Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Marcus Coates-Walker describes Sharp v Leeds CC where it was decided that fixed costs apply to the costs of a PAD application in ex-protocol cases

In the case of Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] the Court of Appeal (COA) determined a ‘short but important point’ in relation to pre-action disclosure (PAD) application costs.

Paul Jones offers insight into the recent cases that deal with Part 36 offers and fixed costs

Recent months have seen a number of decisions where the fixed costs provisions that now apply to many personal injury cases have come up against other areas of the CPR and the court has been tasked with determining how the apparent conflict is to be resolved. In the recent case of Sutherland v Khan (2016), once again it was CPR Part 36 creating a potential conflict.

Rushmi Sethi examines clinical negligence claims concerning ophthalmic injuries

The purpose of this article is to consider the recent case law relating to eye injury claims, considering in particular the medico-legal aspects that lawyers should be aware of. This article is also based upon research I carried out regarding treatment for eye injuries with Professor Claoue, consultant opthalmic surgeon.

Liam Ryan discusses claims in the Employment Tribunal and County Court and abuse of process

When dealing with stress at work cases one of the first issues that needs to be considered is in which forum (County or High Court as opposed to the Employment Tribunal) should a claimant bring their claim? In cases where a claimant has suffered psychiatric injury, issues that can arise with such an injury, such as an inability to engage with legal advisors, can naturally direct a claimant to pursuing a claim for personal injury in the County or High Court as opposed to seeking remedies in the Employment Tribunal due to limitation issues.

Helen Thompson sets out the possible legal remedies after sepsis is misdiagnosed or not recognised

In recent years, cases of patient deaths due to incorrect diagnosis and delayed treatment of sepsis have caught the attention of the media. According to the UK Sepsis Trust, there are around 150,000 cases of sepsis each year, of which 30% prove fatal. An independent report by the National Confidential Enquiry into patient outcome and death revealed delays in identifying sepsis in more than a third of cases.

Adam Ohringer considers the effects of the Supreme Court ruling in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc

The concept that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of its employees has its roots in antiquity. The employer takes the benefit of the employee’s activities and so it is only fair that it should bear the risks. The controversial issue which the courts have wrestled with is the precise location of the boundary between activities which are in the course of employment, for which the employer is vicariously liable, and activities which are personal to the employee, for which only the employee is liable.

Tom Semple considers the Department of Health’s latest revision to its proposal to introduce fixed recoverable costs in clinical negligence cases

In August 2015, the Department of Health announced its proposal to introduce a fixed recoverable costs regime for clinical negligence claims worth up to £250,000. As of October 2016, the Department of Health now proposes to consult on such a regime for claims worth up to £25,000 only. The policy change was announced following the publication of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee’s July 2016 meeting minutes.

Vicarious liability; wrongful conduct; close connection test; lack of evidence

In Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] and Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] the Supreme Court in effect relaxed the criteria for vicarious liability. The facts of Mohamud (where a supermarket was held liable for an unprovoked assault perpetrated by one of its kiosk attendants on a customer) suggest that nearly all torts committed on the employer’s premises during work hours would satisfy the ‘close connection’ test.