Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court dismissed an appeal against refusal to amend pleadings after limitation had expired in a medical negligence claim.
Blakeman v University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1089 (KB) (11 May 2026)
Appeal dismissed against refusal to amend pleadings after limitation expired. The proposed amendment was held to be a new claim based on different facts and a different alleged breach.
The High Court dismissed a judicial review of a coroner’s inquest into a child’s death, holding the coroner’s causation analysis and reasons were legally adequate.
Zgonec-Rozej & Ors v Pereira [2025] EWCA Civ 171 (26 February 2025)
Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a clinical negligence claim arising from John Jones QC’s death, finding no causation and no basis for material contribution.
The Privy Council held that rule 67.13 permits VAT to be added to prescribed costs, subject to the indemnity principle, and allowed the appeal.
Administrative Court judicial review of an Article 2 inquest into a prison death. The court granted declarations on jury directions and witness issues, but refused to quash the inquest.
The High Court quashed two inquest findings after fresh evidence about surgery, consent, and hospital processes showed a fresh investigation was necessary in the interests of justice.
HM Senior Coroner for Cornwall And the Scilly Isles v Rowe & Ors (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 2673 (Admin) (22 October 2024)
The High Court quashed two inquests and ordered fresh investigations after new evidence suggested failures in consent, care, and hospital systems.
LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 (20 September 2024)
The court found the Local Authority had not proved that injuries to two children were inflicted non-accidentally, rejecting the expert case after cross-examination.
The so-called 'Specific Rule' that only grossly negligent medical treatment can break the chain of causation does not exist as a principle of law. The proper approach is to consider, on the facts, whether the defendant ought fairly to be held liable for the loss. The defendant's proposed causation defence, based on the alleged negligent surgical treatment, has a real prospect of success and permission to amend should be granted.
Source excerpt
Explore more
