From: Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>
To: Matthew Campbell <matc99@hotmail.co.uk>
Obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 03/08/2018 20:17:11 UTC
Subject: Re: Illegality in tort post Patel

Being someone who likes fairly clear rules and who has doubts about the wisdom of Patel v Mirza, I rather liked this decision. The idea that you can't claim indemnification for the effects of your own deliberate, even if perhaps understandable, evildoing seems to me a rule both clear and moral. It also makes life a great deal easier for both parties (including here the NHS): you can settle cases after not a great deal of argument with some idea of what the likely result will be.

Andrew


On 03/08/18 20:45, Matthew Campbell wrote:

Dear all


Subscribers interested in the effects of Patel v Mirza may wish to skim the Court of Appeal's decision, given today, in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1841, available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/1841.html.

Apologies if what follows is confusing, confused, or both...

D kills relative whilst suffering from physhiatric illness; manslaughter; disinherited; deprived of liberty, etc; Clunis v Camden and Gray v Thames Trains held to apply given that they were materially identical so far as applying public policy went; "considerable caution" needed in dealing with Patel fallout. The effect of that case was dealt with at [77]ff.

On a quick skim, the (very) bare bones seem to be that whilst Lord Toulson's analysis of the principles was couched in general terms, his discussion of proportionality was directed to contract cases ((like Lord Neuberger's conclusion), though perhaps this is to be expected given that this is what the case was about). Neither Clunis nor Gray seemed to the Court of Appeal to have been disapproved in Patel. And Gray contains guidance which might be good for future similar cases (at [90]).

Given the precedent-based approach to the issue, Hall v Herbert and its influence in Patel might not have persuaded the Court of Appeal to make the leap with a tort claim here, even if it had been cited.

Best wishes

Mat

-- 
Mat Campbell




PhD Candidate in Law
University of Edinburgh
Old College
South Bridge
Edinburgh
EH8 9YL

Lecturer in Law
University of Glasgow
Stair Building,
5-10 The Square,
Glasgow,
G12 8QQ

--

--








Andrew Tettenborn
Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University

Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
School of Law, University of Swansea
Richard Price Building
Singleton Park
SWANSEA SA2 8PP
Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
Cellphone 07472-708527 / (int) +44-7472-708527
Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855



Andrew Tettenborn
Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe

Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
Adeilad Richard Price
Parc Singleton
ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
Ffôn symudol 07472-708527 / (rhyngwladol) +44-7472-708527
Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855




ISTL

See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst
Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com

Read Andrew's other writing here



Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited.