Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation
User Account
  • Sign in to your personal account
  • Not registered? Sign up for a personal account
  • Have an access token?
More
  • How to use this site
BPRO
Search
Close
Advanced Search Legislation Search Help
Menu
  • Home
  • Browse
  • All Content
  • Cases
  • Commentary
  • Legislation
  • Precedents
  • News
  • New Platform
  • My Content (0)

    Recently viewed (0)

    • Save Entry
  • My Searches (0)

    Recently viewed (0)

    • Save Search
  • Print
  • Save
  • Cite
  • Email this content

    Share Link

    Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
    Email this content
    or copy the link directly:
    The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.
    Link copied successfully
Show Summary Details

Export to Word

Vol.37 No.4

Journal of Professional Negligence

Edited by:
Colm McGrath and Isabel Barter
Publisher:
Bloomsbury Professional
Publication Date:
February 2025
Previous Document
Next Document
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Article Summaries
  • Stoffel & Co v Grondona
  • Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
  • Case Commentaries: Pruning the Hedges and the SAAMCO Principles
  • Book Review
Previous Document
Next Document

Contents

Journal of Professional Negligence

  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Guidelines for Contributors
  • Close sectionVol.41 No.1
    • Article Summaries
    • The Year in Review
    • Is Canada Square an Answer to Never-Ending Liability for Professionals?
    • Case Digest: Disciplinary & Regulatory
    • Case Commentaries
    • Reasonable Endeavours and Non-Contractual Performance
    • Duty of care in negligence in relation to pure economic loss
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.40 No.4
    • Article Summary
    • Where’s the limit? A recent contrasting pair of lawyers’ liability cases on duty and limitation
    • Case Digest
    • Case Digest: Disciplinary & Regulatory
    • Case Commentaries: Damage to leased property: the Supreme Court restores orthodoxy
    • Scottish Case Commentary: Group Proceedings, Negligence and Res Judicata in Scotland
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.40 No.3
    • Article Summary
    • Disclosing Alternative Treatments: Towards a Bolam-Montgomery Partnership
    • Case Digest: Disciplinary & Regulatory
    • Case Commentary: Insanity, illegality and the public conscience: Lewis-Ranwell v. G4S Health Services (UK) Limited and Others
    • Case Commentary: Secondary victims in the Supreme Court: Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust
    • Case Commentary: The holy grail of standard form contracts?: Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.40 No.2
    • Article Summaries
    • The Scope of Duty and Purpose
    • Pointing the finger when a tax scheme goes awry: some lessons
    • Case Digest
    • Case Digest: Disciplinary & Regulatory
    • Case Commentaries: Two (duties) is just as bad as one: Primeo Fund v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd, concurrent duties and contributory negligence
    • Scottish Case Commentary: Legal Cavity: The actio iniuriarum as a Filling for Assault.
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.40 No.1
    • Article Summary
    • Professional Negligence Annual Case Review: 2023
    • A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
    • Case Digest
    • Case Digest: Disciplinary & Regulatory
    • Case Commentary: Shifting the burden of proof in medical negligence – A wrong turn: Hazhar Shally v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 1304 (KB)
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.39 No.4
    • Article Summary
    • Vicarious Liability: Analysing Relationships Akin to Employment
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries: ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’: Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.39 No.3
    • Pure economic loss and assumption of responsibility: The Peter Taylor Memorial Address For the Professional Negligence Bar Association 20 April 2023
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries: Court of Appeal rule on Novel Scope of Duty of Care
    • Book Review
  • 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
    • Article Summaries
    • Professional Negligence in 2022: The Year in Review
    • Time to Start De Novo: The Paul, Purchase and Polmear litigation and the temporal gap problem in secondary victim claims for psychiatric injury
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
    • Index to Volume 38
  • Close sectionVol.38 No.4
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summaries
    • Abuse of Process and Collateral Attack in Professional Liability Claims
    • Medical Liability under the Chinese Civil Code: Views from an Anglo-Australian Perspective
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.38 No.3
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summary
    • Equality at the Contract-Tort Boundary: Levelling Up or Levelling Down?
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.38 No.2
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summary
    • Continuing to Cause Problems? Limitation in Professional Negligence Cases
    • Case Digest
    • Case Commentaries: Liability for Failure to Exercise Child Protection Powers
    • Review Article: From Strict Liability to Fault Liability in the Law of Torts
    • Book Review
  • 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
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summaries
    • Stoffel & Co v Grondona
    • Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
