Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
NEWS
High Court of England and Wales upholds LCIA award declining jurisdiction; fraudulently backdated LTI not binding; s67 application over USD 1.3 million bonus dismissed
Zalina Kanametova v OSG Records Management [Europe] Limited [2026] EWHC 1196 (Comm) Incentive agreement Judge Neil Cadwallader of the Commercial Court, King’s Bench Division, within the High Court of England and Wales, held that the LCIA arbitrator’s decision was rightly issued on evidence showing the long-term incentive agreement (LTI) said to guarantee a bonus to claimant Zalina Kanametova was not binding because it had been ‘fraudulently backdated’. As a result, the LCIA arbitrator properly determined there was no jurisdiction over Kanametova’s claim for a USD 1.3 million bonus against the respondent, Cyprus-based OSG Records Management (Europe) Ltd. (referred to as OSG). Kanametova served as general director of OSG’s subsidiary, OSG Records Management Centre LLC (referred to as OSG Russia), from 2011–18. She contended that in 2015 she executed the LTI, which included an arbitration clause, and that it was also signed by Krzysztof...
NEWS
PI and Clinical Negligence update: stroke causation; MCA best interests; work equipment direct effect; FAA services dependency and deputyship fees; strict CPR email service; DCP PD195 expansion-England and Wales.
PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights-28 May 2026 In this issue: Clinical negligence Employer’s liability Claims involving a fatality Issues with service Other PI & Clinical Negligence News LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk® PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Clinical negligence County Court allows clinical negligence claim for delayed stroke diagnosis In Dakin v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] Lexis Citation 1552, the County Court entered judgment for the claimant in a clinical negligence action centred on stroke causation. The defendant accepted a breach of duty for not arranging 24‑hour electrocardiogram monitoring after the 15 January 2016 consultation, but maintained that this omission did not cause the claimant’s stroke on 21 July 2016. The court determined the claimant experienced paroxysmal atrial...
NEWS
195th PD Update: DCP to accept digital issuing of ‘Other Remedy’ claims (injunctions, declarations, rescission) and CCA 2006 unfair-relationship claims (England and Wales)
The Master of the Rolls and the Minister of State for Justice have approved the 195th Practice Direction (PD) Update, expanding the reach of the Damages Claim Portal (DCP) in CPR PD 51ZB so that specified non-monetary claims-termed ‘Other Remedy Claims’-can be lodged online alongside a principal damages claim, provided both sides have legal representation, rather than relying on paper filing. It further includes within scope disputes concerning unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, extending the update’s application. This reform shifts matters presently dealt with on paper into a digital workflow to enhance efficiency, aligning connected remedies with the same online route as the main damages claim. The amendments take effect on 27 May 2026. The additional category spans three remedies: injunctions, declarations and rescission. Sources: The 195th Practice Direction Update 195th UPDATE – PRACTICE DIRECTION...
NEWS
PI and Clinical Negligence Weekly Update: UKSC Lost Years for Children; DHSC Costs Plan; COVID‑19 Vaccine Scheme Reform; Domestic Abuse Damages; Fundamental Dishonesty; Practitioner Resources
In this edition: Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Costs Damages Claims involving fraud and fundamental dishonesty LexisNexis® PI & Clinical Negligence Quantum Database LexisNexis® Quantum Portal LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts LexisNexis® Webinars Useful information Key PI & Clinical Negligence developments Coronavirus (COVID-19) jab injury claimants seek compensation reforms: Law360 reports that, on 9 April 2026, a group suing AstraZeneca over deaths and injuries allegedly arising from vaccine side effects voiced hopes that the pandemic inquiry will advise changes to the country’s vaccine compensation scheme. See News Analysis: Coronavirus (COVID-19) jab injury claimants seek compensation reforms. Lost years claims following CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals [2026] UKSC 5: John‑Paul Swoboda KC, Deputy Head of 12KWB, evaluates the landscape after the Supreme Court’s ruling in CCC v...
Vicarious liability—overview
Nature and operation of vicarious liability
In essence, the doctrine of vicarious liability renders an employer answerable for an employee’s torts when committed in the course of employment or sufficiently linked to tasks the employer has authorised. For liability to arise, the employee must have committed an underlying tort, intentional or negligent, giving the claimant a viable cause of action against that individual. It is termed ‘vicarious’ because the breach is the employee’s, not the employer’s. The effect is to impose strict liability on the employer for wrongful acts done during employment or closely bound up with the employee’s functions, meaning fault on the employer’s part need not be shown. To establish a defendant’s responsibility on this basis, the claimant must meet a two-stage test:
- stage one-the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor was one of employment or ‘akin to employment’
- stage two (the ‘close connection’ test)-whether the wrongful conduct was so closely connected...
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.
View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type
Popular documents
The concept of foreseeability and remoteness in negligence claims The defendant bears responsibility for loss only where it represents a foreseeable result of breaching a common law duty. It is unnecessary to establish that the defendant anticipated the exact sequence of events. It suffices that the harm is of a foreseeable kind, even if it occurred through an unusual mechanism. The focus is on the category of injury rather than the specific manner of its occurrence. See the Practice Notes: Duty of care in personal injury claims and Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims. Nevertheless, even where the claimant establishes: that the defendant was negligent (ie in breach of duty), and that such negligence actually caused the injury or loss, the defendant is not automatically liable for every consequence. To recover damages in a claim founded in negligence, the injury or damage must have been reasonably foreseeable. If it was not reasonably foreseeable, the defendant is not accountable and the loss is treated as too remote (hence the topic is often described as remoteness). Usually, whether the damage was foreseeable will be obvious...
This Practice Note examines when a court will find an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee. The courts’ treatment of the ‘close connection’ test has shifted over time, and this Practice Note offers practitioners clarity on how the doctrine has progressed. To determine the situations in which a court may hold an employer responsible for an employee’s tort, it is helpful to trace the doctrine’s evolution... Salmond test Historically, the governing test was set out by Salmond in his 1907 work, Law of Torts. The central proposition was that a master would not be liable for a servant’s wrongful act unless it was carried out in the course of employment. Salmond added that an act would be treated as within the course of employment if it was either: a wrongful act that the master had authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised method of performing an act the master had authorised In the course of employment Before Lister v Hesley Hall (see below), a claimant would seek to establish that...
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Discover more from LexisNexis
