Author: Imogen Hildred

Clinical negligence specialist Anthony Searle analyses a recent decision on pleading deficiencies, expert evidence missteps, and costs consequences Introduction In Read v North Middlesex Hospital Trust [2025] EWHC 1603 (KB), Master Thornett delivered a judgment that should make clinical negligence practitioners pause. The case offers a triple warning for those undertaking claimant work: Inadequately particularised […]

Read More… from Pleadings, Expert Evidence and QOCS: A Triple Warning

The ratio of the decision in AXO v CICA [2024] EWCA Civ 226 is that in certain circumstances, there is overlap and double recovery of a CICA award and Convention damages for breach of the HRA, so that it is open to CICA to seek repayment from HRA damages of a CICA award. The decision […]

Read More… from CICA Awards and HRA Damages: is there double recovery?

Introduction The approach to causation in clinical negligence cases has changed significantly over the past 20 years. In this article I consider whether as practitioners we are about to see another significant step forward or whether in practical terms little has changed. Life before Bailey Before Bailey v. MoD, most clinical negligence practitioners thought that […]

Read More… from Causation in Clinical Negligence Cases: Can there be liability where the same injury would probably have happened anyway?

See Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1 The common law general rule is that “the law does not grant remedies for the effects – whether psychological, physical or financial – of the death or injury of another person.” (para 48) Therefore, to establish a claim in the tort of negligence, a secondary […]

Read More… from Secondary Victim Claims following a Paul accident

It has taken the Supreme Court eight months to decide what to do about claims for psychiatric injury by secondary victims in clinical negligence cases. By a majority of six to one they have decided that nervous shock has no place in clinical negligence cases: “We are not able to accept that the responsibilities of […]

Read More… from Paul v Wolverhampton – The end of the road for nervous shock in clinical negligence….