    • Case Commentaries: Pruning the Hedges and the SAAMCO Principles
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.37 No.3
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summary: Deliberation About Recklessness: Deliberate Concealment Again
    • Deliberation About Recklessness: Deliberate Concealment Again
    • Case Commentaries: The Bolam Standard and Surgical Negligence
    • Book Reviews
  • Close sectionVol.37 No.2
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summaries
    • Can the Supreme Court Halt the Ongoing Expansion of Vicarious Liability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court
    • Impractical Jokers: Employers’ Liability for ‘Horseplay’
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.37 No.1
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Article Summaries
    • Close sectionProfessional Negligence in 2020: The Year in Review
      • Illegality
      • Vicarious liability
      • Covid-19
      • Good faith
      • Outlook and reform
    • Close sectionThe Role of Disciplinary Cases in Effecting Changes to Professional Ethical Guidance: A Case Study of Informed Consent and the Veterinary Profession
      • Introduction
      • Methods
      • Case Analysis
      • Effects on professional guidance
      • Discussion
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.36 No.4
    • Article Summary
    • Close sectionDoctors, Decisions, and Discharges: Regulatory Accountability for Patient Safety in a Just Culture
      • Introduction
      • I: Professional standards and fitness to practise
      • II: Defining accountability
      • III: Accountability and the GMC
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Accrual of a cause of action in tort
      • Severing the tentacles of reflective loss
      • Negligence liability and the taking of obvious risks
    • Book Review
    • Index to Volume 36
  • Close sectionVol.36 No.3
    • Article Summary
    • Close sectionRevisiting Loss of Chance in Medical Negligence: Employing Public Policy Positively as Justification
      • Introduction
      • Overview of the loss of chance doctrine
      • Framework for analysing the application of policy considerations in loss of chance claims
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The thin blue line: the merging of ‘acts’ and ‘omissions’ in public authority negligence
      • Advocates’ immunity and collateral challenge in the criminal law
      • Caparo ‘test’ still of central importance in the High Court
      • Plus ça change, plus c’est la vicarious liability
    • Close sectionBook Reviews
      • Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence
      • Vicarious Liability: Critique and Reform
  • Close sectionVol.36 No.2
    • Article Summary: The Jaded Cliché of ‘Defensive Medical Practice’: From Magically Convincing to Empirically (Un)convincing?
    • Close sectionThe Jaded Cliché of ‘Defensive Medical Practice’: From Magically Convincing to Empirically (Un)convincing?
      • Introduction
      • The narrow judicial account of defensive practice in medicine: questionable assumptions
      • Doctrinal engagement and the demise of defensive practice argumentation in negligence: from magically convincing to empirically unconvincing?
      • Analysis – ‘Unproven’? Unpacking the ‘no evidence’ claim
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Statistical evidence and its use in medical litigation
      • Attribution: the next chapter
      • Reasonableness and proportionality: the recoverability of ATE premiums in clinical negligence
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.36 No.1
    • Article Summaries
    • Close sectionProfessional Negligence Review 2019
      • Scope of duty
      • Summary judgment/strike out
      • Loss of chance
      • Pleadings
      • Confidentiality and anonymity
      • Fiduciary duties
      • Limitation
      • Res judicata
      • Dishonest assistance
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionA Sterile and Semantic Debate About Negligence
      • Limiting liability for negligence but not gross negligence
      • Limiting liability with clarity
      • Distinguishing negligence from gross negligence
      • Gross negligence in criminal law
      • Wrongdoing and recklessness
      • Defining gross negligence in an English law contract
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Exception clauses all at sea. The Elin.
      • In Need of Scrutiny: Court of Appeal Confirms No Duty Owed by Approved Inspectors Under the Defective Premises Act 1972
    • Book Review
  • 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
      • Introduction
      • What is social utility?
      • Duty or breach?
      • Type 1 cases
      • Type 2 cases
      • Type 3 cases
      • Type 4 cases
      • Public benefit, private burden?
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The new adventures of the old three-stage test: the duty of care inquiry 30 years after Caparo
      • Of mountaineers and men: the extension of SAAMCO to medical negligence
      • The end of Lord Bridge’s qualification just when we need it the most?
    • 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
      • 1: Introduction
      • 2: The usual routes to compensation
      • 3: Consideration of the usual routes to compensation and reasons for introduction of the Act
      • 4: Compensation under the Act
      • 5: Consideration of compensation under the Act and a look at the future
    • Close sectionUnderstanding the relationship between duties in contract and the tort of negligence
      • 1: Introduction
      • 2: The relationship between duties in tort and contract
      • 3: Imposing a duty to take reasonable care in the tort of negligence?
      • 4: The appropriate test for remoteness of damage where there are concurrent duties in contract and tort
      • 5: Conclusion
    • 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
    • Article Summaries
    • Close sectionBungled litigation and costs
      • The impact of costs pre CFA and ATE
      • The impact of CFAs and ATE insurance
      • Weak cases
    • Close sectionCausal presumptions and defective products in EU Law
      • Introduction
      • I: The context
      • II: Debunking the myths surrounding the ECJ ruling
      • III: The compatibility of the national evidential rules in England and Wales with the ECJ ruling on 21 June 2017
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • IVF baby and upbringing costs – a claim for wrongful parenthood
      • Foreseeing difficulties: duty, scope, and causation
      • Illegality and professional negligence: applying the ‘range of factors’ approach
      • Recovering the costs of commercial surrogacy
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.35 No.1
    • Article Summaries
    • Professional negligence in 2018: the year in review
    • Nonfeasance and the end of policy? Reflections on the revolution in public authority liability
    • A novel alternative dispute resolution procedure for professional negligence claims
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.34 No.4
    • Article Summaries
    • ‘Decisional’ and ‘operational’ negligence
    • The negligence liability of local authorities for failure to protect children from abuse: where to draw the line?
    • Case Commentaries
    • Book Review
  • Close sectionVol.34 No.3
    • Article Summaries
    • Abolishing Personal Injuries Law – A Project
    • Abolishing Personal Injuries Law? A Response to Lord Sumption
    • Professional Negligence in 2017: The Year in Review
    • Case Commentary
    • Book Reviews
  • Close sectionVol.34 No.2
    • Article Summaries
    • Was it all worth it?
    • SAAMCO re-explored: BPE and the law of professional negligence
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The duty to warn re-visited
      • After the event insurance and access to justice in clinical negligence disputes
      • No limit to the scope of doctors’ liability for failures to warn?
      • Book Reviews
  • 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?
      • Introduction
      • 1. Corporate lawyers
      • 2. The lawyer's role
      • 3. A positivist model of legal ethics
      • 4. A moral conception of legal ethics
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The liability of local authorities for abuses by foster parents
      • Apportionment and psychiatric injury
      • Vicarious liability of a bank for the acts of a contracted doctor
    • 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
      • Introduction
      • Access to justice
      • The simplification of the regulatory scheme to increase competition and reduce regulatory costs
      • Improving ethical standards
    • 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?
      • 1. Introduction
      • 2. The facts
      • 3. Case history
      • 4. Liability for breach of a non-delegable duty of care
      • 5. Vicarious liability
      • 6. The importance of facts
    • Close sectionSolicitors and the scope of duty in the Supreme Court
      • Introduction
      • The merits of SAAMCO
      • Is SAAMCO an aspect of causation?
      • Information and advice
      • Steggles Palmer and the viability of the transaction
      • The problem with Aneco
      • The cross-check
      • Putting a value on the misinformation
      • The burden of proof
      • Conclusion
    • 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
      • Introduction
      • The distinctive legal character of professional negligence
      • Justifying distinct rules of professional negligence
      • The legal concept of assumption of responsibility
      • The law of professional negligence in flux
      • Conclusion
    • Liabilities of litigation funders
    • Close sectionPolicing, professionalism and liability for negligence
      • Introduction
      • The nature of professionalism
      • Professional negligence
      • Professionalism, policing and the courts
      • The police as ‘professionals’
      • The role of the duty of care in the negotiation of police professional status
      • Conclusion
    • 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
      • Introduction
      • A brief look at the development of the duty to disclose
      • Montgomery: Risk disclosure and the ‘particular patient’
      • Patients rule, OK?
      • Implications for medical practice and professionalism
      • Medical education, experience and delegation
      • Conclusion
    • Close sectionInvestment advice: the statutory remedy
      • Introduction
      • The features of the statutory tort
      • The ‘private person’ threshold
      • Obligations owed
      • Best interests
      • Provision of information
      • Suitability
      • Appropriateness (complex instruments)
      • Best execution
      • Causation and remoteness of damage
      • The relationship of section 138D(2) to negligence
      • Conclusion
  • 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
      • 1: Introduction
      • 2: International jurisdiction
      • 3: The applicable legal regime
      • 4: The applicable substantive rules
      • 5: Conclusion
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The continuing demise of Bolam?: O’Hare & Ors v Coutts & Co
      • Occupiers’ liability in England: time for some housecleaning?
