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

Articles

/Articles

“Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty.”

By |March 26th, 2018|Articles|

Article by James Byrne Though this truism was scribed by Plato around 380 BC in his seminal work on justice, ‘The Republic’, little has changed.  Fraudulent personal injury claims are a booming business.  You only have to open the tabloid press on any given day and you are likely to see the photograph of a [...]

Contribution and Apportionment: Unruly Horses? An article by Charles Feeny and Sam Irving for PI Brief Update Law Journal

By |February 15th, 2018|Articles|

25/01/18. "Public policy is a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride, you never know where it will carry you." These oft repeated words were those of Borough J in Richardson v. Mellish in 1824 and are the first reference to the much repeated maxim, that resorting to public policy is equivalent to mounting [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

Does clinical negligence litigation have a role in patient safety?

By |August 2nd, 2016|Articles|

Are standards maintained because at least in part, a threat of litigation, and are lessons learnt (as claimed) from litigated cases? Patient safety is described by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as ‘the most important common issue in health care internationally’. It includes the prevention of errors and adverse effects to patients associated with health [...]

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 [...]

SUPREME COURT GIVES ENCOURAGEMENT TO CLAIMANTS IN CONSENT CASES

By |July 13th, 2015|Articles|

Certainly the decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board has clarified the law and brought it in line with what clearly has been the pragmatic approach of the NHSLA for some time. In many respects the decision directly reflects, enshrines and applies the established guidance given to doctors by the General Medical Council. The question in practitioners’ [...]