This book examines claims in negligence arising from illegal conduct of the claimant. An array of public policy and other grounds have been advanced for resolving these claims, resulting in an area that is characterised by confusing and contradictory case law. The book analyses the various explanations put forward as the basis for illegality doctrine within a framework of corrective justice theory. Illegality law poses particular challenges for the corrective justice explanation of negligence law, as many illegality tests are based on public policy considerations external to the relationship of the parties. The book argues that the only circumstance where illegality doctrine should be applied to deny a claim is where this is necessary to preserve the coherence of the legal system. It develops the work of Ernest Weinribian corrective justice theorists to explain how the principle of legal coherence fits within the framework of corrective justice theory, and why legal coherence is the only valid conceptual basis for a doctrine of illegality. It also contains a detailed study on the scope of the coherence rationale and the principles that will determine its application.

This book provides a comprehensive theory of the rights upon which tort law is based and the liability that flows from violating those rights. Inspired by the account of private law contained in Immanuel Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the book shows that Kant's theory elucidates a conception of interpersonal wrongdoing that illuminates the operation of tort law. The book then utilises this conception, applying it to the various areas of tort law, in order to develop an understanding of the particular areas in question and, just as importantly, their relationship to each other. It argues that there are three general kinds of liability found in the law of tort: liability for putting another or another's property to one's purposes directly, liability for doing something to a third party that puts another or another's property to one's purposes, and liability for pursuing purposes in a way that improperly interferes with the ability of another to pursue her legitimate purposes. It terms these forms liability for direct control, liability for indirect control and liability for injury respectively. The result is a coherent, philosophical understanding of the structure of tort liability as an entire system. In developing its position, the book considers the laws of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States.

2013 was the 50th anniversary of the House of Lords' landmark decision in Hedley Byrne v Heller. This international collection of essays brings together leading experts from five of the most important jurisdictions in which the case has been received (the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand, Canada and Australia) to reappraise its implications from a number of complementary perspectives-historical, theoretical, conceptual, doctrinal and comparative. It explores modern developments in the law of misstatement in each of the jurisdictions; examines the case's profound effects on the conceptual apparatus of the law of negligence more generally; explores the intersections between misstatement liabilities in contract, tort, equity and under statutory consumer protection provisions; and critically assesses the ways in which advisor liabilities have come to be limited and distributed under systems of 'joint and several' and 'proportionate' liability respectively. Inspired by Hedley Byrne, the purpose of the collection is to reflect on the case's echoes, effects and analogues throughout the private law and to provide a platform for thinking about the ways in which liabilities for misstatement and pure economic loss should be modelled in the modern day.

This book undertakes an analysis of academic and judicial responses to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence. It seeks to bring clarity to what has become a notoriously complex area by adopting a clear approach to the function of the doctrine of causation within a corrective justice-based account of negligence liability. It first explores basic causal models and issues of proof, including the role of statistical and epidemiological evidence, in order to isolate the problem of evidential uncertainty more precisely. Application of Richard Wright's NESS test to a range of English case law shows it to be more comprehensive than the 'but for' test that currently dominates, thereby reducing the need to resort to additional tests, such as the Wardlaw test of material contribution to harm, the scope and meaning of which are uncertain. The book builds on this foundation to explore the solution to a range of problems of evidential uncertainty, focusing on the Fairchild principle and the idea of risk as damage, as well as the notion of loss of a chance in medical negligence which is often seen as analogous with 'increase in risk', in an attempt to bring coherence to this area of the law.

Mediating Clinical Claims is a timely and detailed look at the growing practice of mediating clinical negligence claims in England, written by one of the UK's most experienced mediators of clinical claims. The book is aimed at all those with an interest in understanding why and how mediation is such an effective process in resolving such claims - claimants, healthcare professional and managers, lawyers, judges, policy-makers and mediators. It reviews research on what claimants and clinicians really want from healthcare complaints and claims. It offers help on how best to prepare for and conduct such mediations, giving numerous anonymised examples based on real mediations. This new title looks at: - How mediation of clinical claims has developed - How mediation differs from other processes - Practical guidance for all participants - The legal framework in which such mediation operates - The law and practice of clinical claims - Process design and the special problems of multi-party claims - Future developments. Mediating Clinical Claims provides mediators, claimants, healthcare professionals and their legal representatives with all the guidance they need to ensure that a successful and fair outcome is achieved for all those involved in such mediations.

Personal Injury Schedules: Calculating Damages covers in one single volume all that the PI practitioner needs in order to calculate damages in a personal injury case. It provides a guide to the assessment of damages and presentation of schedules. The emphasis remains on the practical application of the rules and principles involved, covering a variety of claims ranging from the small to the catastrophic. Defendants are also catered for, with a substantial chapter on Counter-Schedules. The book contains comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the relevant principles and case law in a practical handbook style with valuable advice on presentation and strategy, complimented by a raft of precedents. Its key strengths are its clear and structured presentation and calculation of difficult items of loss with checklists, bullet points and tables offering immediate solutions for the busy practitioner, who needs accurate information on a daily basis in the courtroom or the office. This new edition is fully updated to take account of the following developments resulting from case law since the last edition: Fatal Accident Act multipliers: Knauer v MOJ [2016] UKSC 9; Pre-existing conditions: Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire [2015] EWCA Civ 1119; Residual earnings discount factors: Billett v MOD[2015] EWCA Civ 773; Review of the highest court award ever made: Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NSH Trust [2015] EWHC 923 (QB); Developments in the approach to interim payment applications: Smith v Bailey [2014] EWHC 2569 (QB); Recoverability of credit hire claims: Brent v Highways & Utilities Construction & others [2011] EWCA Civ 1384; Opuku v Tintas [2013] EWCA Civ 1299; Zurich Insurance v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357; Sobrany v UAB Transtira [2016] EWCA Civ 28; Fatal accidents and incompatibility with the ECHR: Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193; Periodical payment orders: RH v University Hospitals Bristol Foundation Trust [2013] EWHC 299 (QB); Wallace v Follett [2013] EWCA Civ 146; Striking out dishonest claims: Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26; Assessment of multipliers when not constrained by the Damages Act 1996: Simon v Helmot [2012] UKPC 5; Assessment of life expectancy: Whiten v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB).