Skip to main content
Tom Myles

Tom Myles

With more than 30 years in private practice specialising in personal injury work for insurers, Tom has handled a wide...

Tony McLoughlin

Tony Mcloughlin

Tony has over 18 years’ experience of conducting all aspects of serious injury litigation, predominantly motor but also public and...

James Devenny

James Devenny

James joined HF’s Large Loss team in 2015 and was promoted to Associate Partner in 2020 leading a team of...

Kevin Coakley

Kevin Coakley

Kevin has over 20 years experience of personal injury and insurance litigation. He joined Horwich Farrelly in 2011 as a...

Regular large & complex injury publication - Insight

Insight

INSIGHT 218

27, July 2022

Malcolm Henké

By Malcolm Henké

In this week’s edition of Insight, we consider the Court of Appeal decision of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2022] EWCA. In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the duty of a public authority to take action to prevent harm to individual members of the public.

Insight

INSIGHT 217

27, July 2022

Alistair Graham

By Alistair Graham

In this week’s edition of Insight, we look at Hoyle v Hampshire County Council and others [2022] EWHC 934, a case brought to trial by Partner, Alistair Graham. The case involved a man driving on the A287 who was fatally injured when a tree adjacent to the road fell onto his car.

Insight

INSIGHT 216

27, July 2022

Malcolm Henké

By Malcolm Henké

In this week’s edition of Insight, we return to the case of Celine Martin V Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, which we first considered in Insight 210 when the court considered the issue of whether, when statutory funding was in place for care, it was appropriate to separate the physical care and make private provision for it. The court also considered mental capacity and the weight to be attached to neuropsychological testing to determine that issue. In the earlier decision, the court concluded it was appropriate to separate the mental care, which was deemed adequate, and the physical care, which was not. The court also concluded that the claimant, although vulnerable to suggestion by others, did not lack capacity. The claimant was also given leave to amend the proceedings to claim the cost of a personal injury trust. The issues remaining were: Whether the damages were to be paid by a lump sum order or by a periodical payments order (PPO)? Whether the PPO should be variable? Whether the claimant should receive damages to reflect the set-up and running costs of a personal injury trust (PIT)? The hearing was before His Honour Judge Bird sitting as a high court judge. The judgment is available at [2022] EWHC 532.