Sat09232017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Foot Anstey LLP

Foot Anstey LLP

Paul Sankey investigates a decision in the Court of Appeal after it had applied the Montgomery test

The recent decision in Webster v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] is significant as the first Court of Appeal judgment applying the new law in relation to a doctor’s duty to advise, as set out by the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015].

Paul Sankey looks at the recent case law concerning patients receiving care

There have been a number of cases dealing with the law of consent to medical treatment over the last two years, the most notable of which is the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015], a case which redefined the legal relationship between doctors and patients. This article looks not only at the case of Montgomery but also at some other recent authorities on the law of consent.

Paul Sankey highlights the ongoing implications of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

A very significant change in the law took place in March 2015 which has serious implications for doctors discussing options for treatment with patients and obtaining consent for them. The case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] is now familiar law for practitioners in the field. It redefined the legal relationship between doctors and patients. It is surprising, however, how little the implications have been tested in subsequent case law. However more than a year on it is appropriate to consider the impact of the decision both in terms of the law and medical practice.

Paul Sankey examines the issues in Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

The recent case of Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2016] is a further recent example of a claimant establishing causation and recovering in full despite not being able to show that but for negligence he would have avoided injury. It rejects the notion that only one mechanism of damage or apportionment between the negligent and non-negligent causes is appropriate.

Peter Singfield and Jessica Pitt outline criminal legislation applicable to revenge porn and other remedies available to family lawyers

Domestic abuse and all its facets are no longer restricted to the privacy of a couple’s own home. Mobile technology and the internet have proliferated the myriad ways through which someone can be harassed or abused during, and after, the breakdown of a relationship, from the dissemination of private material to the use of technology to access private data and monitor activities.

James Falle and Alexandra Cross explore the impact of policy choices made by the government following its consultation on transposing the EU procurement directives on procurers and suppliers

On 30 January 2015, the government published its response to the consultation on the transposition of the new EU procurement directives. This response signposted the final policy choices.

James Falle and Catherine Haugh consider when authorities can or must allow bidders to correct errors in their tenders

Imagine this scenario: you spend weeks preparing a tender for a particularly important contract. After burning much midnight oil, you submit your tender and are quietly confident of your chances. Then the bombshell lands: the authority informs you that due to a clerical error your tender has been rejected.

Dan Cuthbert outlines where the recent decisions in Game and M&S leave apportionment of rent

Over the last two years, I have been examining in this journal the exercise of break clauses in leases that were conditional on the payment of rent or which related to the recovery of rent for any period after the break date. In my first article (PLJ302, 28 January 2013), I considered Canonical UK Ltd v TST Millbank LLC [2012], PCE Investors Ltd v Cancer Research UK [2012] and Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd [2011]. Each of those cases had found that it was not possible to apportion the rent in circumstances where a break was being exercised. I therefore considered in my first article that despite those judgments it might still be possible to raise a number of arguments to allow for the rent to be apportioned. Those arguments were:

James Falle and Alexandra Cross highlight the importance of considering the financial standing of bidders

At first sight, the recent High Court case of Travis Perkins Trading Company Ltd v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2014] is just another case about limitation periods, an issue that fascinates litigators but unsurprisingly bores many procurement officers. The added spice of a debate about lawyers’ fees and whether procurement lawyers are worth more than other lawyers (yes they are!) may not raise excitement levels either.

Alexandra Cross and Al Goodwin review recent developments in shared services arrangements

Public sector shared services arrangements are nothing new – in the local authority sector alone, the Local Government Association has identified that at least 337 councils are engaged in 325 shared services arrangements – but they are also firmly on the rise, as local authorities and other public sector organisations look to implement more efficient measures in these times of austerity. Central government’s plans to migrate the back office functions of all departments to two mega shared service centres also continue apace. Shared services arrangements look set to stay quite prominently on the procurement and (by association) outsourcing agenda for 2014.

Dan Cuthbert assesses the problem with Ellis v Rowbotham in the light of a recent decision

In my article ‘Breaking up is hard to do’, PLJ 302, 28 January 2013, p22, I considered the difficulties that tenants were having, with either exercising break clauses in leases that were conditional on the payment of rent or recovering rent for any period after the break date. At that time there had been three recent cases that had found against the tenants, namely: Cannonical UK Ltd v TST Millbank LLC [2012], PCE Investors Ltd v Cancer Research UK [2012] and Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd [2011]. In light of those cases, I went on to consider what arguments might still remain to a tenant and I identified four possibilities.

Al Goodwin and Amira Alyamani consider the role and importance of SMEs in procurement

According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills figures, at the start of 2012 there were around 4.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK, forming 99.9% of all businesses by number, and accounting for over half of private sector employment and nearly half of all private sector turnover.

Al Goodwin considers how a new approach to integrated commissioning might affect current UK procurement law and practice

As we head (slightly damply) into 2013, new year’s resolutions possibly already crumbling, it is perhaps the right time to look at how the government’s plans for the future of public sector procurement are shaping up for the year ahead.

Al Goodwin discusses the impact of the Community Right to Challenge under the Localism Act 2011

Wednesday, 27 June 2012: Wimbledon is in full swing, with Heather Watson becoming the first British woman to make it through to the third round since 2002, and further afield Spain progresses to the Euro 2012 final, having knocked out Portugal on penalties (something everyone in England can identify with). Also, to much less fanfare and seemingly unnoticed by most, the Community Right to Challenge (CRC) under ss81 to 86 of the Localism Act 2011 came into force (SI 2012/1463, Article 4).