In the first edition of 2026, Dr Dan Jacklin & Kyran Kanda have compiled an update on Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence cases which have been in the courts this year.
PERSONAL INJURY
Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd and Ors [2026] UKSC 2
Illegality – Unlawful killing – Indemnity
In February 2019, Mr Lewis-Ranwell killed three men previously unknown to him. He was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. He seeks indemnity from civil liability and compensation for unlawful detention. The question before the court is whether any or all of the heads of loss are barred by the illegality defence.
The Supreme Court helpfully reflected on previous judgments of the court in Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47, Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2014] UKSC 55, Bilta (UK) Ltd v Nazir (No 2) [2015] UKSC 23, Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43 and Grondona v Stoffell & Co [2020] UKSC 42.
Lord Hamblen applied the trio of considerations as set out in Patel: (a) the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose would be enhanced by denying the claim, (b) any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact, (c ) whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is for the criminal courts.
The notable feature of this case was that the index conduct was not criminal in nature because Mr Lewis-Ranwell was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the conduct was unlawful and the illegality defence was engaged (see [134]).
In considering limb (a) of the trio of considerations, the court considered that insanity was no defence to liability in tort for trespass to the person or battery (Morriss v Marsden [1952] 1 All ER 925). Equally, the objective standard adopted in assessing negligence precludes consideration of the Claimant’s insanity. The court found, in particular for reasons of consistency and public confidence, that it would be wrong as a matter of public policy to permit such a claim to succeed.
Concerning limb (b), the court reached a clear view that policy considerations favour denying the civil claim to maintain the integrity of the legal system override those in favour of permitting the claim.
Finally, concerning limb (c ), the court found that the utmost seriousness of the conduct was central to all heads of loss and it would not be disproportionate to deny the claim.
Consequently, the appeal failed to satisfy any of the three limbs within the test.
By Dr Daniel Jacklin
X v The Lord Advocate [2025] UKSC 44
Vicarious liability – Crown officials – Crown Proceedings Act 1947
The question before the court was whether the Crown is vicariously liable for delicts allegedly committed by a member of the Scottish judiciary namely, four incidents the pursuer says amount to harassment under the 1997 Act by a Sherriff.
The four incidents can be summarised as follows: (1) whilst in the first defender’s chambers, he hugged the pursuer without consent, (2) whilst in conversation remarked at the pursuer’s “pretty face”, he blocked her exit and hugged her again, (3) and as she exited, he patted her bottom firmly twice, (4) later that day, he approached the pursuer onboard a train, engaged her in conversation, and put his hand on her inner thigh.
The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 removed Crown immunity for liability in delict in English and Scottish law. The court upheld the two-stage test set out in BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2023] UKSC 15.
The court further upheld and applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation which is to ascertain the meaning of the words used in light of their context and purpose (R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, and more recently in Darwall v Darmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20). In particular, that a statute should be read in its modern context and consider matters which have arisen since the statute’s publication (News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2023] UKSC 7).
Applying the two stage test in BXB, the court found that: (1) there was no control by the Scottish Government over the performance of Sheriffs and their judicial functions, and (2) there is constitutional separation between the powers of government and that of the judiciary. For those reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
By Dr Daniel Jacklin
Hughes and Ors v World Rugby Limited and Ors [2025] EWHC 3382 (KB)
Rugby head injury litigation – Neurological injury – Class action
This application was made by 773 claimants against World Rugby Limited, The Welsh Rugby Union Limited, and Rugby Football Union. A connected claim involving a further 176 claimants brought a separate claim against The Rugby Football League and the British Amateur Rugby League Association Limited. The application was an appeal against case management orders made by Senior Master Cook and is collectively known as “the rugby head injury litigation”.
The underlying claim is by rugby players for concussion and sub-concussive injuries sustained whilst training and matchplay. The neurological injuries said to follow include persistent post concussive syndrome, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, early onset dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and motor neurone disease.
The applications include: (1) extension of time to appeal, (2) appeals against the making of unless orders due to alleged disclosure failings by some claimants, (3) an application to appeal an order for specific disclosure of medical records, (4) submissions that later claimants are not bound by earlier orders.
Dexter Dias J began by setting out the “generous ambit” appellate test for the appeal of case management orders as set out in Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1743 and approved by the Supreme Court in Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2) (SC(E)) [2014] 1 WLR 4495. Lord Neuberger said at para 13:
“The essential question is whether it was a direction which Vos J could properly have given. Given that it was a case management decision, it would be inappropriate for an appellate court to reverse or otherwise interfere with it, unless it was “plainly wrong in the sense of being outside the generous ambit where reasonable decision makers may disagree” as Lewison LJ expressed it in Broughton v Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1743 at [51].”
The starting point adopted by the learned judge was to assess and then dismiss that there must be a finding of a default before an unless order can be made. What then followed was a careful dismemberment of a further 11 grounds of appeal brought by the respective claimants. Dexter Dias J dismissed the appeal on all grounds.
By Dr Daniel Jacklin
Lillystone v Bradgate Educational Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB)
Protection against obvious risks – OLA 1957 – Football
The Claimant was playing football with his friends on a state-of-the-art, FIFA-approved, 3G pitch surrounded by a 4.5 metre high fence and then a further 2-metre high perimeter fence. The gate to the perimeter fence was locked and the ball was kicked accidentally over said fence. To retrieve the ball, the claimant climbed over the gate and in doing so sustained a laceration to his hand.
The claimant seeks to adduce fresh evidence on appeal and seeks further disclosure from the defendant. The court found that the “special grounds” set out in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 which may justify new evidence being adduced before an appeal court remained relevant to the court’s assessment under CPR 52.21(2)(b).
The court refused to allow the new evidence. It then proceeded to consider the grounds of appeal. Most notably, it overturned the trial judge’s finding that the claimant was a lawful visitor to the premises.
As regards breach of duty, the court overturned the trial judge’s decision that there were adequate measures in place to retrieve lost balls. The court found that the trial judge had wrongly focussed on what reasonable football players would do, rather than considering whether the event and the injury were reasonably foreseeable (as in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850) and the social value of the activity (as considering in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46).
The court held that there was a low risk of persons injuring themselves when climbing over the fence to collect balls as the Claimant did. The risk arose from the act of climbing rather than the inherent risk presented by the fence itself.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge found that the Respondent owed the Appellant no duty under the 1957 Act. Further, the trial judge’s decision that the claim failed on causation was also upheld.
By Dr Daniel Jacklin
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
Shaheen and Anor v Daish [2025] EWHC 3056 (KB)
Contributory negligence – lung cancer – delayed diagnosis
The claimants were the wife and son of Mr Ajaz Ahmed, who died of lung cancer in February 2023. The defendant, Dr Daish, was his GP. At an appointment on 11 February 2019, Dr Daish requested a chest x-ray through the ICE system. A request for an x-ray made via the ICE system is not acted on unless and until the patient themselves attends a walk-in radiology department.
The claimants alleged Dr Daish failed to inform Mr Ahmed about the x-ray request and the need for him to attend at a walk-in centre. Dr Daish maintained that she would have explained this. The court considered three preliminary issues: (i) whether Dr Daish failed to inform Mr Ahmed about the x-ray, (ii) whether he would have attended if informed, and (iii) contributory negligence.
On (i), the court held that, on the balance of probability, Mr Ahmed was not told about the x-ray request. This was for the following reasons:
- Mr Ahmed was worried about his health in late 2018/early 2019. This makes it more likely that, if a recommendation had been made for further investigation, he would have followed-up;
- Mr Ahmed had previously completed similar follow-up actions for other investigations, such as blood tests. This made it more likely that he would have done the same for the x-ray if he had been told about it;
- The x-ray was a new investigation for him so it was unlikely he would have dismissed it if he had been told about it;
- Dr Daish accepted she likely told Mr Ahmed that the x-ray was to rule out cancer. Mr Ahmed’s failure to attend a follow-up appointment in two weeks was evidence that he had not, in fact, been told about the risk of cancer. Cancer is not a concern that most people simply ignore;
- There was no record in the appointment note of any discussion about the chest x-ray nor in Dr Daish’s plan. This was in sharp contrast to the notes of appointments between Mr Ahmed and other GPs who had recorded further investigations;
- If there were a link between the x-ray and the time of the review appointment that would have been made clear in Dr Daish’s notes, but it was not present;
- The fact that Dr Daish prescribed Mr Ahmed a medication after the appointment as an afterthought (and communicated this to him by text) made it more likely that the x-ray was also an afterthought.
On (ii), for broadly the same reasons, the court concluded Mr Ahmed likely would have attended for the x-ray if he had been informed.
On (iii), there was no contributory negligence as there was no evidence Mr Ahmed understood the significance of a failure to attend for an x-ray.
By Kyran Kanda
CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5
Lost years claims for children – brain injury
The Claimant experienced a severe brain injury due to hypoxia during birth in 2015. The health authority accepted it negligently caused the hypoxia. The Claimant’s life expectancy is agreed to be 29 years old.
The parties agreed that Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 prevented the recovery of pecuniary losses for lost years, and Ritchie J made a concurrent finding to that effect. The judge did, however, grant a leapfrog appeal to enable the Supreme Court to assess the correctness of the position.
The court found that the decision in Croke v Wiseman was based on the claimant having an absence of dependants (see [48]). Lord Reed said that as a matter of general principle, “the court cannot properly exclude the recovery of compensatory damages on the ground of a claimant’s age” (see [53]). It said that difficulty of quantifying damages “is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages” (see [56]); a principle re-affirmed more recently by One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner [2018] UKSC 20. The court must assess damages “the best it can on such evidence as is reasonably available” (see [57]).
The appeal was allowed.
By Dr Daniel Jacklin
Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational and/or informational purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose.
This article represents the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of any other member of St Philips Chambers.
