The up and down life of (semi) lockdown rumbles on. If you want a break from slack chats, remote court hearings and virtual quiz nights for a few moments, we have another 1CL Medical Law briefing for you.

Ella Davis looks at the approach taken by courts where the Defendant’s breach creates a lacuna in the evidence. The court will take a more benevolent approach to the Claimant’s case / evidence in such a scenario, but It is not all plain sailing for Claimants – they have hurdles to pass, and Ella explores this.

Susanna Bennett reviews the recent decision in Bradfield-Kay v Cope [2020] EWHC 1351 (QB)  and the application of Bolam / Bolitho. This test is so fundamental to clinical negligence cases it is always worthy of comment when there is a judgment dealing with it. Let’s face it, at one time or another we have all sat across the table from an expert (whether for the Claimant or Defendant) where they have been unshakeable in their opinion that there has/has not been a breach of duty, but getting to the bottom of their reasoning (or even scratching the surface of their reasoning) causes problems. Bradfield-Kay v Cope is a timely reminder to exercise caution in such cases.”

Read the Briefing in full here.