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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll