- Save
- Cite
-
Email this content
Share Link
Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friendEmail this contentor copy the link directly:The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.Link copied successfully
- Save
- Cite
-
Email this content
Share Link
Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friendEmail this contentor copy the link directly:The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.Link copied successfully
Show Less
Restricted access
Journal of Professional Negligence
Authors: Emily Gordon, Imogen Goold, Catherine Kelly, Amanda Savage, Nicholas Broomfield, Mark Lunney, and Jonathan Morgan
Colm McGrath and Isabel Barter
Publication Date: August 2023
Publisher: Bloomsbury Professional
Copyright: 2022 Bloomsbury Professional
Journal of Professional Negligence
This unique quarterly journal is the leading forum for commentary and analysis on all areas of professional negligence and professional indemnity, including liability, ethics and regulation. Cutting across all professions, with that term being interpreted broadly, it provides excellent coverage of the numerous and significant developments in this field.
GENERAL EDITORS
Dr CP McGrath, Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London
Isabel Barter, Barrister, 2 Temple Gardens
CONSULTANT EDITORS
Paula Case, Director of LLM Studies, Liverpool University Law School
Mark Simpson QC, Fountain Court Chambers
COMMISSIONING EDITOR
Kiran Goss
CASE DIGESTS EDITOR
Ben Phelps, Barrister, 2 Temple Gardens
CASE NOTES EDITOR
Dr Gemma Turton, University of Sydney Law School
DEPUTY CASE NOTES EDITOR
Dr Samantha Schnobel, Lecturer, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham
SCOTS CASE NOTES EDITOR
Dr Bobby WM Lindsay, Lecturer in Private Law, University of Glasgow
BOOK REVIEWS EDITOR
Dr Phillip Morgan, Reader in Law, University of York
Contributors should note that Journal of Professional Negligence is a refereed journal.
Contents
- Editorial Advisory Board
- Guidelines for Contributors
- Close sectionVol.39 No.3
- Close sectionVol.39 No.2
- Article Summary
- Medical Liability and Interorganisational Relationships in Healthcare: A European Problem and a Dutch Proposal
- Case Digest
- Case Commentaries: Damage to hired property: recovery for loss of use and extra hire charges
- Scottish Case Commentary: Does Hastings matter for Consumer Protection?
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.39 No.1
- Close sectionVol.38 No.4
- Close sectionVol.38 No.3
- Close sectionVol.38 No.2
- Close sectionVol.38 No.1
- Editorial Advisory Board
- Article Summaries
- Professional Negligence in 2021: The Year in Review
- Twenty Years on from Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd – Is There Now a ‘Tailored Close Connection Test’ for Vicarious Liability in Cases of Sexual Abuse, or Not?
- Negligence in Sport: Context vs Principle
- Case Commentaries
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.37 No.4
- Close sectionVol.37 No.3
- Close sectionVol.37 No.2
- Close sectionVol.37 No.1
- Close sectionVol.36 No.4
- Close sectionVol.36 No.3
- Close sectionVol.36 No.2
- Close sectionVol.36 No.1
- Close sectionVol.35 No.4
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionRisk disclosure, causation and the role of Chester
- Introduction: Chester, Montgomery and Duce
- Causation – the legal tests
- Causation: the special case of failure to warn
- Chester v Afshar: a causation solution for a special causation problem
- Chester v Afshar: the aftermath
- Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust – back where we started?
- Factual causation: a settled outlook but with clouds on the horizon
- Legal causation: pushing boundaries and brewing storms
- Conclusion
- Close sectionPublic benefit, private burden? The role of social utility in breach of duty decisions in negligence
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.35 No.3
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionThe Healthcare Quality, Complaints and Disputes Act: a new Dutch procedure to compensate care-related harm
- Close sectionUnderstanding the relationship between duties in contract and the tort of negligence
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Mesothelioma, the Fairchild enclave and reinsurance of employers’ liability
- ‘Try Some Net Curtains’: the protection of privacy under the tort of private nuisance
- Seeing the hedge for the trees
- Unregulated legal advisers and negligence liability: a timely warning for McKenzie Friends
- ‘Honestly, what are the chances?!’ Causation and quantification of a claim for the loss of a chance in professional negligence claims where the claimant’s honesty is in dispute
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.35 No.2
- Close sectionVol.35 No.1
- Close sectionVol.34 No.4
- Close sectionVol.34 No.3
- Close sectionVol.34 No.2
- Close sectionVol.34 No.1
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionInnovative therapy and the law: the novel issues raised by the case of Charlie Gard
- Introduction
- The novel issue for the law in the Charlie Gard case
- The limits of parental responsibility
- Innovative therapy
- Did Charlie have the capacity to make decisions about his medical treatment?
- Was there a responsible body of medical opinion which would support the treatment?
- Was it in Charlie's best interests to have the therapy?
- Was the therapy capable of being carried out within the NHS?
- Conclusions
- Close sectionLawyers’ professional ethics: where are the ethics?
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.33 No.4
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionRegulating the veterinary profession: taking seriously the best interests of the animal
- A. Introduction
- B. Current challenges facing the veterinary profession
- C. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the General Medical Council: understanding the current regulatory landscape
- D. The RCVS Code of Professional Conduct: a missed opportunity
- E. Incorporating a best interests model within RCVS guidance
- F. The role of the judiciary
- G. Conclusion
- Close sectionPerspectives on law firm regulation
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- What is a standard form? African Export-Import Bank & Ors v Shebah Exploration & Production Company Limited & Ors
- Must the family be told? Genetic information and liability for non-disclosure to relatives: ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors
- Duty of professional adviser to protect client from losses: BPE Solicitors & Anor v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel)
- Close sectionVol.33 No.3
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionVicarious liability: a case study in the failure of general principles?
- Close sectionSolicitors and the scope of duty in the Supreme Court
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Advocates’ immunity and the ‘jagged edge’ again: Kendirjian v Lepore
- Misrepresentation and the secondary market: Taberna Europe CDO II Plc v Selskabet AF 1.September 2008 in Bankruptcy (formerly known as Roskilde Bank A/S)
- Employer’s liability in negligence for defamation, again: James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- Causation, coincidences and Chester v Afshar: Crossman v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust
- Liability for property fraud: P&P Property Limited v Owen White & Catlin LLP
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.33 No.2
- Introduction
- Close sectionEditorial Keith Stanton and the law of professional negligence
- Liabilities of litigation funders
- Close sectionPolicing, professionalism and liability for negligence
- Close sectionNon-delegable duties and institutional liability for the negligence of hospital staff: fair, just and reasonable?
- Introduction
- Identifying the need for non-delegable duties in tort law
- Non-delegable duties and Woodland: A new framework for ‘personal’ liability
- The hospital non-delegable duty
- Applying the Woodland ‘assumption of responsibility’ test to hospitals: when will liability be fair, just and reasonable?
- Conclusions
- Close sectionDelivering informed consent post-Montgomery: implications for medical practice and professionalism
- Close sectionInvestment advice: the statutory remedy
- Close sectionVol.33 No.1
- Article Summaries
- Review of 2016
- Close sectionWindfalls and corrective justice – discretion to extend the limitation period in personal injury cases
- Introduction
- Limitation Act 1980
- What might section 33 be seeking to achieve?
- What do we mean by discretion?
- Guidance from the statute
- Guidance from the courts
- The nature of the claimant’s task
- The prejudice to the defendant
- The prejudice to the claimant
- Forensic prejudice and the capacity for a fair trial
- Conclusions
- Close sectionPicking the piper, the payment, and tune – the liability of European textile retailers for the torts of suppliers abroad
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Close sectionVol.32 No.4
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionThe Ex turpi causa defence in claims against professionals
- The illegality defence
- The windfall problem
- The areas of controversy
- What counts as ‘illegality’?
- The applicable test Confusion in the case-law
- The test in Patel
- The controversy of Patel
- Patel and other causes of action
- Caselaw examples
- Relevance of context: what if the professional advised that the claimant's conduct was not illegal?
