|In This Edition
- Denton and the Clarification of Mitchell
- Case Law Update (covering April - June 2014)
- Chambers News
With summer having finally arrived (and gone!), we hope that you can find time to browse through Parklane Plowden’s Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence Team Newsletter, now in its 6th Edition.
In this edition, Jim Hester enlightens us on how to correctly interpret Mitchell following the Denton decision in the Court of Appeal, and Fay Collinson brings us up to speed with our quarterly serving of case law updates.
We hope you find these articles interesting and informative. If you have any feedback whatsoever including future topic suggestions, please feel free to tweet us @parklaneplowden, or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. Denton and the Clarification of Mitchell
by Jim Hester
For those avid readers of Chambers’ newsletters, you will have recognized that I wrote an article concerning relief from sanction, following the seminal Mitchell judgment in November.
Well, like a recalcitrant teenager, the Court of Appeal in Denton has found that Mitchell is not wrong, but it has been “misunderstood”. By almost everyone. For instance each of the three QC Circuit Judges in Denton misunderstood and misapplied Mitchell. The Court of Appeal, however, did admit that the original judgment needed to be ‘clarified and amplified’....
2. Case Law Update
by Fay Collinson
CHANTELLE PRINGLE (A CHILD BY HER MOTHER & LITIGATION FRIEND KEELY GROTZ) v NESTOR PRIME CARE SERVICES LTD  EWHC 1308 (QB)
An out-of-hours clinical triage telephone service was negligent in not arranging for a two year old with meningococcal septicaemia to be immediately admitted to hospital once it had assessed her as "lethargic". Immediate admission or admission following a doctor's visit would have led to treatment which would have avoided the development of gangrene and subsequent amputations.
F BEWICKE-COPLEY v CHRISTOPHER IBEH (2014) CC (Oxford)
It was not only possible, but it was intended by the provisions of the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents that the parties might compromise individual elements of a claim within the stage 2 portal process.
COX v ERGO VERSICHERUNG AG (FORMERLY VICTORIA)  UKSC 22
The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 was only applicable to actions brought under the Act and did not have extra-territorial effect. It therefore did not apply to an action brought in England against a driver's German insurers in respect of a road traffic accident in Germany in which the claimant's husband was killed. Substantive German law concerning damages applied to the claim.