<< View barrister profile
KXL & Others -v- Murphy & Anor  EWHC 3102 (QB)
The High Court, on 2 December 2016, handed down an important judgment dealing with the issues arising out of the provisions of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 and whether the circumstances of this case warranted a disapplication of a foreign law limitation period either on grounds that it offended public policy or on the grounds that the Claimants has suffered undue hardship – as prescribed by s.2 of the 1984 Act.
The claims concerned assaults said to have been committed in Uganda but which were issued in this jurisdiction. The Defendants raised as a defence the provisions of the Ugandan Limitation Act 1959 (in essence, 3 years from reaching the age of majority at 18) whereby the claims were statute barred. It was common ground that the applicable law was Ugandan law so the issue came before the Court as a Preliminary Issue of law. The Claimants contended that although the lex causae was Ugandan law the content and operation of its limitation provisions were contrary to public policy and/or its operation would cause the Claimants undue hardship within the meaning of section 2 of the 1984 Act because Ugandan law made no provision for an extension of time on grounds identical or similar to section 33 of the English Limitation Act 1980.
Mr Justice Wilkie, in a careful and closely reasoned judgment ruled that the provisions of the Ugandan Limitation Act 1959 were not contrary to public policy as although some jurisdictions made provision a discretionary extension of time for the commencement of proceedings other jurisdictions did not and described the Claimants’ submissions in this regard as “bold”. The learned Judge similarly dismissed the argument that the Claimants had suffered undue hardship within the special meaning to be attributed to that term as it is found in section 2(2) of the 1984 Act, saying that he could answer that question with a clear “No”.
The Claimants have not sought permission to appeal.
The implications of this judgment are important in that they confirm that the provisions of the 1984 Act are still alive and well. The concept underlying the introduction of that Act was that the English courts should not take a parochial view of foreign law provisions and treat them as subordinate to English law. Instead the principle should be that the lex causae should determine all substantive law issues in a claim which occurred abroad, subject only to an ability on the part of an English court to find that the foreign law provision was contrary to public policy (a high threshold) or caused a particular claimant particular hardship beyond that which is inevitable if the foreign limitation provision is applied (a similarly high threshold).
A further consequence of this decision is that it may serve to dampen enthusiasm for forum shopping in the area of tort claims.
Laura Johnson appeared for D1; John Ross Q.C. and Matthew Chapman appeared for D2.
Anthony Daniel Mulholland v Medway NHS Foundation Trust (2015)
 EWHC 268 (QB)
QBD (Green J) 12/02/2015
NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY - HEALTH
ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS : BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : CAUSATION : CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE : DELAY : DIAGNOSIS : DOCTORS : STANDARD OF CARE : TRIAGE NURSES
Where there had been a three-month delay in diagnosing and treating a patient's brain tumour, a doctor in a hospital's accident and emergency department had not been negligent in relying on the professional opinion of others involved in the overall process of assessing the patient, since her decision-making had to be seen as one part of the chain of decision-making which routinely operated within the department. The standard of care owed by an accident and emergency doctor had to reflect the reality of what could reasonably be expected in a pressurised environment, without ready access to leading experts or time to conduct research.
Jonathan Boyle v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
 EWHC 395 (QB)
NEGLIGENCE - CIVIL EVIDENCE - ROAD TRAFFICDUTY OF CARE : EXPERT EVIDENCE : MEDICAL EVIDENCE : POLICE OFFICERS : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : SPEED LIMITS : DUTY OF CARE POLICE OFFICER DRIVER OWED TO INTOXICATED PEDESTRIAN : ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING EFFECT OF SPEEDING ON INJURIESEven though a police officer had breached his duty of care by driving slightly over the speed limit when he collided with an intoxicated pedestrian who had fallen into his path, the pedestrian was not awarded damages as he had failed to show that the lower speed would have made a difference to the extent of his injuries.
Jonathan Boyle v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 
CA (Civ Div) (Longmore LJ, Black LJ) 05/11/2013
CIVIL EVIDENCE - ROAD TRAFFIC - NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY
BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : EXPERT EVIDENCE : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : CAUSATION : EXPERT EVIDENCE IN PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM ARISING FROM ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT : JUDGE EXCLUDING MEDICAL EVIDENCE SERVED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE TRIAL : INABILITY TO PROVE CAUSATION IN ABSENCE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE : CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1998 Pt 35, r.3.9, r.33.9
A judge had not misunderstood the expert evidence when dismissing a personal injury claim arising out of a road traffic accident and had been entitled to refuse to admit expert medical evidence produced the day before the trial was due to start on grounds that it was far too late and the evidence in any event was not useful.
Bristol Alliance Limited Partnership v Williams
 EWCA Civ 1267
 EWHC 1657 9QB);  2 All E.R. (Comm) 1113
Damage to property; Exclusion of liability; Motor insurance; Motor Insurers' Bureau; Property insurance; Road traffic accidents; European Motor Insurance Directives; Subrogation
Whether a property insurer was entitled to recover from a motor insurer under s. 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for damage caused by the insured driver when driving contrary to the terms of the policy.
R (Burke) v Independent Police Complaints Commission (Defendant) & Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Interested Party)
 EWHC 423 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Wyn Williams J) 8/3/2011
COMPLAINTS : INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION : POLICE : POLICE INQUIRIES : TIME LIMITS : APPEAL TO INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION OUT OF TIME : LAWFULNESS OF REFUSAL TO EXTEND TIME FOR LODGING APPEAL : reg.10(1) POLICE (COMPLAINTS AND MISCONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2004 : reg.10(8) POLICE (COMPLAINTS AND MISCONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2004
The Independent Police Complaints Commission was entitled to refuse to extend time for appealing against a determination by a police commissioner that a complaint against police officers was unfounded where although the complainant might never have received the decision letter he had been dilatory in allowing 16 months to expire after the letter had been sent before making inquiries as to whether the police inquiry had concluded.
Onwuama v London Borough of Ealing
 EWHC 1704 (QB)
The application of the principle of res judicata was in the public interest; there must be a finality to litigation. The application of that principle to cases involving s. 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was not incompatible with the ongoing nature of the duty. There was no other reason why issue estoppel should not apply. The claimant was estopped from reopening a factual issue that had already been determined against her.
Pennington v Surrey County Council
 EWCA Civ 1493;  PIQR P11 (CA)
A system of work which permitted a fire fighter to use a particular type of rescue equipment in a stressful situation when he had not been previously trained or experienced in its use, was not a safe system of work. Accordingly the employer was negligent in failing to provide adequate training and was in breach of its statutory duty under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 reg.11.
JD & Ors v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust & Ors
LTL 21/4/2005;  2 AC 373;  2 WLR 993;  2 All ER 443;  2 FLR 284;  Lloyd’s Rep Med 263;  83 BMLR 66;  UKHL 23; Times, April 22, 2005; Independent, April 27, 2005
Health professionals responsible for investigating suspected child abuse did not owe a parent suspected of having committed the abuse a duty sounding in damages if they carried out that investigation in good faith but carelessly.
Cannon v Cannon
 EWHC 1310
Perosnal Injury; assessment of damages in a 1.2m acquired brain injury case.