Welcome to the eighth issue of the Quarterly Medical Law Review, updating you on developments in Winter 2020/21 and our announcement:
Two years after Chambers began QMLR, we’re launching a special archive website for you to find individual articles by issue number, author and practice area. Are you looking for all our articles on consent? Do you need one place with all our COVID-19 articles? Take a look at our new website by visiting www.1corqmlr.com, save us in your bookmarked websites and follow us on Twitter @1corqmlr.
Download the Autumn 2019 newsletter here: 1COR Quarterly Medical Law Review – Winter 20-2021 – Issue 8
Read the individual articles on the QMLR Archive website here.
In the latest edition you will find:
Rajkiran Barhey provides a detailed look at the High Court’s decision concerning puberty blockers on page 3, a decision concerning records and reliability on page 9 and on page 11 a decision concerning spinal surgery.
Jeremy Hyam QC considers two decisions exploring the principles relating to judicial assessment of the reliability of factual witness evidence on page 8 and three decisions relating to the Civil Procedure Rules on page 39.
Lizanne Gumbel QC discusses contested interim payments and how to avoid them on page 11.
Shaheen Rahman QC analyses a decision concerning whether the NHS owed a non-delegable duty of care to a patient when care was outsourced to a private provider on page 15.
Matthew Flinn analyses a decision on cauda equina and causation on page 16, and follows up on the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning a challenge to changes in abortion regulations on page 36. He also considers a COP decision concerning an order requiring a caesarean section on page 38.
Richard Mumford highlights the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the rights it gives to patients on page 18.
Suzanne Lambert considers a claim brought some 18 years late and exercise of the s.33 discretion on page 22.
Jessica Elliott explains further developments in secondary victim claims on page 25.
Robert Kellar QC considers wrongful life claims and the recent decision of Toombes on page 27.
Alasdair Henderson follows up on an appeal, considering when medical technology goes wrong on page 29.
Cara Guthrie also considers an appeal concerning the treatment of taking obvious risks in PI claims on page 31.
Matthew Domnall explains two quantum decisions concerning loss of earnings and income from businesses on page 33.
Thomas Beamont analyses a decision concerning pre-inquest admissions and recoverability of costs on page 35.
Angus McCullough QC revisits the issue of anonymity orders and provides a standard form anonymity order on page 41.
Owain Thomas QC explains the Maughan decision concerning the standard of proof for a conclusion of suicide in an inquest on page 45.
Dominic Ruck Keene considers a judicial review of a decision to not re-open an inquest on page 48 and a decision concerning hearing loss in the military context on page 50.
Finally, follow us on Twitter at @1corqmlr. To find out more about our upcoming webinars on Healthcare Inquests & COVID-19 (13th May) and Public Law Lessons From COVID-19 (10th June)please email Olivia via email@example.com.
If you would like to provide any feedback or further comment, do not hesitate to contact the editorial team at firstname.lastname@example.org. Listen to hot topic discussions and interviews on the 1COR podcast Law Pod UK.