Procedure

Procedure

Pre-action protocols

The Clinical Disputes Protocol is designed to encourage a climate of openness when something has gone wrong with a patient’s treatment or the patient is dissatisfied with medical treatment. It was last amended in April 2015. It sets out a timed sequence of steps for patients and health care providers to follow when a dispute arises. It is designed to speed up the exchange of relevant information and increase the prospects of dispute resolution without resorting to legal action. This Protocol is now regarded by the courts as setting the standard of normal reasonable pre-action conduct for the resolution of clinical disputes. For further guidance, see Practice Note: The Pre-Action Protocol for the Resolution of Clinical Disputes—6 April 2015 onwards.

The protocol now makes specific reference to the duty of candour imposed on healthcare providers by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, SI 2014/2936. It also includes consideration of an apology as a separate specific objective.

See Practice Note: The duty of candour.

The effect of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical negligence litigation was significant. The original

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—3 April 2025

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights brings you an interesting case analysis addressing clinical negligence liability issues in private hospital settings. We include a road traffic accident case on credit hire claims and another discussing highway authority duties. We also look at a contributory negligence case in a construction site accident. In addition, we have our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Claims groups slam government report on personal injury reform

Law360, London: The government's plan to reduce premiums for motorists through its controversial reforms to claims for 'whiplash' injuries in 2020 have failed, consumer advocates said, after an official report found prices had fallen by less than promised.

Shooting from the hip—Legal crossfire over severe brain damage during private hip operation (Bartolomucci v Circle Health Group)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant sustained severe brain damage during a hip operation carried out by independent consultants at a private hospital and sued the private hospital for breach of contract in respect of the consultant’s alleged negligence. The court held that, on proper analysis of the terms of the contract, the scope of the contract between the private hospital and the claimant did not encompass the private hospital providing the consultants’ services; these were provided by the consultants directly to the patient and so the private hospital was not liable for breach of contract for any failure in the standard of care provided by the consultants. This is a rare and important decision about where liability may lie when something goes wrong resulting in injury in a private hospital in England and Wales. The claimant is seeking permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal. Written by Alexander Hutton KC, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

When will a report be covered by without prejudice privilege? (BNP Paribas v Briggs & Forrester)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC), in an interlocutory matter, held that survey reports, commissioned unilaterally by one party to assist in settlement negotiations, were not subject to without prejudice privilege and should have been disclosed in the court proceedings, and could therefore be relied upon at trial.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News