header-logo header-logo

11 September 2008
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal injury

Monk v PC Harrington Ltd [2008] EWHC 1879, [2008] All ER (D) 20 (Aug)

(i) In order to recover damages for psychiatric injury as a rescuer, it is necessary for the claimant to show that his involvement in the aftermath of the accident was such that he can fairly be described as a rescuer (and so trivial or peripheral assistance will not suffice) and that, in going to the rescue of the injured people, he objectively exposed himself to danger or reasonably believed that he was doing so.

(ii) In order to recover damages for psychiatric injury as an “unwilling participant”, the claimant’s injury must be caused by a genuine and reasonable belief that he has caused the death or injury of another.

Issue: 7336 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Damages , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll