| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2001] All ER (D) 95 (Jan) |
| Court: | Queen's Bench Division |
| Judge: | Judge Geddes (sitting as a judge of the High Court) |
| Representation | James Badenoch QC and Angus McCollough (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for Q. |
| David Foskett QC (instructed by Bevan Ashford, Bristol) for the trust. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 18 January 2001 |
Catchwords
Negligence - Personal injury - Expert evidence - Conflicting medical evidence on causation - Whether defendant responsible on balance of probabilities for all of claimant's injuries.
The Case
Where a defendant admitted liability for the post-birth brain damage suffered by a child, but disputed that all of the brain damage in fact suffered by the child occurred post-birth, a court ruled that the claimant's experts' evidence as to causation of the brain damage was to be preferred and thus that the defendant was responsible, on the balance of probabilities, for all of the brain damage suffered by the child.
Practice Areas
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
