers whiplash injury which falls within the scope of the fixed tariff system contained within the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 (“the Regulations”), pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2018 (“the…