- Pre-Patel
- Post-Patel
- Conclusion
- Close sectionScope of duty: the interface of the principles between Scotland and England & Wales
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Case Commentaries Clinical guidelines and conflicting expert opinion in medical negligence: KR v Lanarkshire Health Board
- Defining the duty of care for bank references: Playboy Club London Limited v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA
- Professional service provided to friends: Burgess & Burgess v Lejonvarn
- Negligent advice on statutory interpretation and the need for a warning: Barker v Baxendale Walker Solicitors
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.32 No.3
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionProfessional advisers and funds formed as limited partnerships
- Close sectionThe standard of care in professional negligence
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Advocates’ immunity and the ‘jagged edge’: Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Limited
- Compensation for riot damage: Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime
- The judge and the experts: MacLeod v Highland Health Board
- Negligence, the police, and the public interest: Rathband v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Constabulary
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.32 No.2
- Article Summaries
- Close sectionNegligence, breach of duty, and circumstantial pressure
- Close sectionA duty to warn relatives in clinical genetics: arguably ‘fair, just and reasonable’ in English law?
- Close sectionA tour of the tort of negligence
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Vicarious liability: quasi-employment and close connection: Cox v Ministry of Justice
- Vicarious liability: quasi-employment and close connection: Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc
- Causation in asbestos-related lung cancer claims: Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd & Others
- A most expensive letter: Sebry v Companies House and Another
- Q: When is a material contribution not a material contribution? A: When it has not been proven to have made any difference to the claimant's damage: Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board
- Good statutory Samaritans: the standard expected: A J Allan (Blairnyle) Limited v Strathclyde Fire Board
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.32 No.1
- Article Summaries
- Professional negligence in 2015: the year in review
- Michael and the future of tort law
- The conceptual basis of the solicitor’s liability to a third party related to the client: reconstructing the White v Jones principle in Singapore
- Liability for consequences, duty of care and the limited relevance of specific reliance: new insights on Bhamra v Dubb
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Professional liability and remoteness: contract v tort again - Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP
- Quantification of losses and remoteness of damages: Gilchrist and Others v McClure Naismith LLP
- ‘It’s just not cricket’. Or is it? - Bartlett v English Cricket Board Association of Cricket Officials
- Doctors under no duty of care to warn patients’ relatives of genetic risks: ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Others
- Committee’s findings on dishonesty quashed on the basis that the practitioner had no reason to lie in relation to a peripheral issue in the case: Radeke v General Dental Council
- When is a claim ‘brought’ for limitation purposes? Page v Hewetts Solicitors
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.31 No.4
- Introduction
- Developments in vicarious liability: a practitioner’s perspective
- Vicarious liability for independent contractors?
- Vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and teachers: can you outsource liability for lessons?
- Vicarious liability for group companies: the final frontier of vicarious liability?
- Index to Volume 31
- Close sectionVol.31 No.3
- Erratum
- Article Summaries
- The professions: power, privilege and legal liability
- The dangers of appropriation: a trap for the unwary
- Making way for change at the Bar: the practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook
- Semple Cochrane – Excalibur within a Scottish setting or the limitations of audit?
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Commoditizing legal services – the potential solicitors’ negligence implications: Procter v Raleys Solicitors
- A break with the past? Or more of the same? Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
- Domestic violence, judicial austerity and the duty of care: Michael and others (FC) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another
- Is asymptomatic sensitisation actionable harm? Greenway & Ors v Johnson Matthey Plc
- A solicitor’s potential liability for losses caused to a third party through the facilitation of fraudulent conduct by a client: Frank Houlgate Investment Co Ltd v Biggart Baillie LLP
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.31 No.2
- Article Summaries
- Proportional liability and loss of chance in the Netherlands: differences, chances, problems and an opportunity
- AIB Group plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors: the last word on lenders’ breach of trust claims against solicitors?
