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

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 [...]

IS IT TIME TO DISREGARD DE MINIMIS?

By |June 1st, 2016|Articles|

  By Charles Feeny & Sammy Nanneh The term “de minimis non curat lex” is an aphorism learnt by law students and has the advantage of being memorable.  Loosely translated, the maxim indicates that the law disregards trifling matters. Historically it has been used in a variety of legal contexts as an exclusionary tool to [...]

Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board: The search goes on?

By |February 10th, 2016|Case Notes, Personal Injury|

Case Background Charles Feeny & Sammy Nanneh In our article in the PI Update Law Journal, "Material contribution: the search for the elusive third way", we argued that the decision in Bailey v. The MOD appeared to accept an exception to 'but for' causation in tort. However, the precise basis and ambit of this approach was neither [...]

McGEER v MACINTOSH: PAVING A SAFER WAY FOR CYCLISTS?

By |November 16th, 2015|Case Notes, Personal Injury|

Case Background This case involved a cyclist who undertook a stationary car at traffic lights and then cycled to the nearside of an HGV which was indicating to turn left. In earlier years, this would have been regarded as a very difficult case for a claimant. In a detailed and careful judgment, the Judge, His [...]

Proving the Difference?

By |November 2nd, 2015|Case Notes, Clinical Negligence|

Case Background The Court of Appeal today handed down Judgment in the case of Christine Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust and Another allowing the Defendant’s appeal against the Order of Mr Justice Foskett. The Court of Appeal have remitted the case to Mr Justice Foskett for further determination in the light of [...]