header-logo header-logo

27 May 2022 / Claire Christopholus , David Locke
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Features , Clinical negligence
printer mail-detail

Second chances & the relative (in)significance of Bailey

82845
Claire Christopholus & David Locke on a clinical negligence claim that ran again & the influence of Bailey
  • Reviews an attempt to bring a clinical negligence claim again, 16 years after it was discontinued, on the basis Bailey changed the law on material contribution.
  • Covers Astley v Mid-Cheshire Hospitals Foundation and refers to Bailey v Ministry of Defence.

In Astley v Mid-Cheshire Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust [2022] EWHC 337 (QB), Mr Justice Eyre refused the claimant’s application, made pursuant to CPR Pt 38.7, for permission to bring what was ostensibly the same claim against the defendant, some 16 years after the original claim had been discontinued. A key issue was whether the decision in Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] All ER (D) 382 (Jul), [2009] 1 WLR 1052 represented a change in the law.

Background

It was alleged Mr Astley suffered a brain injury as a consequence of a delay in his delivery, in 1997. Proceedings were issued in 2004 but were then

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll