header-logo header-logo

16 October 2008
Issue: 7341 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil Litigation

St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068, [2008] All ER (D) 62 (Oct)

(i) A challenge to the judge’s findings of fact, where the challenge is simply based on the submission that the judge erred in preferring the evidence of one of the experts to that of the other, should be upheld only if it could be said that the judge’s conclusion was clearly wrong.

(ii) In applying the test in s 1(1) of the of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, it is necessary to have regard both to blameworthiness and to “causal potency”. Moreover, it has often been said in the context of contributory negligence that the courts should adopt a broad common sense approach.
 

Issue: 7341 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll