header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008 / James Counsell
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Features , Legal services , Procedure & practice , Employment
printer mail-detail

An unjustified windfall?

Should courts take into account events which take place after the notional date of trial in a claim for damages for professional negligence? James Counsell reports

In Hibbert Pownall & Newton v Whitehead (2008) EWCA Civ, [2008] All ER (D) 60, the Court of Appeal held that a firm of solicitors which was negligent in failing to conclude a mother's claim against a health authority for damages (for the wrongful birth of her son born with spina bifida) before the mother's death by suicide, was not liable to pay damages to the mother's estate for the child's care costs incurred after her death.

This important decision contains some useful reminders to personal injury and professional negligence practitioners of the difficulties of proving loss even when breach of duty is established. Of even more interest, perhaps, are the observations in the judgment of Lord Justice Laws as to the extent to which the court might be prepared to take into account unknown events which postdated the notional date of trial and which serve to reduce

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll