0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Nixon v FJ Morris Contracting Ltd, Queen's Bench Division, 21 December 2000

8 February 2001
The issues

Multiple Sclerosis – Causation

The facts

The Defendants employees in May 1992 allowed a lamp standard to fall onto the Claimant’s car as he was driving along a dual carriageway in Milton Keynes. In 1994 he was referred to a Neurologist who diagnosed MS. The case came before the Court to determine the nature and extent of the injuries sustained and whether it was possible for those types of injuries to trigger symptoms of MS.

The decision

In Dingly v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session found that academic studies failed to throw up any positive connection between MS and trauma.

Garland LJ had been provided with further and more up to date information and felt uninhibited from reaching different conclusions from those reached in Dingly. Three questions arose: –

a) Was it the case that trauma could provoke MS at all? In the course of the trial it was apparent that both experts accepted that the answer was yes, qualified by the words ” in a rare or exceptional case”.

b) If so, what type of trauma. Both experts were agreed that the answer to b was that it must be to the brain or spinal cord and typically the most vulnerable cervical spinal cord.

c) How severe must that trauma be? The answer from the expert evidence was that it had to be sufficiently severe to cause an alteration to the blood brain barrier (thus begging the question).

In this case Garland J found that it was not possible for injuries of the type sustained by the Claimant to trigger MS as there was no injury to the cervical spinal cord.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up