- Article 8, CPR and control over the manner and timing of death in R (on the application of Tracey) v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Provision of information by professional regulator: Schubert Murphy v Law Society
- Vicarious liability for the acts of foster carers: NA v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Triggering the date of knowledge in personal injury: Platt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd
- The admissibility of similar fact evidence: Laughton v Shalaby
- Dishonesty and a dishonest state of mind: Mr Farid Monibi v General Dental Council
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.31 No.1
- Article Summaries
- Professional Negligence in 2014: the year in review
- The Supreme Court decision in Nicklinson: human rights, criminal wrongs and the dilemma of death
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Brokers’ duties and business interruption insurance: Eurokey Recycling Limited v Giles Insurance Brokers Limited
- Wilkinson v Downton as a novel basis for an interim injunction against publication: O v A (OPO v MLA and STL)
- Limitation of Actions in Scotland: David T Morrison & Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd
- Solicitor’s entitlement to bring direct action against clients’ ATE insurer for the recovery of disbursements: Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v Enterprise Insurance Company PLC, et al
- Close sectionVol.30 No.4
- Article Summaries
- A crucial distinction
- Mehjoo v Harben Barker: specialist referrals in general accountancy practice – orthodoxy restored
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Liability for architects’ certificates issued post-completion: Hunt & Others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd & Others
- Limitation issues and solicitors’ negligence: Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson Solicitors
- Football club physio put through his paces: Hall v Thomas, Hardwick and The Everton Football Club Company Limited
- European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law Institute for European Tort Law
- Close sectionVol.30 No.3
- Article Summaries
- Using epidemiological evidence in tort law: a practical guide
- Mitchell and Denton: injustice and professional negligence claims
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Proceedings against solicitors for negligent conduct of claims – how far should the court try the original claim?: Raleys Solicitors v Barnaby
- Awards by the Financial Services Ombudsman and subsequent litigation: Clark and Another v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Limited (Financial Ombudsman Service Intervening)
- Regulation of legal practitioners: the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates - R (on the application of) Lumsdon and others v Legal Services Board and others
- Opaque legal fees come under challenge: Andersons Solicitors v Solicitors Regulation Authority
- Horrifying events and their consequences: clarifying the operation of the Alcock criteria: Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.30 No.2
- Using NESS to overcome the confusion created by the ‘material contribution to harm’ test for causation in negligence
- The curiosity of professional status
- Motor insurers: in a class of their own: Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others [2013] EWCA Civ 1704
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Conveyancing solicitors’ liability for breach of trust: Santander UK plc v RA Legal Solicitors
- Prison work and vicarious liability: Cox v Ministry of Justice
- Constructive trusts and limitation: Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria
- Best interests and withholding life sustaining treatment: Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James
- The meaning of ‘unacceptable’ professional misconduct: Dr Peter Spencer v General Osteopathic Council
- Close sectionVol.30 No.1
- Professional negligence in 2013: the year in review
- Judicial belief in statistics as fact: loss of chance in Ireland and England
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Expanding the scope of police duties: Sarjantson v The Chief Constable of Humberside Police:
- Procedural fairness claims in sports regulation: Cronin v Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd
- Mis-selling interest rate swaps: common law negligence and the statutory rules: Green and Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
- Limitation and delay in service of particulars of claim: Berney v Saul (t/a Thomas Saul & Co)
- Close sectionVol.29 No.4
- Close sectionVol.29 No.3
- Close sectionVol.29 No.2
- The Draft Data Protection Regulation and the secondary use of patient data for research: prospects and concerns
- Doctoring confidence and soliciting trust: models of professional discipline in law and medicine
- The remedies of buyers against auction houses – caveat emptor?
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.29 No.1
- Professional negligence in 2012:: the year in review
- Professional liability in the trial process
- The best of both worlds? Combining courts and clinical ethics committees
- The Road Traffic Act 1988 and EU motor insurance standards: a few reflections on Churchill
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Liability for negligent investment advice following extraordinary market turmoil: Rubenstein v HSBC Bank plc
- Vicarious liability and child abuse: The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others
- Apportionment and contribution: London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan [2013]EWCA Civ 22, 29 January 2013
- Close sectionVol.28 No.4
- The meaning of ‘damage’ in pure financial loss cases: contract and tort collide
- Negligent failure to warn: why is it so difficult?
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Legal aid payments and limitation: Legal Services Commission v Henthorn
- The ‘Trigger’ litigation
- Vicarious liability beyond the contract of service: JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust
- Liens in the sand: the survival of a solicitor’s lien after termination of its retainer: Heather French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
- Book Reviews
- Index to Volume 22
- Close sectionVol.28 No.3
- Known unknowns and unknown unknowns: the potential and the limits of autonomy in disclosure of genetic risk
- Creating a single statute for the regulatory councils: the Law Commission’s review of health and social care professional regulation
- Accidental conception and accident compensation
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Sins of the father, sins of the son: David Brian Chandler v Cape plc
- Scope of a solicitor’s duty: Swain Mason & Ors v Mills & Reeve (A Firm)
- Black holes and the quantum of loss: Pegasus v Ernst & Young
- Treading the line between clinical research and therapy: Walker-Smith v General Medical Council
- From maze to motorway: the Lister jurisprudence on vicarious liability for intentional torts: Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs
- Boundaries, beneficiaries and bowling: recent cases on the meaning of ‘damage’: Green v Eadie; Lane v Cullens Solicitors; Boycott v Perrins Guy Williams
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.28 No.2
- Patient safety and the problem and potential of law
- Scope and standard of duty: how good do solicitors have it?
