Fri06232017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Rushmi Sethi explores the inter-relationships between personal injury and employment law, when dealing with liability for psychological injury in occupational stress claims

Liability for psychological injury in occupational stress claims is a rapidly evolving area of the law of tort, and the following discussion shows the range of issues in employees’ claims for psychological injury that have been brought to trial.

Paul Jones analyses a recent case in which costs were incurred before and after the introduction of the current proportionality rules

If one could somehow isolate and distil down the last 20 years of legal costs history into one single word, that word would surely be ‘proportionality’. Initially promulgated by Lord Woolf in his 1996 ‘Access to Justice’ report as a panacea for many of the problems besetting civil justice, its implementation has fed seemingly endless arguments between lawyers as to what it actually means and how it should be applied. Charles Dickens’ maxim in Bleak House that ‘the one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself’ has never seemed so apt. Lord Justice Jackson, in his own 2009 ‘Review of Civil Litigation’, recognised the ongoing problems and sought to solve the Sisyphean problem of legal costs with a new package of interlocking reforms to ‘control costs and promote access to justice’ and, once again, proportionality was at its heart. The jury is still out on whether the recent implementation of those reforms will ultimately deliver on either or both of their stated aims but, for now at least, the arguments over proportionality continue, as illustrated by the recent decision in King v Basildon & Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Trust [2016].

Jonathan Godfrey examines the replacement of services provided by the deceased pursuant to s3 of the FAA

The remit of s3 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (the FAA) was examined by the High Court in the recent decision of Dr Kumudu Kumari Rupasinghe (suing on her own behalf and as administratrix of the estate of Rohan Rupasinghe (Deceased)) v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2016]. The matter was heard before Mr Justice Jay on 8 November, 2016.

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.

Claire Howard outlines the ways to spot, address and ensure compensation for clients with visual problems after an accident

As any lawyer who acts for brain injured clients knows, the term traumatic brain injury (TBI) does not refer to a single injury. It is instead really an umbrella term, which covers a myriad of symptoms, conditions, complications, deficits and changes, many of which affect our clients all at once.

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.

Contributory negligence; Occupiers Liability Act 1984; dangerous state of premises

On the 10 September 2010, while wheeling his bicycle across an ornamental footbridge in one of the defendant’s public parks, the claimant fell from the bridge into the stream below and suffered serious injury.

The High Court has ruled that a claimant’s part 36 offer was a counter offer, consequently an earlier without prejudice offer was no longer open for acceptance. Gemma Witherington reports

In the case of DB UK Bank Ltd (T/A DB Mortgages) v Jacobs Solicitors [2016] it was held that a party who made a Part 36 offer in response to a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer had in law rejected the common law offer to settle and so a subsequent acceptance was not possible.