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

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

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law—Sara Mason

Bellevue Law expands workplace law offering with specialist healthcare regulatory appointment

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC—Peter Ames

Seddons GSC strengthens Dispute Resolution team with partner hire

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose—four promotions

Taylor Rose announces partner promotions

NEWS
Group claims, disputed costs and judicial recruitment dominate the latest courtroom round-up
Landlords face fresh registration duties as procedural reforms reshape the civil courts
Sanctions can derail commercial disputes long before judgment, making early planning essential
Pressure is mounting for a dedicated UK AI law, but deciding what it should achieve remains the central challenge
Legal professional privilege has checked the SRA’s investigative powers, exposing difficult questions about tackling suspected abusive litigation
back-to-top-scroll