Here, Henry Charles, Michael Brace and Lizzie Boulden explain why they consider that COVID-19 related clinical negligence claims arising out of redeployed healthcare professionals are unlikely to succeed on the present law. This should provide considerable comfort to healthcare professionals who are not only bravely risking their lives, but who are also working in unfamiliar roles in the national effort to fight the pandemic.
In this blog post, pupils Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas and Tim Goodwin discuss the recent case of Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants  UKSC 13. Whilst this might more appropriately fall under the definition of an employer's liability case, it is worth noting that this case centred on the activities of a doctor, and therefore it provides useful guidance on who might be the correct defendant in a case relating to medical professionals who appear to be acting as "independent contractors".
Public policy shift in the court’s approach to surrogacy arrangements: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX  UKSC 14
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 … Continue reading Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & ors  EWHC 2208 (QB): the eligibility criteria for a bereavement award are inconsistent with the values of modern Britain
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 … Continue reading What now for fixed costs in clinical negligence litigation?
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 … Continue reading The Discount Rate Decision: Right or Wrong, Gilt Edged or Double Edged?