Corbett v South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWCA Civ 1797 (06 December 2006)

Corbett v South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWCA Civ 1797 (06 December 2006)

The decision to refuse adjournment was a proper exercise of case management discretion, given the differences between the present case and Thompstone, the late notice of the adjournment application, incurred costs, and the desirability of having a cross-section of first instance decisions for appellate review.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1797
Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Corbett (by his mother and litigation friend Catherine Elizabeth Corbett); Defendant/appellant: South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Trial on Indexation Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Periodical Payments, Indexation of Damages, Case Management, Adjournment
Personal Injury Clinical Negligence Civil Procedure Damages Periodical Payments Indexation of Damages Case Management Adjournment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Corbett (by his mother and litigation friend Catherine Elizabeth Corbett)

Claimant/respondent

South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Trial on Indexation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial of the indexation issue in a clinical negligence damages claim should be adjourned pending the outcome of an appeal in a similar case (Thompstone)
  2. 2 Whether the case management decision to refuse adjournment was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse adjournment was a proper exercise of case management discretion, given the differences between the present case and Thompstone, the late notice of the adjournment application, incurred costs, and the desirability of having a cross-section of first instance decisions for appellate review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; trial to proceed as scheduled