Legal News

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 Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Lexis Nexis® 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,...

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,...

Ms Misa Zgonec- Rozej (on her own behalf and as executor of the Estate of Mr John Richard William Day Jones deceased) and others v Pereira [2025] EWCA Civ 171 What are the practical implications of this case? Claims in clinical negligence and personal injury are increasingly apt to invoke the doctrine of material contribution as a stand-in for ‘but-for’ causation, without pausing to assess its suitability to the facts in issue. This judgment provides a check on that mission creep. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that material contribution operates within narrow, clearly delineated limits and is not a substitute for proof. Even where causation of the injury is plainly multi-factorial, the court should first seek to resolve the case on a ‘but-for’ footing. It is only if a ‘but-for’ conclusion cannot be reached in favour of either party that the court may turn to...

The matrix agreement Hearing loss among military personnel has plagued the Services for generations, with accounts of soldiers suffering auditory damage dating back to before the First World War. In recent times, there has been a pronounced surge in claims for hearing impairment brought by serving military personnel and Veterans. This rise coincided with publicity around the matrix agreement secured by Hugh James with the Mo D regarding military deafness claims. Under that matrix agreement, all defences concerned with limitation and breach of duty are set aside, effectively neutralising those usual objections. This captures any contention that the hearing loss was sustained during combat (the Combat Immunity Defence), any assertion that the Overseas Operations Act 2021 prevents the claim, and any plea of contributory negligence. A frequently advanced defence by the Mo D is that the claimant failed to wear the hearing...

In this issue: Liability defences Costs Road traffic accidents Personal injury protocols Catastrophic claims Court and the legal profession Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information Liability defences Insurer not liable to indemnify claimant due to breach of notification conditions Makin (by his mother and litigation friend) v The Restaurant Muse Ltd [2025] EWHC 895 ( KB) concerned an insurance cover dispute where the policyholder ( Second Defendant) failed to observe the policy’s notification provisions by not giving the insurer ( Third Defendant) prompt notice of the incident and ensuing claim. Observance of those notice terms operated as a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability, which permitted the insurer to deny indemnity for the breach; accordingly, the court found in favour of the insurer ( Third...

Laidley (by his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 448 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling concerns the relatively uncommon situation in which a trial judge, invoking CCA 1984, s 63, appoints an individual to serve as an assessor where a party to the proceedings has a mental health issue. It affirms that, in those circumstances, the judge retains a broad discretion over the manner and extent of the assessor’s involvement. As a general position, communications between the court and the assessor do not have to be disclosed, and the trial judge ought not to constrain that discretion by prescribing in advance exactly how the assessor will be utilised. That overarching approach is, however, capable of exception. For example, where the assessor themself supplies further material that amounts to evidence, or initiates a new line of...

Judge Neil Cadwallader has directed four cryptocurrency exchanges to provide Einar Knobel with any data they hold connected to the alleged fraud. The platforms are Binance, Paxful, Hong Kong-based Hit BTC, and Bybit, a Seychelles company. A High Court application dated 11 April 2025, recently made public, granted Knobel a Norwich Pharmacal order, a disclosure procedure aimed at third parties suspected of being entangled in wrongdoing. Cadwallader stated there is a good arguable case that wrongdoing occurred, involving theft and fraud committed against the claimant as reflected in the High Court filing itself......

Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling broadly permits a party to present reduced incurred figures within their budget, giving the appearance of more modest pre- CCMC spend. The court confirmed that adopting this method is entirely acceptable and consistent with the statement of truth in Precedent H. That said, if there is any material indicating an intention to mislead the court about the basis on which the budget was compiled, this may point to misconduct. It remains a hazardous tactic because, if costs are later awarded on the standard basis, recovery could be confined to the incurred amounts stated in the budget. In principle, a party should only recover above what it regarded as a “reasonable and proportionate sum” where costs are assessed on the indemnity basis. Parties should also note that budgets might not...

Costs Judge Mark Whalan ruling Costs Judge Mark Whalan held that Vishal Mehta cannot have the court scrutinise a £3.1m ( US$4.1m) invoice issued by solicitors Howard Kennedy LLP. Vishal, son of Jatin Mehta—alleged to have misappropriated proceeds of gold bullion loans advanced to his diamond enterprise via a network of companies said to be under family control—had sought a review of the firm’s fees pursuant to the Solicitors Act 1974. That statute permits clients to contest fees and obtain a detailed assessment by a costs judge. However, such an assessment is available only where the application is brought within 12 months of payment of the bill, and Howard Kennedy contended that this window had already closed. On that basis, the judge found Mehta was not entitled to a detailed assessment......

Clarke v Matthew Poole and others [2025] EWCA Civ 447 What are the practical implications of this case? The case engages CPR 52.30 (reopening of final appeals) and highlights the central role of personal autonomy when considering objections to testing. It remains a realistic prospect that the claimant’s appeal may ultimately fail, and there could be a restatement of the Laycock test. Safeguarding the personal autonomy of those turning to the courts for justice is fundamental to judges’ decision-making, as is maintaining clarity in the principles they apply... What was the background? The claimant’s mother and maternal grandfather were carriers of the DM gene yet were asymptomatic. Before the accident, when given the choice, the claimant declined EMG testing. She did not wish to find out whether she had DM, to bear the anxiety that knowledge might bring, or indeed to have......

Navid Doroudvash v Zurich Insurance plc (1) The Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (2 ) [2025] Lexis Citation 756 With an unusual procedural backdrop, the matter was listed before His Honour Judge Holmes at the County Court at Central London, on Zurich’s bid to pursue an extra claim for contribution or indemnity against the Commissioner. The hearing further considered the claimant’s distinct attempt to join the Commissioner as a second defendant after limitation had expired. This note focuses on Zurich’s application, as it seems to raise an issue not previously aired, or at any rate not addressed in a reported decision. Despite the underlying facts, the Commissioner resisted the bid on a technical point likely to surprise practitioners handling motor claims for insurers. The court reached a pragmatic outcome, hopefully laying to rest an argument that threatened to cut across the purpose and...

A panel of three justices unanimously ruled that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has power to conclude that litigation‑funders do not need to wait until damages are distributed to class action members before taking a fee. Writing for the Court of Appeal, Justice Julian Flaux, sitting with Justices Nicholas Green and Colin Birss, said there is nothing out of the ordinary in the CAT directing that funders or lawyers are paid from the award ahead of the class, and that the CAT’s supervisory jurisdiction will ensure recoveries are not excessive. The opt‑out class action regime was introduced by the Consumer Rights Act. The judgment records that legislators did not intend funders and lawyers to be prevented from making “an appropriate recovery of costs” in collective proceedings that would not be possible without litigation funding; had that been Parliament’s intention, it would have said so...

In this issue: Occupational disease Road traffic accidents Damages Costs Civil procedure rule committee minutes Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Occupational disease Court of Appeal considers causation in fatal mesothelioma claim Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage ( Newbury) Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 467 was an appeal brought against the respondent garage. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The case turned on the mesothelioma special causation rule. The court held that, when evaluating the expert evidence, the judge was entitled to use the ‘direct risk assessment’ approach to decide whether the respondent’s breach had materially increased the appellant’s risk of developing mesothelioma, and it rejected the appellant’s submissions favouring the...

Segulah Medical Acceleration AB v Tripathi [2025] EWHC 632 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling will interest practitioners advising on applications for a WFO, especially where a proprietary strand is present and cross‑border issues arise. The emphasis is on the baseline obligations placed on a WFO applicant. The court analysed the reach of the applicants’ non‑enforcement undertaking, limiting enforcement to England and Wales (the NEU); the degree to which the order could attach to assets held through a corporate vehicle; and how a cap on the injuncted sum functions when there is a mixture of cash reserves and real property within the jurisdiction exceeding the injunction limit. In relation to the NEU, the court had to determine whether a broad or narrow reading was appropriate where the applicants had taken injunctive steps in other...

