This case sets clear limits on the Marcic defence and confirms that where a sewerage undertaker’s owes a private law duty of care, it may not be able to rely upon the more limited Leakey “measured” duty of care.
Author Archives: Neil Moody QC
Cooper v Thameside  EWHC 1248 follows a line of recent cases (Nulty v Milton Keynes  EWCA, Graves v Brouwer  EWCA, and O’Connor v Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust  EWCA) where the courts have examined the correct approach to proof where there are gaps in the evidence and several competing theories as to how the damage occurred. Continue reading
What should the Court do when an expert is shown to have an undisclosed connection with one of the parties? The issue arose in EXP v Barker  EWHC, and Kenneth Parker J gave a notably robust answer. The case was not a property damage case – it was a clinical negligence action – but this issue certainly crops up in property damage cases. It is notably problematic when the court is considering a highly specialised or technical field and so there is only a very small pool of experts practising in the relevant sub-speciality. Continue reading
The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in Aspen insurance UK v. Adana Construction Ltd  EWCA Civ 176, a case where insurers were seeking a declaration of non-liability under a policy of public and products liability.
Three cheers for Mr Justice Leggatt who in Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton  EWHC 405 has struck a blow against over-long pleadings. “Statements of case must be concise,” he said. “They must plead only material facts, meaning those necessary for the purpose of formulating a cause of action or defence, and not background facts or evidence. Still less should they contain arguments, reasons or rhetoric.”