12 King's Bench Walk
11 Experts
24 Contributions by 12 King's Bench Walk Experts
PRACTICE NOTES
Chronic primary pain and its meaning
Chronic primary pain is a broad label for cases where a claimant experiences pain symptoms but medical investigations have not identified a specific pathological explanation for the pain. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published guidance in April 2021 addressing the assessment and management of chronic pain. Chronic pain—sometimes called long-term or persistent pain—is defined in that guideline as pain lasting longer than three months. The NICE guidance centres on chronic primary pain, that is, pain with no obvious underlying cause, or pain (or its impact) that is disproportionate to any detectable injury or disease.
The guideline does not recommend for or against pain management programmes for chronic primary pain; rather, the committee agreed that options should be tailored following a patient-centred assessment. ICD-11 (the eleventh revision of the International
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Introduction
The duty of care expected of doctors and other clinicians is widely recognised. Yet claims alleging delayed diagnosis or treatment are often made harder by issues of causation. Almost every clinical negligence claimant arrives with existing health risks. The core question in this field is whether, and exactly which, further harm and loss were brought about by the supposed medical negligence...
Types of claim
Cases involving delay in treatment or diagnosis arise across the NHS. The most substantial claims tend to occur in acute and emergency settings—an unwell patient moves through many steps in a large hospital, and each stage offers scope for delay. Typical instances include:
late ambulance attendance at the scene or slow transport to hospital
patients being incorrectly triaged in A&E
postponed referral for investigations
investigations being misinterpreted
delay or failure in obtaining senior or
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Symptomology
The clearest sign of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), sometimes called vibration white finger (VWF), is blanching of the fingers caused by spasms of the blood vessels that serve them, leading to pallor. Such spasms may involve all or part of one, several, or even every finger, which then become cold and numb, with reduced sensation. Episodes may persist for a few minutes or continue for a couple of hours. It is also possible for similar attacks to arise in the feet or the nose. There is no curative treatment, though spontaneous improvement may occur over time. The condition may occur naturally, yet it is frequently associated with over-exposure to vibrating tools. Its aetiology has not always been understood and, crucially for litigation in these cases, the courts have limited liability to periods after which employers ought reasonably to have been aware of the risks of HAVS and
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Background
Claims for noise‑induced hearing loss (NIHL) have existed for many years, yet in recent times there has been a marked surge in actions brought against the Ministry of Defence (MOD), in particular on behalf of Army, Navy and RAF personnel for NIHL arising from military service—commonly termed ‘M‑NIHL’ claims. While M‑NIHL shares much in common with occupational NIHL (O‑NIHL), these military claims often present distinctive characteristics that must be taken into account when handling and progressing them.
Existence and extent of duties
Members of the armed forces are not employees, as they do not serve under contracts of service; in constitutional terms, they are servants of the Crown. Nevertheless, it is firmly recognised and long established that service personnel are owed duties equivalent to those owed to employees by their employers.
Military Deafness Litigation (MDL)
M‑NIHL claims also at present proceed within the framework of an ongoing
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note outlines the principal points and considerations to bear in mind when seeking damages for losses arising from food poisoning under the:
Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (1992 Package Travel Regs), SI 1992/3288 (covering package holidays sold or offered for sale on or after 31 December 1992 up to 30 June 2018), or
Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (2018 Package Travel Regs), SI 2018/634 (applying to packages sold on or after 1 July 2018)
A copy of the 1992 Package Travel Regs can be accessed here for reference if required:
For general guidance on package holiday claims, also see Practice Note: Package holiday claims for context.
Proving breach of contract
Although the claim is brought against the tour operator under the 1992 Package Travel Regs, SI 1992/3288, reg 15, or the 2018 Package Travel Regs, SI
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Introduction to Road Traffic Act 1988 and Motor Insurers Bureau
This Practice Note offers a concise overview of motor insurance, uninsured motorists and untraced drivers, clarifying Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) Uninsured and Untraced Drivers Agreements.
Motor insurance in the UK is notably complex. Across much of mainland Europe, the owner insures the vehicle and the policy extends to any driver who has the owner’s permission. By contrast, UK cover is generally written for specified drivers, and frequently only for stated uses.
Part VI of the RTA 1988 requires compulsory third-party motor insurance and sets out a statutory scheme describing when an insurer must pay damages to an injured person. It gives effect to what is now Directive 2009/103/EC, the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive.
The MIB is a private organisation comprising all of the UK’s motor
Insurance & Reinsurance
PRACTICE NOTES
Basic principles
The basic principles of mitigation are:
damages are not recoverable for losses a claimant could have averted by taking reasonable steps
where a claimant goes beyond what is reasonably required and thereby avoids loss, those avoided losses cannot be recovered
the reasonable costs of taking steps to mitigate may themselves be claimed as damages
A defendant who intends to argue that a claimant failed to mitigate must give notice well before the hearing, via the statements of case or otherwise, and advance a concrete case showing what the claimant might reasonably have done.
Test to be applied
The onus of proving a failure to mitigate lies with the defendant. Nonetheless, a claimant’s practitioner should anticipate mitigation arguments and gather evidence to meet them. The claimant’s reasons for particular decisions should be probed in depth. Expert evidence may also be required. Whether the claimant has mitigated their losses is a
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note addresses the causation issues that frequently arise in hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) claims, also known as vibration white finger (VWF). This Practice Note will refer to HAVS. It provides practical guidance on handling such claims, including a survey of the leading case law on causation, the difficulties around diagnosis, the value of photographic evidence and the claimant’s account of symptoms, apportionment of liability, and the overlap with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). For guidance on liability and quantum, including the significance of the defendant’s date of knowledge of the risk and limitation considerations, see Practice Note: Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) or vibration white finger (VWF)—liability and quantum.
Diagnosis
Causation is challenging because there is no definitive diagnostic protocol, and methodologies vary considerably between experts. The position is further complicated by the fact that individuals may exhibit similar vascular symptoms even without any
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note offers an overview of injuries that arise or worsen due to powerful, repeated or awkward motions when rest and recovery are inadequate. These conditions go by various umbrella terms, most often labelled repetitive strain injuries (RSI), work‑related upper limb disorders, or musculoskeletal disorders. It addresses optimal strategies for bringing or resisting claims involving such harm. RSI typically denotes pain or damage linked to repeated actions. Most frequently, repetition leads to persistent forearm pain or functional impairment. The label has effectively become interchangeable with work‑related arm pain. Within the spectrum are both clearly diagnosable disorders and non‑specific symptoms such as pain and fatigue. The principal specifically recognisable conditions are listed below. For direction on applicable statutory duties and leading authorities—covering the effect of section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013), the
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
ARCHIVED: This Practice Note was archived and is not maintained.
Unlike familiar hazards such as fire or flood, a viral outbreak cannot be neatly tied to a specific place or moment in time. The 2020 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak and the resulting government measures therefore confronted insurers with a novel loss landscape, where the factual intricacies were compounded by a shortage of clear judicial authority on key questions arising in business interruption claims, including:
the interpretation of composite insured perils in non-damage business interruption policies (ie, the so-called ‘disease’, ‘prevention of access’ and ‘hybrid’ clauses)
the appropriate approach to causation for ‘wide-area’ perils, which tend to cause loss not only to the insured premises but also across the surrounding area
identifying the proximate cause of loss amid multiple competing causes, some insured and some not
the
Insurance & Reinsurance
PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note
This Practice Note surveys the statutory framework governing musculoskeletal disorders, sometimes described as repetitive strain injury (RSI) claims or work-related upper limb conditions. For workplace accidents occurring on or after 1 October 2013, civil liability no longer stems from breach of statutory duty unless the particular regulation so provides, with such actions therefore to be pursued in negligence. The Note also reviews significant authorities, with the principal emphasis on whether the claimant’s symptoms meet the threshold for actionability. In addition, it considers the leading authority on limitation where musculoskeletal disorders are in issue. The Note addresses a category of injuries caused or exacerbated by forceful, repetitive, and awkward movements undertaken without adequate rest or recovery. These conditions, which are known under various umbrella labels, are commonly called RSI, work-related upper limb disorders, or
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained.
In the County Court at [ insert ]Claim No:Between A B Claimant and X Y Defendant
Defence
It is accepted that the accident identified at paragraph 1 occurred at the time and place stated.
For the purposes of these proceedings, it is accepted that the accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence.
The Defendant requires the Claimant to prove all heads of damage alleged.
Counter Schedule
3.1 Repairs—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same.
3.2 Recovery—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same.
3.3 Storage—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Claim No:
Parties
1 A B — Claimant
2 X Y — Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all relevant times, the Claimant owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ] bearing registration [ insert registration number ]. The Defendant likewise owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ] with registration [ insert registration number ].
