ARTICLE
17 August 2018

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 28- 2018

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law

Henderson v Dorset Healthcare: Court of Appeal considers the illegality defence in the field of tort

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/1841.html

The claimant killed her mother whilst experiencing a serious psychotic episode. She brought claims in the common law tort of negligence against the defendant NHS trust, which were dismissed at first instance on the basis of the illegality doctrine. Her appeal from that decision has now been dismissed by the Court of Appeal which held that:

  1.  All of her claims (and not just the one relating to her loss of liberty) were barred (she had sought to modify the common law forfeiture rule after she was unable to inherit in full under her mother's will).
  2.  The Supreme Court decision of Patel v Mizra (see Weekly Update 27/16), in which a more flexible approach to the illegality doctrine was adopted in a contractual context, did not apply to this sort of case. Although Patel was not expressly confined to contractual cases alone, the Court of Appeal held that "Nevertheless, in view of the actual contractual and unjust enrichment issue in Patel, considerable caution must be taken, in the context of the rules of binding precedent, in determining whether there are any other cases in other areas of the law which the Supreme Court in Patel held by necessary implication to be overruled or such that they should no longer be followed".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More