      • Book Reviews
  • 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
      • Introduction
      • Clack v Wrigleys Solicitors LLP
      • How did the judge treat Mr Clack's case?
      • The application of SAAMCO to cases involving solicitors
      • ‘No previous case’? Decisions from Scotland on solicitor cases
      • Footnote
    • 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
      • Encountering funds
      • Funds as limited partnerships
      • Complexities that can arise
      • Third party risks for providers
      • Managing risks by establishing clarity
      • The absence of separate legal personality
      • Conclusions
    • Close sectionThe standard of care in professional negligence
      • Introduction – the age of claims
      • The standard of care
      • Specialisation
      • Contractual instructions
      • Conclusion
    • 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
      • 1 Introduction
      • 2 Humphrey v Aegis Defence Services Ltd
      • 3 Pragmatism in English negligence law
      • 4 The Qualcast conduit and the decision in Humphrey
      • 5 Welfare consequentialism and circumstantial pressure
      • 6 Context and the character of negligence law
      • 7 Conclusions
    • Close sectionA duty to warn relatives in clinical genetics: arguably ‘fair, just and reasonable’ in English law?
      • Introduction
      • Determining a duty of care
    • Close sectionA tour of the tort of negligence
      • 1. Introduction
      • 2. The objective standard of care
      • 3. Involuntariness
      • 5. A defence of insanity?
      • 6. Conclusion
    • 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
    • Negligence and process
    • Mehjoo v Harben Barker and the duty to refer
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Close connection and police torts: Allen & Ors v The Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary
      • Mortgage advice and the scope of compensation: Emptage v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd
      • Reasonable foreseeability and unsuitable work equipment: Hide v Steeplechase Co (Cheltenham) Ltd
    • Book Reviews
    • Index to Volume 29
  • Close sectionVol.29 No.3
    • Professional services and EU law
    • Entity focused regulation of the legal sector
    • Liabilities and obligations: two different concepts?
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Credit reference agencies and the accuracy of personal data: Smeaton v Equifax
      • Insurers’ liability under policies of compulsory third party motor insurance: Bristol Alliance Ltd Partnership v Williams
    • Book Review
  • 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
      • Mitigation and the date for assessment of damages in sales of land: Hooper & Anor v Oates
      • Is it better to be wrong than late?: John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins
      • The scope of legal professional privilege: R (on the application of Prudential plc) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax
    • 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
    • Criminal responsibility for medical malpractice in France
    • Liability of professionals retained by settlors and trustees following Pitt v Holt/Futter v Futter
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • ‘Apportionment’ among jointly and severally liable tortfeasors: London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan
      • Building contracts: a concurrent claim in tort?: Robinson v P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd
      • The fitness of the fitness to practise panel: R (on the application of Michalak) v General Medical Council
    • Book Review
  • 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
    • Blame culture and political debate: finding our way through the fog
    • ‘Common sense common safety’: the compensation culture perspective
    • Informing the family: a geneticist’s duty of care to disclose genetic risks to relatives of the proband
    • Case Commentary
    • Book Review
  • 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
      • Valuing substance over form in sexual abuse litigation: Raggett v Society of Jesus Trust of 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes and Governors of Preston Catholic College
      • Concealment of cause of action: more than one loss: Williams v Lishman, Sidwell, Campbell & Price Ltd
    • Index to Volume 26
  • Close sectionVol.26 No.3
    • Saving costs in clinical negligence: the Jackson Report recommendations
    • ‘Stress at work’ in English law: a Japanese perspective
    • Duty of care and causation in Canadian tort law
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Interim suspension and employment disputes: Bradshaw v General Medical Council
      • Claims for illness arising from workplace stress against public bodies: Connor v Surrey County Council
  • 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
    • The demise of professional self-regulation? Evidence from the ‘ideal type’ professions of medicine and law
    • Everyday life and the edges of existence: wrongs with no name or the wrong name?
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Non-delegable duties and hospitals: Farraj v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Cytogenetic DNA Services Limited
      • Money laundering: a limited remedy for clients: Shah v HSBC Private Bank UK Ltd
  • Close sectionVol.25 No.4
    • The new environmental liability regime: not only the polluter will pay
    • Old iron: birth defects litigation and the Corby steelworks’ reclamation
    • Negligence law, the welfare state, and ‘our moral life’
