header-logo header-logo

Negligence

25 February 2016
Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Henegham (Son and Administrator of the Estate of James Leo Heneghan, Deceased) v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd and others [2016] EWCA Civ 86, [2016] All ER (D) 138 (Feb)

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant’s appeal, held that it was not possible to infer from the epidemiological evidence that all or any of the defendants had made a material contribution to the deceased’s contracting of lung cancer. All of the defendants had, however, materially contributed to the risk that he would contract lung cancer and, therefore, the judge had been right to have applied the principle in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd ([2002] 3 All ER 305).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll