header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 May 2022 / Claire Christopholus , David Locke
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Features , Clinical negligence
printer mail-detail

Second chances & the relative (in)significance of Bailey

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
82845
Claire Christopholus & David Locke on a clinical negligence claim that ran again & the influence of Bailey
  • Reviews an attempt to bring a clinical negligence claim again, 16 years after it was discontinued, on the basis Bailey changed the law on material contribution.
  • Covers Astley v Mid-Cheshire Hospitals Foundation and refers to Bailey v Ministry of Defence.

In Astley v Mid-Cheshire Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 337 (QB), Mr Justice Eyre refused the claimant’s application, made pursuant to CPR Pt 38.7, for permission to bring what was ostensibly the same claim against the defendant, some 16 years after the original claim had been discontinued. A key issue was whether the decision in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] All ER (D) 382 (Jul), [2009] 1 WLR 1052 represented a change in the law.

Background

It was alleged Mr Astley suffered a brain injury as a consequence of a delay in his delivery, in 1997. Proceedings were issued in 2004 but were then discontinued following the claimant’s unsuccessful application, heard on

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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

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
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
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
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
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
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll