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

a sorry state of affairs for Thomas Cook as backlash continues

26 May 2015

Thomas Cook is paying a heavy price in the media currently, all because it failed to respect the sensitive nature of the inquest procedure.

Whether, as in the Thomas Cook case, the death occurred abroad or within the UK, the processes of investigating fatal incidents often takes many years. This can mean that emotions explode at and after the inquest process.

The inquest is there to allow the family of the deceased to know the circumstances in which a person met their death. As is often the case with the developing civil jurisdiction in this country, the culture to try to blame someone is permeating into this area. This is in fact not the purpose of an inquest at all.

The adverse publicity in this case flowing from a statement made on behalf of Thomas Cook, which whilst it may have been legally accurate, was so insensitive that it resulted in a whirlwind of adverse publicity and threatened the economic stability of the business concerned.

However, in these austere times, there is no legal aid and possibly no insurance indemnity to cover the payment of legal representation for a business deemed to be an interested party to an inquest.

The one thing that the Thomas Cook backlash shows is that you must prepare for the possibility that there could be blame apportioned towards you. In those circumstances, the cost of having specialist legal representation to respond at the inquest, in a dignified and compassionate way, could be crucial when dealing with this most sensitive of all subjects.

related opinions

Changes to the standard of proof for findings of unlawful killing in inquests

The Supreme Court has considered whether the applicable standard of proof in inquest proceedings should be to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) or the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).

View blog

Supreme Court confirms the standard of proof for suicide AND unlawful killing conclusions is the balance of probabilities. What does this mean for NHS organisations?

The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment on the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire. This decision has serious implications for NHS organisations, which are considered in more detail below.

View blog

Decision making and consent

The GMC updated guidance on 'Decision making and consent' comes into effect today, on 9 November 2020, replacing the previous guidance.

View blog

TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] – authorising long term coercive treatment

The decision in TC (Urgent Medical Treatment) [2020] concerned a 69-year-old woman with advanced cancer of the larynx. An urgent application was brought on behalf of the trust to authorise a 6-8-week course of chemo-radiotherapy requiring restraint.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up