header-logo header-logo

02 July 2020
Issue: 7893 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 3 July 2020

Army

Jones v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 1603 (QB), [2020] All ER (D) 123 (Jun)

In a clinical negligence claim against the Ministry of Defence, the claimant had not established that his fatigue (which was the effective cause of his discharge from the Army) had been caused by the delay in diagnosis of a certain medical status, rather than the consequences that would have flowed from that status in any event, nor had he established that the persistent fatigue could be explained by a psychiatric or psychological reaction to the consequences of the delay in diagnosis. However, the Queen’s Bench Division, having previously refused to grant an anonymity order, and following a remote hearing, held that the claimant was entitled to an award of general damages to compensate for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity endured, not simply during the ten months in which he had been wrongly left undiagnosed, but the months following, in which his weakened immune system had led to two incidences of hospitalisation. The court held that the appropriate level of general damages was £20,000,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll