If you'd like to contact us or contribute email us today|editors@pro-vide-law.co.uk

charlesfeeny

/Charles Feeny

About Charles Feeny

Charles undertakes work in the areas of clinical negligence, industrial disease, personal injury & health, safety and regulatory work. If you would like to contact Charles please email: charles.feeny@completecounsel.co.uk

WHEATCROFT v BRINE – Liability to ‘smartphone zombies’?

By |September 19th, 2017|Case Notes, Personal Injury|

His Honour Judge Main QC on 11th May 2017 handed down judgement in this case at Manchester County Court. David Sandiford, instructed by Irwin Mitchell, appeared for the Claimant; Charles Feeney, instructed by Keoghs, appeared for the Defendant. At approximately 12.10 pm on 24th December 2013 Ms. Chloe Wheatcroft, the then 14-year old Claimant, was [...]

BUSSEY v. ANGLIA HEATING – Withstanding the broadsides?

By |May 16th, 2017|Case Notes, Industrial Disease|

His Honour Judge Yelton on 12th May 2017 handed down judgment in this case.  The action was a fatal mesothelioma claim.  The deceased, Mr Bussey, was employed by the Defendants as a plumber carrying out predominantly domestic work in the period 1965 to 1968.  In particular, Mr Bussey worked on the installation of new boilers [...]

PD v RLBUH NHS T (2016) – Reasonable Reconstruction or Speculation in Surgical Negligence?

By |March 23rd, 2017|Case Notes, Clinical Negligence|

Facts: On 11thNovember 2010 the claimant, Mr PD, underwent a laparoscopic subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy, which involved removal of the colon and diversion of the small bowel to an opening in the stomach. Following the procedure it emerged that the claimant had suffered an intraperitoneal haemorrhage to the bowel during the first surgery, and [...]

McGeer v McIntosh: Paving a safer way for cyclists? (Number 2)

By |February 28th, 2017|Case Notes, Personal Injury|

The Court of Appeal have dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against the judgement of His Honour Judge Raynor QC awarding the Claimant 70% of damages on a full liability basis. We previously discussed the implications of the first instance judgment in McGeer v McIntosh: Paving a safer way for cyclists? The appeal sought to challenge the [...]

Reaney – the yet to be resolved questions

By |December 6th, 2016|Articles|

Reaney – the yet to be resolved questions The case of Christine Reaney v. University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust (1) and Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (2)[1] has now compromised on a largely pragmatic basis, reflecting both parties' perception of the risks in proceeding. These risks were increased by Mr Justice Foskett's understandable [...]

De minimis or material? – The survival of the false dichotomy in industrial disease cases – Carder v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWCA Civ 790

By |September 27th, 2016|Case Notes|

Introduction We recently voiced questioned the use of the maxim ‘de minimis’ when proving causation in multi-exposure industrial disease claims (see here)[1]. It was suggested that in these types of claims the function of the maxim has been subverted. Historically, de minimis was used as a blunt tool to exclude trifling matters from litigation. However, [...]

Dust-Clouds and Dustbins: Should There Be a Regularity Requirement for Dust Exposure When Defining ‘Substantial’ Under Section 63 (1) Factories Act 1961?

By |September 5th, 2016|Articles|

This article originally appeared on the PI Brief Update website In cases where an employee is exposed to asbestos, a claim may be brought under the common law as well as pursuant to duties owed by the employer under various regulations and legislation. One example of such legislation is s.63 (1) Factories Act 1961, which [...]

WARNE v VINTERS-ARMSTRONGS [2016] EWHC 1971 (QB); AN EXPOSURE OF SUBSTANCE

By |August 16th, 2016|Articles|

Synopsis The Claimant employee was exposed to asbestos dust during the course of his employment over 50 years ago. This judgement sheds light on the importance of selecting the correct expert and the need for sound methodology to analyse the possible extent of asbestos exposure when proving causation in industrial disease cases. The Claimant was [...]

Chronic Pain, vulnerable or inevitable? Bagaley v Chesterfield Hospitals

By |August 8th, 2016|Articles|

Factual background and the court’s judgement Download judgement PDF A claim was brought against the Defendant hospital after the Claimant, Ms Baggaley, was mistakenly led to believe that she might be suffering from cancer. The Claimant argued that this belief had caused her severe depression as well as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (“CFS”). The Claimant approached [...]

Will the BSB ABS bring Trial Lawyers to the UK?

By |July 11th, 2016|Articles|

Solicitors v barristers – the great ‘fusion’ debate A conversation is taking place over lunch between a barrister and his wife’s friend, visiting from Italy. “You mean the person who serves the coffee?” scoffs the Italian with surprise. “No. A barrisTER!’ is the retort. “Well how is that different to a lawyer?” This is an [...]