Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & ors [2016] EWHC 2208 (QB): the eligibility criteria for a bereavement award are inconsistent with the values of modern Britain

This blog is written by John-Paul Swoboda of 12KBW.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith shone a light upon an inadequacy in the law which clinical negligence lawyers have long been aware of; the criteria to determine eligibility for a bereavement award pursuant to section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 is unjustifiably discriminatory. In Smith the Master of the Rolls, McCombe LJ, and Sir Patrick Elias all agreed that section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 was incompatible with article 14 (non-discrimination) and that article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) was engaged. A declaration of incompatibility pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was made. Continue reading “Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & ors [2016] EWHC 2208 (QB): the eligibility criteria for a bereavement award are inconsistent with the values of modern Britain”

What now for fixed costs in clinical negligence litigation?

In this blog Isaac Hogarth of 12 KBW considers the the recent Jackson report on fixed costs.

In July 2017, Sir Rupert Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Supplemental Report, Fixed Recoverable Costs was published.

The most significant part of the report for personal injury practitioners relates to the proposed introduction of a new track, to be known as the “intermediate track”, to include personal injury claims valued at £25,000 to £100,000. Sir Rupert proposes that there be a table of fixed recoverable costs under this new track.

In relation to clinical negligence litigation, however, no concrete proposals have been put forward. Chapter 8 of the Report relates to fixed costs proposals in clinical negligence. Continue reading “What now for fixed costs in clinical negligence litigation?”

The Discount Rate Decision: Right or Wrong, Gilt Edged or Double Edged?

In this post Henry Charles of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the implications of the recent change to the discount rate.

Minus 0.75%.

The initial reaction: claimant nirvana …and if so for how long?

The Lord Chancellor’s statement heralded the new rate with the assertion that minus 0.75% was the only answer on a gilts based assessment: Continue reading “The Discount Rate Decision: Right or Wrong, Gilt Edged or Double Edged?”