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.
Further opposition amendments to the Bill have been published. As indicated yesterday, the prospects of these being carried may not be high and indeed several might be regarded as probing amendments designed to secure explanations and clarifications from government. For completeness, the thrust of the amendments is set out in the body of this article.
Whiplash was referred to as a “racket” by several Peers in recent weeks. It can now properly be said to be EVEL.