Probably the most alien characteristic of the alliance contracting model to both contracting parties and lawyers alike is the 'no blame culture' that underpins the agreement. Essentially, this means that parties agree not to bring legal proceedings against each other, save in the event of 'wilful default' or if an insolvency event occurs.

The health team at international law firm Hill Dickinson has been shortlisted for two prestigious awards.

On 1 March 2016, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) launched a consultation entitled Terms and Conditions and Consumer Protection Fining Powers: a Call for Evidence. Whilst the Call for Evidence does not target a particular industry or sector, the outcome of this may lead to significant re-formatting and changes to the general presentation of terms and conditions (T&Cs) to make them more user-friendly. This may have some implications for the aviation and travel industry.

Re JM & Others [2016] EWCOP 15: Hill Dickinson acts in test case which asks central government to find processes for dealing with Deprivation of Liberty authorisation applications 

In Safeway Limited –v- (1) Andrew Newton (2) Safeway Pension Trustees Limited [2016], the High Court ruled again that European Union law prevents the retrospective levelling down of pensions (by increasing the Normal Pension Age (NPA) of women to 65), even where such an amendment was:

On 1 June 2010 the claimant attended the dermatology clinic at the Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, for Psoralen Ultraviolet A (PUVA) treatment for his skin condition. The treatment involved soaking a wad of gauze with psolaren solution and applying it to his leg. The claimant said that, during the treatment, the dressing began to lift up from the area on his leg and so he patted it down with his bare right hand.

In essence they are a report prepared in respect of a patient who may lack capacity.

On two occasions over the past few years, I have witnessed medical emergencies resulting in appeals for doctors to help.

The aim of the Code is to help an injured claimant make the best and quickest possible medical, social, vocational and psychological recovery. It is voluntary but the Personal Injury Pre-Action Protocol requires it to be considered in personal injury claims. To work, it requires the parties to work together to collaboratively use rehabilitation at an early stage in the litigation process, sometimes before liability has been determined.

In the case of SARPD-Oil International Ltd -v- Addax Energy SA and Glencore Energy UK Ltd [2016], this week the Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment on security for costs, a valuable weapon in a defendant's armoury when facing a claim brought by a non-EU or EFTA company. Hill Dickinson acted for the defendant.

The High Court has given judgment in the case of R (on the application of HA by his father and litigation friend, AA) (claimant) -v- Hampstead School Governors (defendant) & London Borough of Camden (interested party) (2016).

On April 1 2013 the rules changed in relation to claimant funding and success fees in personal injury claims. Most notably, claimants who entered into a conditional fee agreement (CFA) on or after 1 April 2013 would not be entitled to claim a success fee or payment of any after-the-event (ATE) premium from the defendant. This has resulted in the majority of claimants having to pay the success fee and ATE premium to their solicitor from their own damages.