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?

R -v- Liverpool Health Authority (1) National Health Service Litigation Authority (2) Department of Health (3)

7 August 2002
The issues

Judicial review – structured settlements

The facts

The Applicant brought proceedings for judicial review. Application claimed against the Liverpool Hospital and that claim had been compromised. The Claimant sought settlement by means of a structured settlement. The Defendant refused to consider a structured settlement. The Claimant argued that that decision was susceptible to Judicial review and that it was wednesbury unreasonable and that it had fettered its discretion by using a blanket policy of refusing to consent to with-profit structured settlements such as the Claimant sought.

The decision

1. The Defendant was a public body exercising statutory power. This was not disputed.

2. The next question to decide was whether it was exercising those powers as a private or public function and whether it was performing a public duty to the Claimant.

3. The Defendant was a litigant defending a claim in clinical negligence. There was no Public Law Duty involved. The only duty on the Defendant was to meet the Judgment. There was no duty to consider giving consent to a structured settlement. The advice of the NHSLA and the Secretary of State was irrelevant. It did not remove the decision from the private to the public’s fear. The NHSLA had not fettered its discretion.

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