header-logo header-logo

Doc Brief

06 March 2008 / B. Mahendra
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence , Mental health
printer mail-detail

COMPETING RIGHTS
SCIENCE v FACTS
POST-DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS

FLYING UNSEEN

Most individuals are dependent on employment for their income. Illness of diverse kinds may impair the ability to work; the individual’s income may then become compromised and the law in many situations may begin to take an interest. This is usually the stuff of personal injury law, where employment prospects in the future—in the face of injuries sustained as a result of some tortious act—have to be studied with some care as any compensation payable must obviously reflect probable future loss.

In ancillary proceedings following divorce, the earning potential of ex-spouses is clearly a consideration especially where illness has afflicted one or both spouses. Lay persons often confuse recovery from illness with the full resumption of the capacity to work. The reality may be somewhat different. An individual may recover from some disorder but the prospects for his future employment may remain unclear and unpredictable. This situation played an important part in the Court of Appeal’s deliberations in v ( 2007)

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll