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...
Occupiers' liability—overview
Occupiers' liability claims-lawful visitors
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) places a duty on occupiers towards all lawful visitors, requiring that they are kept reasonably safe for the purposes for which they attend the occupier’s premises. A person will be regarded as an occupier under OLA 1957 if they exercise sufficient control over the premises. It is possible for there to be more than one occupier of the same premises. The extent of the duty is to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe when using the premises for the purpose for which the occupier has invited them to be there. The common duty of care is modified where the visitor is a child or a skilled person. OLA 1957 applies only to risks arising from things done, or omitted to be done, on the premises. If a visitor acts in a way that conflicts with the permission granted to enter, OLA 1957 will not apply and that individual will be treated as an unauthorised visitor. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Occupiers’ liability claims-lawful visitors. ‘Premises’ and ‘lawful visitors’ Premises can as set out above within the scope of OLA 1957 and...
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
Responsibility for psychiatric harm partly turns on the character of the injuries sustained and the way they were incurred. Classifying the victim Where a claimant suffers both physical and psychiatric harm, even where the bodily injury is slight, they may recover damages in the ordinary way, subject to causation and related matters. In such circumstances there is no separate requirement to show that psychiatric harm was foreseeable if the physical injury itself was foreseeable. Difficulty arises where the claimant has psychiatric injury alone and is otherwise unhurt. For ‘pure’ psychiatric injury following an accident or event, the law distinguishes between: primary victims—see below secondary victims—see below Primary victims Primary victims are directly engaged in the incident and commonly—but not invariably—sustain physical as well as psychiatric injury. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Psychiatric injury—primary victims. Establishing liability—common law To establish liability at common law, a primary victim must demonstrate that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would suffer physical or psychiatric injury as a result of the defendant’s negligent act...
This Practice Note This Practice Note addresses the duty of care owed by road users to others involved in road traffic incidents, including car drivers or motorists, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists. Road users are obliged to take reasonable care so as to avoid causing harm to those using, or present upon, the highway. The applicable standard is that of the ordinary competent driver, and no indulgence is afforded to inexperienced or learner drivers. A road user should also anticipate that fellow users of the highway, or other persons present, may not demonstrate the requisite level of skill, experience and care. Road traffic accidents generate a significant volume of work for personal injury practitioners, giving rise to claims that span the entire spectrum of severity and complexity. The chief cause of action is negligence; although statutory duties, nuisance or contract can at times be relevant, for the overwhelming majority of claims the controlling legal framework remains the obligation to drive with ordinary care and skill...
This Practice Note sets out the extent and content of an employer’s common law obligation to exercise reasonable care for employees’ safety, with particular regard to providing safe premises, plant and equipment, systems of work and competent staff. It also considers the effect of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013), namely the removal of civil liability for breach of most workplace health and safety regulations unless the specific regulation expressly provides for it. In practical terms, claims will generally have to be advanced in negligence. To succeed, therefore, the injured employee must prove that the harm was reasonably foreseeable and that the applicable common law standard of care was breached. Overriding duties At common law, an employer owes a duty to take reasonable care of the health and safety of its employees in all the circumstances of the case, so that they are not exposed to unnecessary risk of injury. That duty of care is not confined to the body: it also extends to an employee’s mental as well as physical health...
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
Discover more from LexisNexis