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Material increase in risk of mesothelioma under section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006: Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd
      • Employment law and tort law: the borrowed servant
    • Index to Volume 25
  • 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
      • Claimant illegality as a defence to negligence: Gray v Thames Trains and others
  • Close sectionVol.25 No.2
    • Fatal medical malpractice and criminal liability
    • When damage occurs – limitation and pecuniary loss in tort – an examination of the courts’ divergent approaches
    • Blaming the patient: contributory negligence in medical malpractice litigation
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Personal injuries at school
      • Accrual of cause of action – Sephton again: Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby Solicitors and Others
  • 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
    • The remedy in White v Jones cases: smoothing the analytical wrinkles
    • Duty of care for psychiatric harm: back to Anns
    • Intentional economic torts, commercial transactions and professional liability
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Causation in negligence: another fine mess: Bailey v The Ministry of Defence
      • The scope of the solicitor’s duty: Preferred Mortgages Ltd v Shanks
  • 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
      • Police liability for negligence and the failure to prevent criminal assault: Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
      • Protecting professionals from claims by mental health patients: Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
  • Close sectionVol.24 No.1
    • Loss of a chance: where has it come from and where is it going?
    • Liability for fear of future disease?
    • The positive duty of the police to protect life
    • Professional negligence in Sri Lanka – issues and challenges
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Loss of value or loss of earnings?: Earl of Malmesbury v Strutt & Parker
      • Solicitors’ liability for ‘aiding’ unlawful discrimination: Bird v Sylvester
      • The duties of insurance brokers: HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd
      • Book Reviews
  • 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
      • Liability for psychiatric harm: Butchart v Home Office
      • Misprescribing and the chain of causation: Horton v Evans
      • Liability for suicide: Corr v IBC Vehicles
    • 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
      • Applications of Bolitho to Standard of Care and Causation: Gouldsmith v Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust
      • The Scope for Contribution: Cohen v Davis
  • 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
    • The rise and fall of the general duty of care
    • The logic of Bolitho
    • Medical ethics of informed consent: a survey of medical professionals in Singapore
    • Proving causation – beyond the ‘but for’ test
    • Book Reviews
    • Index to Volume 22
  • 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
      • No medical duty to third parties: Islington LBC v UCL Hospital NHS Trust
      • The date of damage in defective property cases
    • 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
      • The spectre of Stubbings v Webb lives on: A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council; X and Y v Wandsworth London Borough Council
      • Limitation Act 1980 section 14A, and negligent professional advice: Haward and others v Fawcetts (a firm)
  • Close sectionVol.22 No.1
    • Negligence law and blame culture: a critical response to a possible problem
    • Negligence liability of tax advisers
    • Audit quality and audit liability: a musical vignette
    • The law of black holes?
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • The positive medical duty to provide life-prolonging treatment: R (on the application of Burke) v General Medical Council
    • Index to Volume 21
  • Close sectionVol.21 No.4
    • The accused strikes back: the negligence action and erroneous allegations of child abuse
    • Riding the market: 20 years of valuation negligence
    • Auctioneers and buyers: a special relationship?
    • Twenty years of professional negligence in New Zealand
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Re-inventing the doctrine of vicarious liability – again!: Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust
  • Close sectionVol.21 No.3
    • Professional liability to third parties for inter vivos transactions
    • Gillick, 20 years on: arrested development or growing pains?
    • The Supreme Court’s creation of a distinct Canadian tort law
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Abusing parents and children: JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others
      • Police immunity and the legacy of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
    • Book Reviews
  • 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
    • Editorial
    • Solicitors – the last 20 years of self-regulation?
    • The rise and fall of professional negligence: One practitioner’s view
    • Public health and the scope of potential liability in tort
    • Close sectionCase Commentaries
      • Lost chance to destination Eden: Ball v Druces & Attlee (a firm) (No. 2)
Access brought to you by: provisional account
  • Privacy and Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Contact Us
  • Bloomsbury Professional
  • Bloomsbury.com

© Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 2023

Powered by

PubFactory
 
  • [18.97.9.172]
  • 18.97.9.172