- Breach of trust by conveyancing solicitors − the strongest of all lender claims?
- Lender claims against solicitors: some thoughts from Scotland
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Lawyers funding litigation: a costly business: Germany v Flatman; Barchester Healthcare Limited v Weddall
- Medical tourism and the problems of private international law: Naraji v Shelborne and Jari
- Free independent legal advice: the scope of the duty to advise: Padden v Bevan Ashford Solicitors
- A duty to review?: Shepherd Construction Limited v Pinsent Masons LLP
- One more step in the expansion of ‘the right to life’: Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.28 No.1
- The Young Report: an Australian perspective on the latest response to Britain’s ‘compensation culture’
- Suing for the loss of a right to sue: why Wright is wrong
- The Canadian Supreme Court examines governmental liability for negligent misstatements
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Damages for pleural plaques in Scotland: only the beginning?: AXA General Insurance Limited and others (Appellants) v The Lord Advocate and others (Respondents)
- Personal injury claims and assignment: interesting times?: Simpson v Norwich & Norfolk University Hospital NHS Trust
- Investment advice: choosing the right remedy: Andrews v SBJ Benefit Consultants
- Index to Volume 27
- Close sectionVol.27 No.4
- Close sectionVol.27 No.3
- The removal of immunity for expert witnesses: the decision in Jones v Kaney and some unanswered questions
- Redress in the NHS
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Dishonesty and fitness to practise: Brennan v Health Professions Council
- Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
- Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd: a cautionary tale for causation
- The disappointed student and the negligent teaching claim: Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice
- The public interest in a finding of impairment: Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council & Grant
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.27 No.2
- Close sectionVol.27 No.1
- Medical malpractice and compensation in global perspective: Vienna 3–4 December 2010
- Solicitors’ personal undertakings for taxation obligations and the implications for solicitors: the New Zealand experience
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Pushing at the boundaries of vicarious liability: Various Claimants v the Catholic Child Welfare Society & Ors
- Vicarious liability for harassment: Dowson v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
- Vicarious liability, again. Allocating responsibility for employee theft: Brinks Global Services Inc and others v Igrox Ltd and another
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.26 No.4
- Editorial
- Trucking on: audit in the real world? (Man v Freightliner (and Ernst & Young))
- Tort and insurance: some insurance law perspectives
- The People’s Republic of China Tort Liability Law 2009
- Medical professional liability in the Chinese Tort Law Reform Act 2010
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Index to Volume 26
- Close sectionVol.26 No.3
- Close sectionVol.26 No.2
- A sideways look at Stone & Rolls
- Tying the cord around the midwife’s neck: the problem with umbilical cord blood collection
- Warranty of authority in litigation
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Fitness to Practise: Preserving Confidence in the Medical Profession: Yeong v General Medical Council
- Deficient performance and fitness to practise: Odes v General Medical Council
- Vicarious liability of the Roman Catholic Church for sexual abuse by a priest: Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church
- Close sectionVol.26 No.1
- Close sectionVol.25 No.4
- Close sectionVol.25 No.3
- Unused earning capacity and the case of the under-occupied artist
- Privileged circumstances: Quinn Direct Insurance Ltd v The Law Society [2009] EWHC 2588 (Ch)
- Aggravated and exemplary damages and post-1964 torts
- Warranty of authority in solicitors’ liability claims – Part 1
- Warranty of authority in solicitors’ liability claims – Part 2
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Close sectionVol.25 No.2
- Close sectionVol.25 No.1
- Subjectivity in risk disclosure: considering the position of the particular patient
- The scope of Sephton: limitation where you don’t get what you ought
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Limitation periods and sexual abuse: Raggett v The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes & Governors of Preston Catholic College
- Omissions and Osman Revisited: Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
- Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – negligent solicitor, fraudulent valuer and contributorily negligent lender: Nationwide Building Society (as successor to the Cheshire Building Society) v (1) Dunlop Haywards Ltd and (2) Cobbetts (a firm)
