David Juckes
David has a broad practice including clinical and professional negligence, professional discipline, and personal injury. He has been instructed on inquests, civil trials and regulatory hearings. He drafts pleadings and advises in personal injury, clinical negligence and professional negligence disputes, and has also advised on matters of professional indemnity.
Practice Areas
Panels
- Case Analysis Panel
- Consulting Editorial Board
- Other Publications
Qualified Year
- 2009
Membership
- Professional Negligence Bar Association
- Personal Injury Bar Association
- London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
- Tampa Bay Inn of Court (Honorary)
Qualification
- Ba (Hons) AKC (2006)
Education
- King's College London (2006)
5 Contributions by David Juckes
PRACTICE NOTES
Causation in clinical negligence: 'but for', material contribution, risk, loss of chance, apportionment, intervening acts, remoteness and informed consent
Khan v Meadows
In Khan v Meadows, the Supreme Court outlined a framework for analysing the constituent parts needed to establish negligence, including the scope of duty and causation. For further guidance, including on the limits of the defendant’s duty of care, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims.
Causation has two elements that a claimant must demonstrate:
Is the loss a consequence of the defendant’s act or omission? (the factual causation question)
Is any part of the harm unrecoverable because it is too remote, because there is another effective cause (including an intervening act that broke the chain of causation), or because the claimant has mitigated their loss or failed to avoid loss they could reasonably have avoided?...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Causation in Personal Injury: But For, Material Contribution, Occupational Disease (Including Mesothelioma), Multiple Tortfeasors, Remoteness, Intervening Acts, Negligent Medical Treatment and Loss of a Chance
For guidance on causation in clinical negligence matters, refer to Practice Note: Causation and material contribution in clinical negligence claims.
Did the breach cause the injury to the claimant?
The baseline for proving causation is the ‘but for’ test: but for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the claimant have suffered the harm in question?
In a personal injury claim alleging negligence or breach of statutory duty, the claimant must show the defendant owed and breached a duty, and that this breach resulted in loss or damage.
It is helpful to consider the claim in key components:
did a duty of care exist?
was that duty breached by the defendant?
is there a causal link between the breach and the loss or damage?
what is the nature and scope of the loss or damage?
The claimant bears the burden of proving the breach caused the damage by establishing that, but for the breach, the damage would not have occurred. If no causal nexus is shown between the impugned act and the harm suffered, the claim will fail...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
CPR Part 36 settlement offers: purpose, making, clarification and costs consequences (post-1 October 2023), including fixed costs, split trials and Calderbank, in England and Wales
This Practice Note explores the aim of Part 36, explains what constitutes a Part 36 offer, and outlines the motivations for proposing one. It further supplies guidance on requesting clarification of a Part 36 offer and sets out the costs repercussions for both claimants and defendants when making and accepting Part 36 offers. Note that this Practice Note addresses the rules currently in force after 1 October 2023. For details of specific provisions in place before 1 October 2023 for Part 36 offers in fixed costs matters, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position prior to 1 October 2023). For guidance on Part 36 offers in civil claims that fall within the fixed costs regime on or after 1 October 2023, see Practice Note: Part 36 offers—fixed costs (position on or after 1 October 2023).
The purpose of Part 36 offers
CPR 36 supplies a codified framework enabling parties to make settlement proposals in civil litigation. Its function is to promote certainty, as to the character and effect of offers made under its scheme, and the associated costs outcomes. It is designed to encourage parties to put forward realistic terms of compromise, and confers financial incentives for doing so...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Pre-action Part 36 offers: recoverable costs, costs consequences, case law and costs-only proceedings (England and Wales)
This Practice Note sets out guidance on recovering pre-action costs under Part 36, outlining the circumstances in which such costs are available and the position where a Part 36 offer is made and accepted before any claim is issued...
Can pre-action costs be recovered under Part 36?
Yes. On 6 April 2015 the CPR were amended to codify earlier authority confirming that pre-action costs fall within Part 36 (see the Court of Appeal in Solomon v Cromwell Group (2011)). The rules now make clear that Part 36 costs recovery encompasses ‘recoverable pre-action costs’ (subject to the extent of what counts as ‘recoverable’, addressed below). The principal provisions are:
CPR 36.7(1)—which provides that a Part 36 offer can be made at any stage, including prior to the commencement of proceedings
CPR 36.13(1)—concerning a claimant’s recovery of costs where a Part 36 offer is accepted within the relevant period
CPR 36.17(3)(a)—concerning a defendant’s recovery of costs where the defendant’s Part 36 offer is not accepted and the claimant fails to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the defendant’s offer
CPR 36.17(4)(b)—in respect of a claimant’s costs recovery where a claimant’s Part
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Surveillance evidence in personal injury claims: CPR disclosure, admissibility, timing, costs (QOCS/Part 36), discontinuance/settlement, contempt, post-judgment appeals, and claimant recordings (England and Wales)
Overview
Within civil litigation, defendants in personal injury matters most often rely on surveillance material. Its purpose is to expose any gap between the claimant’s asserted impairments following the index accident and reality. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) contain no standalone rules for such material; a recording is treated as a document, so CPR 31 applies. There are three particular features of surveillance evidence that prompt specific considerations:
surprise—its value lies in capturing the claimant carrying out activities when they have no expectation of being observed by, or for, the defendant; advance warning must accordingly be avoided
secrecy—it is likewise crucial the claimant is not made aware that they are being watched; however, there are bounds to how far a defendant ought to go to obtain such material
timing—its forensic force is in weakening the claimant’s case, so the defendant will want the claimant to commit to their factual position before revealing the surveillance; disclosure must not be delayed so long that it amounts to ambushing the claimant
The distinctive nature of surveillance evidence gives rise to...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
