header-logo header-logo

Personal injury

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll