Articles

Michelle Marnham analyses the case of Jenkinson v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 872 (KB), a case which presents us with an intriguing change in clinical negligence law, with Baker J challenging the long-standing notion of the ‘specific rule’ in medical negligence cases.

Craig Ludlow analyses the case of HHJ Kalyany Kaul KC v (1) Ministry of Justice (2) The Lord Chancellor (3) The Lord Chief Justice [2023] EAT 41 in which the EAT states that the need for caution when considering a strike-out application does not prohibit realistic assessment where the circumstances of the case permit.

Mark Green reviews the various ways in which vexatious litigants can be prevented from bringing claims, prompted by the Court of Appeal case of Williamson v The Bishop of London and others [2023] EWCA Civ 379, which confirms the strict rules around Civil Proceedings Orders.

Emma Greening reviews Rolec (Electrical and Mechanical Services) Ltd v Mrs J Georgiou [2023] EAT 46, a case which demonstrates that for there to be a fair hearing a tribunal must not demonstrate a closed mind or the appearance of having taken a side.

Daniel Brown reviews the case of Lambert-Simpson v HCPC [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin), a case in which the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) had to decide if a registered psychologist had made racially motivated comments on social media, thus impairing their fitness to practise.

3PB's specialist commercial and chancery barrister Aaron Mayers explores the stringent stance of the courts on cases involving a breach of fiduciary duties, with reference to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Recovery Partners GP Ltd v Rukhadze and others [2023] EWCA Civ 305.

3PB's specialist construction barrister Philip Bambagiotti issues a new guide for insurers about how a well-managed subrogation strategy helps to realise the real value of insurance outlay by vigorously advancing offsetting insurance claims.

Special education barrister Emma Waldron shares her top 10 takeaways from the long-awaited Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan which the Government published on 2 March 2023.

Michelle Marnham analyses the case of Barry v Ministry of Defence [2023] EWHC 49 (KB) in which Judge Johnson handed down judgment in relation to former marine Mr Barry’s claim that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) caused his noise-induced hearing loss. It is the first time judicial guidance has been expressly given on the reduction factors (other than mortality) since the revised guidance in the 8th edition of the Ogden tables were published in July 2020.

On 2nd February 2023 The Civil Procedure Amendment Rules 2023 were laid before Parliament with the stated intention that they should come into force on 6th April 2023, amending the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 from that date.

Henrietta Hughes looks at the changes being introduced.

Ellena James looks at the case of Andrew Carr v Brands Transport Limited [2022] EWHC 3167 (KB). This judgment serves as a detailed and comprehensive review of personal injury claims in an employment context, including contributory negligence and the circumstances in which a sole director will be considered an employee in such cases.

Michelle Marnham considers the case CNZ v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. A must-read case for those practising in clinical negligence and especially for those practising in birth injury cases. The case also provides useful guidance on material contribution and apportionment.