Case Report: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188

Apportionment of liability; psychiatric injury; pre-existing illness ‘The tone of Underhill LJ’s judgment is that it will be difficult to convince a court that apportionment is not going to be possible.’ This case revisits the vexed question of divisibility of psychiatric (and other) injury. It is an employment case of wide importance and application. The …
This post is only available to members.

Causation: Looking for answers

Paul Sankey examines the issues in Dr Sido John v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust ‘The “material contribution” test only applies in cases where it is impossible to attribute particular damage to a specific cause and therefore apportionment cannot be appropriate.’The recent case of Dr Sido John v Central Manchester …
This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Carder v The University of Exeter [2016] EWCA Civ 790

Asbestosis; asbestos exposure; liability; actionable damage ‘The Master of the Rolls pointed out that there was an inherent contradiction in the University’s case between accepting it had made a 2.3% contribution to a cumulative disease which causes an individual to be worse off and then seeking to argue that this contribution had made no difference.’ …
This post is only available to members.

Causation: Reducing damages due to pre-existing conditions – a tenable argument?

Julian Matthews discusses two recent cases which illustrate the potentially far reaching consequences of the rules of causation of damage ‘These cases clearly illustrate that the focus of attention in the assessment of damages in cases where there is a medical or other disability subsisting prior to the date of negligence must be upon the …
This post is only available to members.

Industrial disease: Divisible and indivisible injuries

Tim Trotman reviews the tests for factual causation following Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd ‘The tests can be encapsulated in familiar phrases: “but for”, “material contribution”, “material increase in risk” and “apportionment”, but discriminating factual cases and matching them to the correct legal test has become far more difficult in the recent past.’ This article …
This post is only available to members.