Note: the CPRC no longer distributes the background papers with the minutes, so no explanatory documents accompany this News Analysis. A copy of the minutes can be found here: Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The minutes from the 7 February 2025 meeting were approved and the action log noted—see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—7 February 2025. The following items were raised: Transparency & Open Justice Board’s Key Objectives Consultation—the CPRC’s response to the consultation was recorded, and an update given on the CPRC Sub- Committee on Access to Court Documents. The sub-committee’s work is progressing well, and the initial view is that the CPRC will be asked to consider a draft pilot PD to trial a scheme enabling non-parties to obtain court documents, as highlighted in Cape Holdings v Dring [2019] UKSC 38. It...

In this issue: CPR updates Claims involving a mentally incapacitated claimant Road traffic accidents Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information CPR updates 183rd Practice Direction ( PD) update-in force on 6 April 2025 The 183rd Practice Direction ( PD) update takes effect on 6 April 2025. It brings in PD51ZG3, a pilot scheme on costs budgeting for High Court qualified one-way costs shifting ( QOCS) cases at the District Registries in Manchester and Birmingham. The new PD covers relevant claims issued from 6 April 2025 up to 6 April 2028. It also adjusts the operational dates for PD51ZG1 and PD51ZG2 so that all three pilots begin together on 6 April 2025. In addition, there is a...

Santander UK plc v CCP Graduate School Ltd [2025] EWHC 667 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This is a noteworthy judgment in a developing branch of the law concerning the scope for victims of APP frauds to pursue redress through actions against banks that, while outwardly innocent, had their accounts used in the fraud. The court delineates constraints on what might otherwise be regarded as an expanding field of bank duties and potential liabilities. The judgment makes the point that the cautious, incremental evolution of any duty of care is not a theoretical exercise; deciding what is fair, just and reasonable depends on the surrounding circumstances. As Lord Leggatt observed in Philipp at [16], banks operate within a highly regulated legal regime which recognises the need to strike a balance between facilitating swift payment processing and the...

In this issue: Clinical negligence Road traffic accidents Establishing legal liability Evidence and disclosure Other PI and Clinical negligence news Lex Talk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Lexis Nexis® Webinars Useful information Clinical negligence Shooting from the hip— Legal crossfire over severe brain damage during private hip operation Within Bartolomucci (a protected party, acting by his litigation friend James M Bartolomucci) v Circle Health Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 529 ( KB), the claimant suffered severe brain damage during a hip operation undertaken by independent consultants at a private hospital. He brought a contractual claim against the private hospital, relying on the consultants’ alleged negligence. The court determined that, on a proper construction of the relevant contractual terms, the agreement between the claimant and the private hospital did not cover the...

On 28 March 2025, the Association for Consumer Support Organisations ( ACSO) stated that the 2021 changes brought in by the Civil Liability Act amounted to a ‘stitch up’ between the government and the insurance industry. The Act, introduced in 2021, made significant alterations to the way motorists with minor neck whiplash from road traffic accidents pursue third-party insurance claims. It required that claims be submitted via a new online portal rather than through the civil courts, and also set out a new tariff for compensation relating to whiplash injuries......

Bartolomucci (a protected party suing by his litigation friend James M Bartolomucci) v Circle Health Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 529 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? When you undergo private medical treatment in England and Wales, the usual position is that you sign a written agreement with the hospital, yet there is no easily identifiable written contract with the consultant surgeon or the anaesthetist. If a patient alleges harm caused by a substandard level of care by a consultant during a procedure at a private hospital (here, a consultant anaesthetist), the most obvious defendant is the consultant personally. The private hospital ought to have verified that such consultants carried appropriate insurance (as it did here), and regardless of whether a contract exists between patient and consultant, the consultant remains susceptible to a tort claim. But what if, as happened here, the...