Dose meaning

Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 467 What are the practical implications of this case? The key consequence of the ruling is the Court of Appeal’s categorical and wholesale dismissal of the ‘absolute risk approach’, put forward by the defendant in this case on the strength of obiter support from the High Court in Bannister v Freemans Public Ltd Company [2020] EWHC 1256 (QB). As a consequence of the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, those obiter remarks in Bannister should no longer be regarded as representing good law, or treated as authoritative. The judgment further confirms that it was open to the trial judge in this case to employ a ‘direct risk assessment’ to calculate the increase in the risk of a person developing mesothelioma, and that doing so was permissible on the facts. It does not, however, set a general principle that this technique is valid or appropriate in all comparable matters involving low doses of exposure, although the court’s acceptance of...

Dilks v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2026] EWHC 146 (KB) What are the practical implications of the case? This decision underlines that establishing asbestos exposure remains decisive in mesothelioma litigation, despite the absence of any threshold dose. It also serves as a working example of when inference crosses into conjecture. The court accepted that asbestos was deposited in particular locations and acknowledged broad working practices, yet declined to plug evidential gaps—precise sites and times of the deceased’s employment, the identity of the machinery doing the crushing, and whether his duties placed him in the exposure stream—without sufficiently dependable proof. The ruling therefore underscores the enduring need for concrete, exposure-specific evidence and meticulous preparation and drafting of witness statements. Importantly, the court indicated that, had exposure been established, it would have found a breach of duty. The Coal Board’s failure to adopt proper disposal procedures would have posed a material risk to anyone engaged in crushing or compacting asbestos waste, and simple...

In this issue: Key PI and clinical negligence developments Road traffic accidents Occupational disease Noise-induced hearing loss Case management Other PI and clinical negligence news LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community LexisNexis® Webinars Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Key PI and clinical negligence developments Material contribution and suicide In Ms Misa Zgonec‑Rozej (on her own behalf and as executor of the Estate of Mr John Richard William Day Jones deceased) v Pereira [2025] EWCA Civ 171, the court addressed the tragic suicide of a psychiatric in‑patient. The deceased’s dependants contended that negligent care by the treating psychiatrist made a material contribution to his death. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the ‘but‑for’ test is the primary approach to causation. The material contribution doctrine has only a narrow role, engaged solely where causation cannot be resolved on a ‘but‑for’ footing. This serves as a clear reminder...

PI & Clinical negligence horizon scanner—July 2025 [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is not maintained. It summarises the principal legal developments relevant to personal injury and clinical negligence practitioners as at July 2025. For developments predating this horizon scanner, see PI and Clinical Negligence horizon scanning and key cases—overview. Key PI and clinical negligence developments The personal injury discount rate—a review In late 2024, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood MP, revealed the outcome of her five‑month review of the discount rate, initiated in July 2024. One month after the new +0.5% discount rate took effect, Thea Wilson (barrister at 12 King’s Bench Walk) assesses its impact on cases, the responses from claimant and defendant representatives, and the consequences of the change for legal practitioners. See News Analysis: The personal injury discount rate—a review. MoJ announces reduction in CFO’s interest rates The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced lower interest rates for the Courts Funds Office’s (CFO) special and basic accounts...

A–B | C–D | E–H | I–N | Q–V. Officinal formula Some medicinal products are exempt from the rule that an MA must be secured before marketing. An MA is unnecessary for medicines prepared within a pharmacy, in line with a pharmacopoeial prescription, which are intended for direct supply to patients served by that pharmacy. This is referred to as the officinal formula. See also: Magistral formula Practice Note: Unlicensed medicinal products and off-label use of medicinal products—Exemptions under Article 3 of the Pharmaceutical Code and equivalent provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 and Human Medicines Regulations 2012 Off-label The deliberate use of an authorised medicinal product outside the conditions of its MA (for example, a different indication, an alternative dose, or in another patient population). For medical devices, use is off-label where the device is employed in a manner other than that set out by the manufacturer. See also: Medical device Medicinal product...

Archived tracker This archived tracker is designed to monitor the principal developments, legislation, guidance and briefing notes linked to the coronavirus (COVID-19) response, concentrating on updates pertinent to local government from 19 July 2021 through to November 2021. It is set out by month with the latest developments first. For a current tracker, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—local government tracker—post December 2021. This focuses on updates relevant to local government during this period only. November 2021—England Development Date Find out more The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation announced updated advice, widening eligibility for a booster vaccine to include people aged 18–39. 30 November 2021 Coronavirus (COVID-19)—JCVI publishes advice on vaccine boosters The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has issued new guidance, expanding the booster offer to those aged 18–39. As set out by JCVI, boosters will be provided in descending age order, no earlier than three months after the primary course. In addition, JCVI advises that the second dose of the Pfizer coronavirus...