Tag Archives: Clinical negligence

THE DANGERS OF RELYING ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: BEWARE YE THE PARTISAN EXPERT: “UNBALANCED AND HIGHLY MISLEADING”

Some types of litigation are heavily reliant upon expert evidence.  Clinical negligence cases are often determined by the judge’s assessment of the experts involved.  It is disturbing to see the matters raised in  judgment today of His Honour Peter Hughes (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) in Watts -v- The Secretary of State […]

REVISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 2: ON THE LAWYERS DRAFTING THE EXPERTS’ REPORTS

The first post in this series on the judgments in Whitehouse -v- Jordan in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords  looked at the point that, at the appeal stage, the courts were only concerned with whether they could overturn findings of fact.  These were not appeals about the law of clinical negligence. These […]

RE-VISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 1: THESE APPEALS WERE NOT ABOUT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AT ALL: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FACTS

The decisions of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Whitehouse -v- Jordan are often put forward as seminal cases in the law of clinical negligence.  However these appeals, in reality, were not about issues relating to clinical negligence at all.  In a series of posts I want to look at aspects of […]

“SECOND” ACTION FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

In the judgment today in Wright -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1834 (QB) Mr Justice Edis refused the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on the grounds that the claimant had settled an earlier claim for damages. the defendant Trust was liable to pay different elements of the claim […]

CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND MEDICAL NOTES

The judgment of Mrs Justice McGowan today in FE -v- St George’s Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 533 (QB) highlights the importance of contemporary documents. It also shows the dangers of the subsequent alteration of notes. There is no suggestion that this was done deliberately. However the poor standard of records served to undermine many […]

PART 36: THE COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF LATE ACCEPTANCE

The case of ABC -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 500 (QB) decided earlier today provides an object lesson on the dangers of Part 36. His Honour Judge McKenna considered whether he should depart from the “usual rules” in relation to costs after a Part 36 offer was accepted late. “It is common ground […]

WITNESSES TRIALS AND ACCURACY OF RECOLLECTION (II)

The previous post dealt with a case where a judge had preferred the evidence of the medical practitioners in a clinical negligence case. As is so often the case a judgment reported on the same day shows a case where the judge came to a different conclusion. In  Arkless-v-  Cadwaladr University Local Health Board [2016] EWHC […]