- Close sectionVol.24 No.4
- Loss of a chance and causation: Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
- Naiveté or muddled methodology?: the accounting and auditing implications of Independent Insurance
- Acting for the insurer and the insured: dual retainers and conflicts of interest
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Police liability for failing to prevent criminal assaults: Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
- Lawyers predicting the future: disclosure in insurance contracts: CGU Insurance Ltd v Porthouse
- Multiple causation: The Environment Agency v Ellis
- Causation and psychiatric damage: Dickins v O2 plc
- Book Reviews
- Index to Volume 22
- Close sectionVol.24 No.3
- Close sectionVol.24 No.2
- Auditors, Parliament and the courts: the development and limitation of auditors’ liability
- The Canadian Supreme Court’s approach to the duty question and the tort of negligent investigation
- Uneasy lies the neck that wears a stethoscope: some observations on defensive medicine
- Patient perceptions of the consent process: qualitative inquiry and legal reflection
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Close sectionVol.24 No.1
- Close sectionVol.23 No.4
- Lost litigation and later knowledge
- Beyond measurable loss
- The search for a single formulation for duty of care – back to Anns
- Fitness to practise and the ethics of decision-making at the end of life: Dr Michael Munro
- Detaining adults who lack capacity
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Index to Volume 23
- Close sectionVol.23 No.3
- Negligence in the corridor? The interaction between the ‘separate rooms’ of regulation and the common law in financial services
- Medical students’ perceptions of informed consent: legal reflections on clinical education
- Suing in tort where no contractual claim will lie – a bird’s eye view
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Close sectionVol.23 No.2
- Expert witnesses: professionally immune?
- Contribution and professionals: an overview of the 1978 Act, alternatives to it, and its relationship with contributory negligence
- Hedley Byrne v Heller: the relationship factor
- Limitations of liability in solicitors’ retainers
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Investment advice: duty of care and breach of duty: Riyad Bank v Ahli United Bank (UK) plc
- Child protection and duties to third parties: L v Pembrokeshire CC
- Occupational Stress: Intel Corp (UK) Ltd v Daw
- Limitation Periods and a ‘Continuing’ Duty of Care: Oxford Architects Partnership v Cheltenham Ladies College
- Close sectionVol.23 No.1
- Contingent liability and ‘damage’
- Damages for mental distress for breach of contract: a Canadian perspective
- The future of immunity for expert witnesses: an update
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Limitation Periods and Sexual Abuse Claims
- Doctors’ Duties to Third Parties: West Bromwich Albion FC Ltd v El-Safty
- Chance, Certainty and Risk: Dudarec v Andrews
- No Chance for the Football League: Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison (a firm)
- Scope of the Duty of Care and Causation: Andrews v Barnett Waddingham LLP (a firm)
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.22 No.4
- Close sectionVol.22 No.3
- Professional negligence: duty of care methodology in the twenty first century
- The future of immunity for expert witnesses
- Developments in vicarious liability: shifting sands and slippery slopes
- State liability for negligent acts of autonomous air navigation service providers
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Book Review
- Close sectionVol.22 No.2
- Claims against professionals: negligence, dishonesty and fraud
- SAAMCo 10 years on: causation and scope of duty in professional negligence cases
- Lies, damn lies, and the loss of a chance
- Babb and solicitor’s negligence: can LLP status provide complete protection from personal liability?
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Close sectionVol.22 No.1
- Close sectionVol.21 No.4
- Close sectionVol.21 No.3
- Close sectionVol.21 No.2
- Gregg v Scott and lost chances
- Recent developments in ethics and regulation of cloning and human stem cell research in Singapore: Biotechnology in progress with responsibility
- Professional negligence of the international civil service and immunities of international organisations in national courts
- Close sectionCase Commentaries
- Educational negligence: Carty (By his Litigation Friend Dorothy Brown-Carty) v London Borough of Croydon
- Form and substance in the House of Lords: Chester v Afshar
- A stressful business: Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust
- Liability for secondary exposure to asbestos: Maguire v Harland & Wolff plc
- Advocates’ liability for professional negligence: Moy v Pettman Smith (A Firm)
- Book Reviews
- Close sectionVol.21 No.1