header-logo header-logo

24 February 2017 / Thomas Jervis , Jill Paterson
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

About time

nlj_7735_pattreson

Jill Paterson & Thomas Jervis consider the High Court’s latest limitation decision

  • Unusual spinal injuries case in which the High Court granted permission for a product liability claim to continue following preliminary issue trial of limitation.

In Keith Malcolm Lewin v Glaxo Operations UK Limited [2016] EWHC 3331 (QB) the High Court has granted permission for a product liability claim to continue following a preliminary issue trial of limitation. In this unusual spinal injuries case, the court was asked to determine whether the claim was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980.

Background

The claimant, a 59-year-old solicitor, is pursuing a product liability claim against an entity of the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline for alleged personal injuries and other consequential losses arising out of his exposure to Myodil, an oil based contrast medium, when he underwent a diagnostic myelogram procedure for back pain at Whiston Hospital in 1973. He was 15-years-old at that time. Mr Lewin is now severely disabled and requires the use of a large motorised wheelchair to mobilise after developing a serious spinal

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll