Law360, London: The government's proposal to enshrine a duty of candour in public office could be transformative in compelling authorities to be more transparent, but legal experts have expressed doubts about how effective enforcement will be.

A duty of care refers to the circumstances and relationships giving rise to an obligation upon a defendant to take proper care to avoid causing some form of foreseeable harm to the claimant in all the circumstances of the case in question.

date [date] Parties 1 [name of Managing Agent] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Managing Agent) 2 [name of Funder] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Funder) 3 [name of Borrower] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [number]) whose registered office is at] [address] (Borrower) [ Background 1 The Managing Agent has been appointed by the Borrower in connection with the management of the Property under the Principal Management Agreement. 2 A facility has been made available to the Borrower in accordance with the Facility Agreement. 3 The Managing Agent has agreed to enter into this Agreement.] 1 Definitions In this Agreement, the following definitions apply: Act of Insolvency • any of the following in relation to the Managing Agent: (a) being an individual [or, in the case of a partnership, [any one or more OR more than [number]%] of the partners] is the subject of a bankruptcy order [or has an interim receiver appointed to their property]; or (b) being a company or limited liability partnership,

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The claimant suffered serious personal injuries when an oxygen cylinder exploded in an aeroplane which he had been dismantling in the course of his duties. He sued the company who had been engaged to carry out the dismantling, and also the subcontractor who he contended was his employer. He alleged that they had been negligent in failing to make the aircraft safe for dismantling. The defendants disputed almost every aspect of the case, from duty of care through to their own standard of care, and the nature of the claimant’s engagement. They also alleged the claimant had been reckless in the means he carried out his tasks such that it broke the chain of causation or was at least contributorily negligent. Ultimately, Simon Tinkler, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, found in the claimant’s favour on almost all points. Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

The duty of care A medical practitioner owes a duty of care to their patient. This duty is to take reasonable care to: • take a proper history • investigate the patient’s symptoms and complaints properly • make proper differential diagnoses • make any necessary referrals to specialists • initiate action in order to take all reasonable steps to procure the health of the patient • provide a reasonable course of treatment • follow up with the patient afterwards if that is reasonably necessary For guidance on identifying the correct defendant in a clinical negligence claim, see Practice Note: Identifying the correct defendant in clinical negligence claims. It is not only medical practitioners who may owe a duty of care to a patient. Non-clinical staff An employee of a healthcare provider or facility may owe a direct duty to a patient. In Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, the claimant attended the A&E department with a head injury and was informed by the receptionist

In the vast majority of cases, practitioners will have very little difficulty in identifying a person (or entity) who owed a duty of care to the claimant and who therefore, on the face of it, can be sued. Where liability is in issue, the argument often relates not to the existence or otherwise of a duty of care, but to whether the defendant has breached its duty of care. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Duty of care in personal injury claims and Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims. However, in some cases the practitioner will be required to address the question of whether the identified potential defendant owes a duty of care at all. The purpose of this Practice Note is to pick out some broad principles from cases, while echoing the note of caution sounded by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court in the case of Woodland v Essex County Council: 'But the words used by judges in explaining why they are deciding as they do are not to be

This Practice Note will consider the common law duty of care. For information on statutory duties, see Practice Note: Breach of statutory duty and the overlap with the common law. For breach of duty of care, see Practice Note: Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims. For guidance on vicarious liability, see Practice Notes: Nature and operation of vicarious liability, Scope and impact of vicarious liability and Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test. For information on the duty of care in clinical negligence claims, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims. For a claimant to succeed in proving their claim in common law negligence they must first prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care. Examples of established relationships When assessing whether a duty of care exists, the court will consider whether there is an established precedent for the relationship between the parties and follow the precedents unless it is necessary to consider whether they should

The Court of Appeal have held that, before a game or training session, a rugby club's pitch inspection should be carried out by a coach or match organiser who inspects the pitch at a reasonable walking pace (Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club).

When completing a proposal form for a protection product, the applicant has a duty to disclose all facts relevant to the application, particularly in relation to health. Failure to do so can allow the life company to refuse to admit a claim and cancel the policy from inception on the grounds of non-disclosure.

The question of the extent of any positive duty of disclosure is a fundamental consideration for applicants and immigration advisers alike. The issue initially came to the foreground with the substantial revision of the general grounds for refusal regime in 2008, which introduced into the Immigration Rules a number of additional grounds for mandatory refusal (including on deception grounds) and a linked sliding scale of re-entry bans. This Practice Note looks at the extent of the duty of disclosure, whether in an immigration application form or interview, where there are no relevant questions asked by the Home Office. In circumstances where there are one or more aspects of the applicant’s immigration history or otherwise which, if known to the Home Office, could lead to the refusal of the application or the cancellation or curtailment of their existing leave, what is the extent of a deception by omission, or silence? The Practice Note also looks at the relevant duties imposed on legal advisers and the consequences

The promoter owes a duty of disclosure to the company stemming from his fiduciary relationship to the company.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant was a doctor employed by the defendant trust who had been subject to an internal investigation arising from allegations of misconduct in relation to surgical procedures carried out between 2007 and 2017. Pending that investigation, the claimant was sacked and later banned from practising in the UK. In subsequent claims, intimated by the patients who alleged they had suffered injury by reason of the claimant’s surgery, the claimant sought to restrain, by way of interim injunction, disclosure of the results of the investigation, arguing it was a breach of his right of confidentiality, a misuse of private information or prohibited under the Data Protection Act 2018. Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the application, holding that, while the information was confidential, the duty of confidentiality was outweighed by the defendant’s obligation to give disclosure in the claims. Written by Philip Turton, barrister of Ropewalk Chambers.