MAZUR MATTERS 27: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: A USEFUL GUIDE FROM INSURERS: PLUS THE FIRST “REAL WORLD” CASE WHERE MAZUR HAS LED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN COSTS
The commentary on Mazur continues. Here I want to look at two useful links. The first relates to guidance given by an insurer. The second relates to the first report (I have seen) on Mazur having an impact on costs….
EXPERT WATCH 24: WHEN AN EXPERT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST (WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THEIR OWN REPORT)THIS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: BUT IT DOESN’T HELP
This is not the first time we have looked at a case where an expert in a clinical negligence has revealed in cross-examination that they do no really understand the “Bolam” test for negligence. We look at such a case…
SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT
This is a case about mistakes in litigation and the rules relating to allowing the withdrawal of a pre-action admission. The judgment was given 10 years ago, but arrived on BAILII today. The issues raised here remain highly relevant. In…
MAZUR MATTERS 26: SHOULD THE PROFESSION HAVE SEEN THIS COMING? THERE WERE CLUES…: TODAY IS THE 18th ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007 COMING INTO FORCE: SHOULD WE HAVE BEEN SURPRISED?
The reason why we litigators are infinitely wise is that we always deal with things in retrospect. We have the perfect vision of hindsight. Litigation is full of “why did you do that?”, “If you say that now why didn’t…
You must be logged in to post a comment.