19 November 2008 Summary

NEWSLETTER

LAW JOURNAL

Personal Injury Articles

Subtle Traumatic Brain Injury Cases: Are we Missing Them? - Tim Kevan
Every couple of years there is the sort of case which pushes forward the boundaries of particular areas of litigation. Such is the case with Williams v Jervis, QBD (Roderick Evans J) 8/10/2008 (Lawtel, 15/10/2008) which raises the issue of subtle traumatic brain injury cases.

Causation and Contributory Negligence Revisited - Tabitha Nice, Stewarts Law
It is a common question which arises in personal injury cases as to where the line is drawn between causation and contributory negligence. Cases very much tend to turn on their facts and so it is therefore instructive when a case comes before the Court of Appeal on this point as it did recently in Ryan St George (a Patient suing by his Father and Litigation Friend David St George) v Home Office [2008] Times 22 October.

Mason v Satelcom, a Clarification of Non-Employers’ Duties under PUWER - Jack Harris, 2 Temple Gardens
The Court of Appeal, in its judgments in Mason v Satelcom Ltd & East Potential Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 494, has clarified the scope of the statutory duties owed by the occupiers of property to persons, not being their employees, who injure themselves whilst using work equipment on the property.

Cumulative Cause Cases: a Modified But For Test? - Rosa Dickinson, St Philip’s Chambers
There is a new addition to the long line of case law dealing with cases where a claim for personal injuries faces an evidentiary gap, in that medical science cannot establish the probable cause of an injury. The Court of Appeal further considered the issue in the case of Bailey v Ministry of Defence and another [2008] EWCA Civ 883.

An update on stress at work claims - Michael Scutt, Dale Langley and Co
Judgment in the case of Dickins v O2 plc was handed down by the Court of Appeal a few days ago. It is but the latest case in a slow but steady trickle that have been nibbling away at the imposing edifice that is Hatton v Sutherland , the leading case on stress at work claims. Hatton is still very much alive and kicking, but has been tempered in one important way by Dickins.

Direct claims against insurers: the position after FBTO v Odenbreit - Sarah Prager, 1 Chancery Lane
This article examines the implications of the decision of the European Court of Justice in FBTO v Odenbreit (ECJ C-463/06).

PI Travel Law, Edited by Katherine Deal, 3 Hare Court

Local Standards: Who Needs Them? - Andrew Young, 3 Hare Court
Although the Package Travel Regulations have now been in force for almost 16 years in the UK, there is still a surprising amount of uncertainty as to the basis of a tour operator’s liability for non performance or improper performance of the contract under regulation 15 of the Regulations, despite several attempts at clarification by the Court of Appeal. In particular, it is often unclear what standard of care ought to be applied in a given case.

Clinical Negligence Articles

Consent: worth the paper it’s written on? What does a doctor have to do to ensure consent is informed? - Richard Booth, 1 Crown Office Row
Is it enough for a doctor simply to explain all the risks of the procedure that is being proposed? The recent judgment of Cranston J in Birch v University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2008] EWHC 2237 would seem to suggest that the answer is "not always".

Nurses: Ignore Vital Signs at Your Peril - Angus Piper, 1 Chancery Lane
It seems to me that it is essential when assessing the strength of claims against nurses, from either side of the claimant/defendant fence, to have in mind the principles adumbrated by the Court of Appeal last year in Barry Sutcliffe (by his wife and Litigation Friend Julie Sutcliffe) v BMI Healthcare Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 476.

Marketing for Solicitors

Marketing your Practice: One Size does not Fit All, But the Processes are the Same for Sole Practitioners & LLP - Jenny Cotton, Mortons Marketing
Asking "is Marketing essential?" is like asking "is investment needed?" Many might query this but do they believe marketing means advertising or promotions only? Marketing is wider and aims to maximise today’s practice offer whilst checking that tomorrow’s practice capacity fits tomorrow’s customers’ needs and wishes, sustainably. Sounds simple? Market audit will help. This is the first of a series of notes on developing your practice.

Charon QC

Charon QC, November 2008
And so to the BBC 2 programme: The Barristers