header-logo header-logo

30 October 2008
Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Personal injury , In Court
printer mail-detail

Personal injury

Ellis v Environment Agency [2008] EWCA Civ 1117, [2008] All ER (D) 163 (Oct)

A claimant who satisfies the “but-for” test does not have to prove also that the defendant’s negligence was the only, or chronologically the last, cause of his injuries. The normal rule for causation in personal injury negligence cases is the but for rule.

The principles established in Holtby v Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421 and Allen v British Rail Engineering Ltd [2001] All ER (D) 291 (Feb) are an exception to the general rule, limited to industrial disease or injury cases where there has been successive exposure to harm by a number of agencies, where the effect of the harm is divisible, and where it would be unjust for an individual defendant to bear the whole of a loss when in commonsense he was not responsible for all of it.

Issue: 7343 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Personal injury , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers welcomes new associate

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Ward Hadaway lawyer joins Birmingham Law Society Council

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons expands Chelmsford commercial litigation team with two appointments

NEWS
Businesses incorporating open-source software into commercial products could face obligations to disclose valuable source code, with AI-assisted development making licensing risks harder to track
Careless client checks do not automatically make a solicitor dishonest, but deliberately avoiding confirmation of suspected wrongdoing can cross the line
Construction workers injured in comparable accidents can face sharply different routes to compensation on opposite sides of the Atlantic
Victims of undue influence may have more options than simply unwinding a tainted transaction, with courts able to order profits accounts, compensation and, exceptionally, severance
Disabled people could lose vital safeguards following the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Cheshire West test for deprivation of liberty, two barristers warn
back-to-top-scroll