header-logo header-logo

17 May 2007 / Peter Gooderham
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Special treatment?

Peter Gooderham dissects the government’s proposed NHS redress scheme…and finds it wanting

The NHS Redress Act 2006 (NHSRA 2006) received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. This provides for the establishment of the NHS redress scheme, which will be an alternative means of compensation to the clinical negligence system for some potential claimants. The details of the scheme will be contained within statutory instruments. NHSRA 2006 implements some of the recommendations of Making Amends (Department of Health, 2003).

The reliance on statutory instruments is a major feature of NHSRA 2006. They will be a source of interest to clinical negligence lawyers. The Department of Health seemingly wishes to consult before producing these.

DELIVERY OF TORT REFORM

Making Amends followed several calls for tort reform, notably from Sir Ian Kennedy in Learning from Bristol (Department of Health, 2001, Cm 5207), who recommended replacement of the clinical negligence system with a no-fault compensation scheme. NHSRA 2006, however, specifically requires, in s 1(2), a “qualifying liability in tort”. The government has preserved the Bolam/Bolitho test of the standard of

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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll