The case of Watson involved disputed factual issues relating to causation, with the central question being whether the Defendant’s admitted breach of duty in failing to include a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in the differential diagnosis and in turn to prescribe Aspirin would have prevented the Claimant suffering a stroke several months later. The judgment […]
The judgment in Radia v Marks is essential reading for those who instruct experts in litigation. It contains an application of the principles set out in Khan v Meadows concerning the scope of a duty of care owed by expert witnesses to litigants.
At first blush, the case of Dalchow looks like a fairly orthodox clinical negligence claim (where the Claimant won on breach of duty but lost on causation). However, the analysis of the trial judge (particularly on matters of law) is of particular interest, including: A ‘first principles’ analysis of the approach that should be taken […]
Baidoo v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust demonstrates that where a claimant’s clinical negligence claim is entirely dependent on expert evidence, if the Claimant has not instructed experts, and there is no realistic prospect of him or her doing so before trial, then the claim has no real prospect of succeeding, and […]
The case of Vinegrad highlights how important the preparation of a case and expert evidence is to the final outcome as well as the complexities and considerations of remote hearings. The Facts On 14 August 2012, the Claimant suffered a serious head injury when struck by a car in China. He required intubation and ventilation for […]
