Case Report: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188

Apportionment of liability; psychiatric injury; pre-existing illness ‘The tone of Underhill LJ’s judgment is that it will be difficult to convince a court that apportionment is not going to be possible.’ This case revisits the vexed question of divisibility of psychiatric (and other) injury. It is an employment case of wide importance and application. The …
This post is only available to members.

Occupational Stress: Two of a kind

Rushmi Sethi explores the inter-relationships between personal injury and employment law, when dealing with liability for psychological injury in occupational stress claims ‘The inter-relationships between tortious liability in personal injury practice and employment law practice with regard to occupational stress claims involve “some overlap”, because there are potentially two different fora available for redress with …
This post is only available to members.

Psychiatric Damage: Problems for claimants

Edward Bishop QC sets out cases that demonstrate the instances in which a secondary victim claim might be successful ‘Claimants advisers must be alert to the need for psychiatric experts to attribute recognised illness to the shock of seeing a horrific event, rather than other factors.’Claims for damages for psychiatric illness suffered by those who …
This post is only available to members.

Industrial disease: Divisible and indivisible injuries

Tim Trotman reviews the tests for factual causation following Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd ‘The tests can be encapsulated in familiar phrases: “but for”, “material contribution”, “material increase in risk” and “apportionment”, but discriminating factual cases and matching them to the correct legal test has become far more difficult in the recent past.’ This article …
This post is only available to members.