Skip to main content

Sarah Fanthorpe

Sarah jointed Horwich Farrelly in 2018 with over 20 years experience of defending claims on behalf of insurers, corporate client...

Stephen Howcroft

Stephen Howcroft

Stephen was admitted as a Solicitor in 1991. For the last 16 years he has specialised in acting for insurers...

Richard Palmer

Richard Palmer

Richard is a Partner in the restructuring and insolvency team.  He has 15 years’ experience in the insolvency arena, advising...

Paul Chadder

Paul Chadder

Paul joined Horwich Farrelly as a partner at the beginning of 2021, bringing with him 24 years’ experience in defendant...

Raouf Achour

Raouf Achour

Raouf joined Horwich Farrelly in 2015 and was made Partner in 2019. Raouf has over 15 years’ experience of defending...

Jane Hall

Jane Hall

Jane has been recognised in both the Legal 500 and Chambers as a leading Catastrophic Personal Injury Lawyer. Jane has...

John O'Roarke

John O’Roarke

John O'Roarke joined Horwich Farrelly as Chairman in 2016 from LV= where he was Managing Director.  He joined LV= in...

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.