In RE (a minor) v Huddersfield and Calderdale NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 824 (QB) the infant claimant suffered a brain injury during her protracted birth. Her mother and grandmother sustained psychiatric injuries following sight of the baby, who was born in an extremely poor condition.
Co-editor of the 12KBW Clinical Negligence blog Rory Badenoch considers the recent Court of Appeal case of Barnett, one of the rare cases in which a judge’s inability to resolve an issue of fact had been justified (Stephens v Cannon  EWCA Civ 222 and Verlander v Devon Waste Management  EWCA Civ 835 applied). Also of note was the Court of Appeal’s criticism of the brevity of the judgment at first instance. This criticism was held to be of particular importance where a key issue is decided on the basis that a claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof.
In this blog Tim Petts of 12 KBW considers the recent Court of Appeal case of Willmott where the judge at first instance was accused of bias.
It is always slightly unnerving to appear in front of a judge who says something to show that they have personal expertise in a topic, particularly when drawn from their own medical history. Will the judge with a bad back be overly sympathetic to a fellow-sufferer, or take the view that the claimant is making a meal of things? Will the judge be influenced by their own experience – good or bad – while undergoing treatment, or even perhaps use (even subconsciously) what they have been told by their treating doctors as extra-special expert evidence against which the parties’ experts’ opinions will be evaluated? Continue reading “Willmott v The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust  EWCA Civ 181; Cement, shaking heads and arthritic knees”