0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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