The orthodox answer to this question is no, on the basis that it is the peculiarities of the facts which give rise to the outcome, rather than any new legal approach. In two decisions this week in the tort of negligence, the clinical claim Darnley in the Supreme Court and the vicarious liability claim Bellman in the Court of Appeal, the higher Courts worked from the initial findings of fact and applied the existing law to them to drive different outcomes from those reached in the courts below.
Working out how any post-Brexit motor insurance regime in the UK might fit with the European regime is not completely straightforward at a time when both have a lot of moving parts. Continue reading
The Commons Committee examining the Bill voted along party lines on the amendments, on 11 September. Opposition amendments, as set out in our earlier posts, were either voted down or withdrawn at this stage, although the issues look likely to be revisited by the whole House at a later date as the Bill progresses. Continue reading