header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 3 July 2020

02 July 2020
Issue: 7893 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll