Coroner's inquests

Purpose and scope of a Coroner's inquest

The inquisitorial nature of Coroners' inquests is vastly different to the adversarial process in which personal injury and clinical negligence lawyers typically find themselves. Practice Note: The purpose and scope of coroners' inquests assists practitioners representing clients before a coroner’s inquest and explains inquest process in England and Wales as provided under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (CJA 2009). It explains how a coroner is an independent judicial officer, with a statutory duty under CJA 2009, s 1 to hold an investigation into a death when it has been referred as soon as practicable. It addresses when an inquest must take place, the duties of a coroner, the purpose of an inquest, scope of a coroner’s inquest and the key features of an inquest. It also explains how to become involved in the inquest process and the rights of properly interested persons to an inquest, which is a special status which can only be granted by the coroner. It also explains the important distinction between the traditional scope of an inquest (Jamieson inquests) and the broader scoped Middleton

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents