header-logo header-logo

13 November 2008
Issue: 7345 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Tort

Hull v Sanderson [2008] EWCA Civ 1211, [2008] All ER (D) 39 (Nov)

For the Fairchild exception to apply, (i) the claimant must show that it is inherently impossible, because of the current state of scientific knowledge, for the claimant to prove exactly how his injury was caused; (ii) the defendant’s conduct must have materially increased the risk of injury to the claimant; (iii) the defendant’s conduct must have been capable of causing the claimant’s injury; (iv) the claimant has to show that the injury was caused by the eventuation of the kind of risk created by the defendant’s wrongdoing; and (v) the injury must be caused by the same agency as was involved in the defendant’s wrongdoing.

Issue: 7345 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
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