header-logo header-logo

30 October 2008
Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Personal injury , In Court
printer mail-detail

Personal injury

Ellis v Environment Agency [2008] EWCA Civ 1117, [2008] All ER (D) 163 (Oct)

A claimant who satisfies the “but-for” test does not have to prove also that the defendant’s negligence was the only, or chronologically the last, cause of his injuries. The normal rule for causation in personal injury negligence cases is the but for rule.

The principles established in Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421 and Allen v British Rail Engineering Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 291 (Feb) are an exception to the general rule, limited to industrial disease or injury cases where there has been successive exposure to harm by a number of agencies, where the effect of the harm is divisible, and where it would be unjust for an individual defendant to bear the whole of a loss when in commonsense he was not responsible for all of it.

Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Personal injury , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll