Defence of necessity meaning

In this issue: Autumn Budget 2024 Brexit highlights Post-Brexit transition guidance Brexit SIs Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review State accountability and liability Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid Projects and infrastructure Management and strategic planning Information law Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Autumn Budget 2024 Autumn Budget 2024—key Public Law announcements In the Autumn Budget 2024, on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, set out a series of measures of interest to Public Law practitioners, touching on devolved matters, state security and intelligence, state accountability and liability, Ukraine policy, public procurement, projects and infrastructure, the state pension, and trade. Paul Maile, partner and head of planning and infrastructure consenting at Eversheds Sutherland, and Clive Weber, consultant at Wedlake Bell, provide commentary on the proposals. See:...

What are the practical implications of this case? SRN v Nekiwala and another [2026] EWHC 16 (KB) underscores the wide judicial discretion in granting interim payments under CPR 25.10(1). It offers guidance on how courts estimate a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment in brain injury claims where a defendant resists a TIL, challenges treatment and/or runs contributory negligence points. The claimant’s intricate immigration status also influenced the outcome; the defendant accepted that, if status is regularised in future and medical evidence shows significant ongoing symptoms, the claimant would have a stronger basis for a substantial interim payment later (para [23]). A further difficulty was the court’s refusal to fund a TIL because defence experts disputed its necessity and the claimant had not firmly committed to it. Claimant practitioners should assemble persuasive medical and witness evidence to support any proposed TIL and ensure the claimant expressly agrees to undergo the identified treatment. From a defendant standpoint, as the application ultimately succeeded but for a...

Pop v Foristal and J Ryan Haulage Ltd [2024] IEHC 179 What are the practical implications of the case? This ruling clarifies principles governing discovery of medical records. No distinction is drawn between pre- and post-accident records except where they overlap with privileged material. Privilege is not a ground to refuse discovery; it should instead be asserted in the affidavit of discovery. While that may suggest any medical records are amenable to discovery, the court emphasised they are not automatically discoverable in every case. Relevance and necessity must be established by voluntary request before issuing any discovery motion. An overlap with injuries before or after the accident cannot be presumed; a request on that basis must specify the issues it concerns and exhibit evidence on affidavit. The court found that merely citing a medical report in a discovery request was insufficient, and in this instance it was being asked to speculate as to relevance. Where a limited defence is delivered, a discovery request needs to be more thorough...

What does this Practice Note cover? This Practice Note addresses the due diligence process for an unregistered offering of debt securities carried out pursuant to Rule 144A and/or Regulation S under the Securities Act of 1933. The offering materials, due diligence, legal opinions and comfort letters for Rule 144A/Regulation S debt offerings typically mirror many aspects of those used in registered offerings. This Practice Note centres on the due diligence undertaken by the initial purchasers and their legal advisers. Why conduct due diligence? Due diligence is a pivotal element in an initial purchaser’s decision to proceed with an offering. The process allows the initial purchaser to assess the pertinent legal, commercial and reputational risks associated with the offering and its documentation. Practitioners generally consider that Rule 144A and Regulation S offerings do not expose the issuer and the initial purchasers to the liability provisions of Section 11 (15 USCS § 77k) or 12(a)(2) (15 USCS § 77l) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities...

Defendant to raise their defence A number of defences may arise in road traffic prosecutions. These include: automatism insanity duress and necessity, and the 'hip flask' defence When a defendant intends to rely upon a particular defence, they must place sufficient material and evidence before the court to properly raise the issue for trial. This is the 'evidential burden'. It is separate from the legal burden of proof, which imposes an obligation on a party to prove a fact in issue. The prosecution ordinarily bears the legal burden of proof. See Practice Note: Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings. The evidential burden may be satisfied if the defendant enters the witness box and sets out their defence. Consequently, once the issue is raised by the defence, the onus then passes to the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt/so that the jury can be sure), that the defence advanced is not true. In cases...

This how-to guide explores how to source an expert witness capable of underpinning the case your client seeks to advance or resist. It also addresses how to gauge, in advance, the likely calibre of that expert in producing a persuasive report and performing under cross-examination about it. Identifying the need for an expert witness In some disputes it will be apparent from the beginning that independent opinion evidence from a specialist with no involvement in the underlying facts is required to establish a claimant’s affirmative case. This is typical where it is alleged the defendant fell short of the expected standard of competence in a defined discipline—construction and medical practice are obvious illustrations. Often an expert will already be retained to help the claimant frame and plead the allegations. In other matters, the necessity for the claimant to instruct an expert may only crystallise once the defence has been served, or even after factual witness statements have been exchanged. Late recognition of the requirement for expert opinion...