On [ insert date ], the Claimant was lawfully positioned at the junction of [ insert street name ] and [ insert street name, town, county ], stationary and intending to turn left. Whilst the Claimant waited, the Defendant’s vehicle approached from the Claimant’s right, reduced speed and indicated to turn left into the Claimant’s road...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Claim No: [ insert claim number ]
BETWEEN
MR A B Claimant
-and-
C D LIMITED Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all material times, the Defendant owned and/or ran a business [ description of business, eg collecting and processing refuse ].
At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [ job title eg dustbin lorry driver and loader ].
Details of Incident
At about [ time ] on [ date ], the Claimant was [ description of work activities being undertaken ] at [ location ] in the course of their employment.
The Claimant wore liveried attire and personal protective equipment supplied by the Defendant. This included [ details of equipment, eg Type 1 gloves, which extended approximately three centimetres up the Claimant’s forearm above his wrist, and a
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Claim No. [ insert claim no ]
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Between
1 Mr X Y Claimant - and - 2 Y Z LTD Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all relevant times, the Claimant was engaged by the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] at the Defendant’s [ insert as appropriate ] site.
[ Throughout the period, the provisions of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, as amended by the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 [ which came into force on 6 July 2005 ], were in force. ]
During [ his OR her ] employment between [ insert date ] and [ insert date ], the Claimant was routinely required to operate vibrating tools [ give full details of tools, and hours worked on tools per shift/working day, or frequency of use of tools ]. This resulted in [ his OR her ]
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Claim No. [ insert number ]
In the County Court at [ insert location ]
Between [ Insert claimant’s name ] Claimant and [ Insert defendant’s name ] Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
Throughout the material period, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] at the Defendant’s [ insert premises information ] premises.
At all relevant times, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2966 (“the Equipment Regulations”), the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3004 (“the Workplace Regulations”), and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2677 were applicable.
The Claimant relies on contraventions of the aforesaid regulations as particulars evidencing negligence.
In the course of [ his OR her OR employment the Claimant handled/came into contact with compounds including [ insert name of compounds ] containing [ insert name of salient ingredient ], which caused [ him OR her ]
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT LOCATION ] CLAIM NO. [ INSERT NUMBER ] Between X Y Claimant - and - A B Defendant
It is accepted that the Claimant commenced employment with the Defendant as a [ insert job title ] on [ insert date ].
On [ insert date ], the Defendant provided the Claimant with its Codes of Safe Working Practice, covering the operation of assorted machinery. The meaning and intent of those Codes were explained to [ him OR her ].
On [ insert date ], the Claimant received the Defendant’s Guide to Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome. It contained written guidance on the cause, identification, prevention, and treatment of HAVS.
By the end of the 1970s, hand/arm vibration syndrome was widely recognised. From the time [ he OR she ] was given the above Guide, the
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
In the County Court at [ insert ], under Claim No: [ insert claim number ], between A B as Claimant and X Y as Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At every relevant time, the Claimant owned and was driving a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], bearing registration [ insert registration number ]. The Defendant likewise was the owner and driver of a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], registration mark [ insert registration number ].
On [ insert date ], the Claimant was lawfully travelling along [ insert street name, town, county ]. Whilst the Claimant continued on that route, the Defendant’s vehicle, approaching from the opposite direction in the other lane, sought to pass a stationary car in that lane and moved across into the Claimant’s lane...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
[ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT ]
Claim No:
Parties: [ Insert name of Claimant ] Claimant and [ Insert name of Defendant NHS Trust ] Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
This action arises from personal injuries sustained due to clinical negligence.
At all material times:
The Defendant owned, ran, operated and oversaw the E F Hospital (“the Hospital”) pursuant to the National Health Service Acts, and, through its employees, servants and agents, provided and delivered medical, specialist and other services to patients;
The Claimant was and remained a patient of the Defendant.
...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Claim No. [ insert number ]
Parties (1) AA (2) BB Claimants -and- CC Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all material and relevant times, the Defendant carried on trade in the capacity of a tour operator, supplying package holidays to travellers.
On 2 July 2025, the First Claimant accessed the Defendant’s website and concluded a contract to purchase a package holiday in Greece from the Defendant. Pursuant to that agreement, the First Claimant and her husband, the Second Claimant, were to depart East Midlands Airport for Athens on 8 August 2025, with an onward transfer thereafter to Santorini. The contract also provided for their return on 15 August 2025, travelling from Santorini to Athens and then onwards back to East Midlands Airport. Following completion of the flight arrangements, the Defendant, by means of a website link,
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
