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

Case Notes

/Case Notes

IMMUNOTHERAPY COSTS: FINDING THE RIGHT REMEDY IN MEDICINE AND LAW?

By |September 11th, 2018|Case Notes, Employment|

The proposition that a defendant or insurer liable for terminal illness should pay reasonable treatment costs which have a prospect of improving the victim’s length or quality of life would appear to be an unlikely source of controversy.  However, it is a testament to the enduring ability of mesothelioma claims to create forensic controversy that [...]

RSA v GENERALI – LIFE IN THE ENCLAVE?

By |May 21st, 2018|Case Notes, Industrial Disease|

HHJ Brian Rawlings on 15thMay 2018 handed down judgement in this case. Michael Kent QC and Peter Houghton instructed by Plexus appeared for the Claimant; Charles Feeny, instructed by Hill Dickinson appeared for the Defendant.  Mr Merritt worked for a painting and decorating company (Alick Whittle Limited) between 1975 and 1985, during which time he [...]

BUSSEY v ANGLIA HEATING: COURT OF APPEAL REJECTS CLAIMANT’S PER INCURIAM ARGUMENT

By |February 22nd, 2018|Case Notes, Industrial Disease|

The original article can be found here On 22 February ,the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of Bussey v Anglia Heating. The primary focus of the Claimant’s Appeal had been that the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in Williams v The University of Birmingham was per incuriam and therefore [...]

XX V WHITTINGTON – Knowing when to return?

By |October 17th, 2017|Case Notes, Clinical Negligence|

Sir Robert Nelson on 18th September handed down judgement in this case. Claire Watson instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP appeared for the Claimant; Charles Feeny, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP appeared for the Defendant.  XX attended smear tests administered by doctors working for the Defendant in 2008 and 2012, and subsequently attended biopsies in 2012 [...]

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 [...]

“Successful” claimant’s costs recovery restricted to 6.7% of budget

By |March 26th, 2017|Case Notes, Clinical Negligence|

See link here for discussion of facts and judgment on liability by Charles Feeny PD -v- RLBUH NHS T Key points Successful claimant’s costs recovery restricted after fully contested trial to a fixed sum reflecting just 6.7% of the budgeted base fees and disbursements; and Claimant ordered to pay all of the defendant’s costs following [...]

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 [...]

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, [...]