Search Results for

“Could EVERY doorbell camera owner face £100,000 fine after landmark ruling” thundered a headline from yesterday’s Daily Mail.  The short answer to the question is “No”, but the question was prompted by the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in Fairhurst v Woodard. The case concerned allegations that four cameras positioned around the Defendant’s property breached


In yesterday’s webinar Ella Davis and Dominique Smith looked at beauty treatment claims. They covered: Injuries arising from high street beauty treatments The scale of the problem Issues of regulation and insurance (or the lack thereof) Proving the standard of care – expert and non-expert evidence If you missed it, you can view it here:


Last week we brought you news of our triumphant rankings in the latest edition of the Legal 500; this week we were told that chambers has been shortlisted for Barristers’ Chambers of the Year in the Personal Injury Awards 2021. As you know, we’re the current holders of the trophy, thanks to you, our loyal


Griffiths v TUI: appeal allowed…

Today, the Court of Appeal handed down their Judgment in Griffiths v TUI [2021] EWCA Civ 1442 (CA). Those travel practitioners who deal with food poisoning claims will be familiar with Mr Justice Martin Spencer’s judgment in this case last year, which paved the way for claimants to argue that medical reports in these claims


We are delighted to announce that we have once again been shortlisted for Barristers’ Chambers of the Year in the Personal Injury Awards 2021. We are the current holders of this award, having won it in 2020. The awards encompass all professionals and key service providers working in the field of personal injury. The aim


A little over two years ago I wrote an article about a then-unreported decision of the Court of Appeal which decided that it was possible for the Court in a QOCS case to set-off an order for costs in the defendant’s favour against an order for costs in the claimant’s favour (“a costs/costs set-off”): https://1chancerylane.com/costs-set-off-in-qocs-cases/.


There have been a number of recent decisions on limitation; it is fertile ground for argument. One such recent decision is the case of Wilkins v University North Midlands NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 2164 (QB) 30/7/21, in which Paul Stagg of 1CL represented the claimant, who was successful at the preliminary hearing on limitation. Below,


Summary of Section Limitation Act 1980

The relevant Limitation Act 1980 provisions for Clinical Negligence actions:   Part I  Ordinary Time Limits for Different Classes of Action …Actions Founded on tort Section 2. Time limit for actions founded on tort …Actions founded on simple contract Section 5. Time limit for actions founded on simple contract …Actions in respect of wrongs causing


In May of this year Robert Parkin and Henk Soede authored an extremely popular briefing on the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. In this companion briefing Andrew Spencer considers the question of who is an occupier and Robert Parkin provides a useful analysis of the scope of an occupier’s obligations to those he has not invited


The Weekly Roundup: the Smug Edition

Regular readers will know that we at 1CL are never smug. Well, occasionally. And this is one of those occasions. The Legal 500 rankings for 2022 are now out, and, quite honestly, we’re chuffed with them. Fancy having ‘no weaknesses’, being ‘a tour de force’, and boasting a ‘superb intellect’, whilst also being ‘charming and


Subscribe for our newsletters, updates and seminars


Subscribe