Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
1 June 2011
Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 and Baxendale-Walker v Middleton [2011] EWHC 998 (QB)
In Jones v Kaney, the Supreme Court had to determine whether public policy permits the retention of the immunity enjoyed by expert witnesses in claims by their own client for breach of a duty of care, contractual or tortious. Overruling the decision in Stanton v Callaghan [2000] QB 75, a majority of 5-2 (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting) held it did not. Less than one month later, in the case of Baxendale-Walker v Middleton, the honourable Mr Justice Supperstone, sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division, upheld the immunity of expert witnesses as a defence to tortuous claims. This apparent contradiction is not however an example of a judgment decided per incuriam. Rather, it is a judgment illustrating the fine line drawn by the Supreme Court in Jones v Kaney.
1 June 2011
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Dennison [2011] ALL ER (D) 320 (MAR)
D was an equity partner in a firm of solicitors (‘the Firm’). Prior to joining the Firm, D had acted for an organisation that operated a Claims Management Scheme (‘the Scheme’) for personal injury claimants. When D joined the Firm in 1998, he introduced them to the Scheme and they were subsequently appointed to the Scheme’s panel. Concurrently, D also acquired a one third share in a company (‘the Company’) that was used by the Scheme to supply medical reports for claimants.
1 June 2011
Dr N Karwal v General Medical Council [2011] EWHC 826 (Admin)
The appellant doctor, K, appealed her twelve month suspension by the General Medical Council (GMC) after the Panel found her fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her misconduct. In 2008, K was convicted on three out of twenty-six allegations of dishonesty when the Panel decided she had knowingly made false representations to a colleague, defrauding him of £188,000.
1 June 2011
Levy v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2011] EWHC 740 (admin)
The appellant solicitor, Mr Levy, appealed the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to suspend him for nine months and impose a £26,000 fine. The original allegations related to the appellant’s breach of the Solicitor Account Rules (SAR) and failing to comply with conditions imposed on his practicing certificate, which the appellant accepted, but in relation to which he denied dishonesty (which was not subsequently found by the SDT).
3 March 2011
The Operator - To ban, or not to ban? That is the question
How does the responsible operator deal with the ‘problem’ customer? The answer appears to be obvious; ban the customer from the premises. In this article, the writer suggests the answer may not be quite so straightforward and looks at the implications of the landmark decision in R (Boyle) v. Haverhill Pubwatch [2009] EWHC 2441 (Admin), a case concerning the amenability of Pubwatch schemes to judicial review.