UK Legal Latest Key cases and updates from our Corporate Claims Team

Liability

Negligence and psychiatric injury claims must be properly pleaded with sufficient particulars of duty, breach and causation, and secondary victim claims remain subject to the restrictions established in Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust.

• The Court may strike out a claim that is excessively lengthy, unclear, or incapable of allowing defendants to understand and respond to the case against them.
• Claims brought in the wrong forum, outside applicable limitation periods, or without a recognised legal basis are liable to be struck out at an early stage. 

This case concerned wide-ranging claims by a child and his mother against public bodies and individuals arising from educational and safeguarding decisions. The Court struck out the entire claim, finding that the 250-page Particulars of Claim were excessively long, incoherent and failed to provide a concise statement of the facts, reaffirming that litigants in person must comply with the same procedural requirements as represented parties.

The Court also found that many claims had no reasonable prospect of success. Equality Act claims were outside the High Court's jurisdiction, Human Rights Act claims were time-barred or legally deficient, and other causes of action were not legally sustainable. The mother's psychiatric injury claim was struck out under Paul v Wolverhampton NHS Trust, while the remaining negligence claims lacked sufficient particulars of duty, breach and causation, resulting in strike out under CPR 3.4.

This case reinforces that courts will strictly enforce procedural pleading requirements and will strike out claims that are inadequately particularised, legally unsustainable, or incapable of being fairly defended, even where serious allegations are involved.

KDY & Anor v Langham & Ors

 Clarification of when an contractor is independent using the BXB factors

• An organisation will not ordinarily be vicariously liable for the acts of employees of a genuinely independent contractor.
• The BXB factors are not an exhaustive test and need not be considered in detail where independent contractor status is clear from the contractual relationship and practical reality.
• A finding of temporary employment requires a high degree of day-to-day control.

In Burger v Risk Solutions BG Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 804, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that Wetherspoon was not vicariously liable for an assault committed by door supervisors employed by an independent security contractor. The Court confirmed that organisations will not generally be liable for torts committed by employees of genuinely independent contractors and clarified that the Barclays and BXB factors do not require detailed consideration where the tortfeasor is clearly operating as part of an independent business.

The court also rejected the argument that Wetherspoon had become the door supervisors' temporary employer, finding that its level of control was insufficient to establish such a relationship.

This case reinforces the narrow scope of vicarious liability in UK law, confirming that organisations will not ordinarily be liable for torts committed by employees of genuinely independent contractors unless the relationship is sufficiently akin to employment.

Burger v Risk Solutions BG Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 804

 Insurance claims: subrogation does not entitle an insurer to bring contempt proceedings in a claimant's name without the claimant's consent.

• Strict compliance with procedural requirements is essential in contempt proceedings due to the potential for imprisonment.
• The court may refuse attempts to remedy procedural defects where significant delay would cause unfairness or amount to an abuse of process.

This case concerned contempt of court proceedings findings of fundamental dishonesty in a RTA claim, which had already been dismissed under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The key procedural issue was whether Advantage could bring the application in the claimant's name without evidence of her consent. The Court held that it could not. Although Advantage argued it was entitled to act through subrogation, the Court found that subrogation only permits recovery of financial losses and does not extend to contempt proceedings, which carry the possibility of imprisonment.

The Court also refused Advantage's requests to amend the application to proceed in its own name and to rely on late evidence of the claimant's consent. Advantage had failed to comply with earlier directions requiring evidence to be produced months before the hearing.

Emphasising the serious nature of contempt proceedings, the Court held that strict procedural compliance was essential and that the alleged dishonesty did not excuse procedural failures. The application was therefore struck out as an abuse of process.

Advantage Insurance v Shaw [2026] EWHC 2188 (KB)

 Application of Section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to child sexual abuse claims involving personal injury

• Section 11ZA of the Limitation Act 1980 does not extend to separate physical abuse claims if they are brought within the same proceedings
• Even where limitation issues are resolved, historic abuse claims will succeed only if the claimant's evidence is found to be sufficiently reliable and credible; significant inconsistencies may be fatal to liability.

In KHX v Isle of Wight Council [2026] EWHC 1949, a former child in care sued the council for physical abuse by one care worker and sexual abuse by another during the 1980s. The council accepted vicarious liability if abuse was proved.

On limitation, the court held that the newly enacted section 11ZA of the Limitation Act 1980 - which removes time limits for child sexual abuse claims - did not extend to distinct physical abuse allegations just because they were brought in the same proceedings. The physical abuse claim remained subject to the standard three-year limit under section 11, but the court exercised its section 33 discretion to allow it to proceed, despite being 29 years out of time, because the allegations were longstanding and sufficient evidence survived for a fair trial.

On liability, both claims were dismissed. The physical abuse allegations failed because material inconsistencies in KHX's account - particularly concerning when the abuse began and how a foot injury occurred - undermined confidence in his evidence. The sexual abuse claim failed for similar reliability reasons.

KHX v Isle of Wight Council

 Employers may be liable for psychiatric injury where they fail to implement reasonable measures to protect an employee once the risk of harm is foreseeable.

• Reasonable workplace adjustments and effective management of occupational health recommendations are important factors in discharging an employer's duty of care.
• Losses arising from early retirement may be recoverable where retirement is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's breaches.
• The court will generally prefer expert evidence that is consistent with the contemporaneous medical records and diagnoses.

This case concerned a police officer who developed psychiatric injuries after exposure to traumatic incidents during her service. The Court found the defendant liable for those injuries from 13 December 2019 onwards and responsible for the losses flowing from her early retirement.

The Court held that psychiatric harm was foreseeable and that the defendant had repeatedly failed to take reasonable steps to protect the claimant's wellbeing. These failures included inadequate implementation of occupational health recommendations, insufficient risk assessments on her return to work, unsuitable role placements, and a failure to address her concerns appropriately. The Court found that practical measures could have been taken to reduce the risk of harm.

The defendant's breaches were held to have contributed to the claimant's retirement, making the resulting financial losses recoverable. The Court also rejected any argument that those losses were too remote because it had not been properly pleaded.

Preferring the claimant's psychiatric expert's diagnosis of Complex PTSD and depression, the Court awarded £25,000 in general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.

Kawsar v MPS Approved Judgment 080626

 

Updates

The TCC has issued guidance on the use of AI in litigation

The Guide confirms that lawyers remain personally responsible for all material submitted to the court and emphasises the need for confidentiality and accuracy.

The Technology and Construction Court Guide - Fourth Edition 2026

 The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2026 come into effect from 1 October 2026

The amendments introduce significant Business and Property Division reforms, including renaming the Chancery Division, transferring several specialist courts into the new division, creating a new CPR Part 57A, and updating related procedural rules throughout the CPR. They also remove CPR 3.16(2), meaning there is no longer a provision stating that costs management conferences should, where practicable, be conducted by telephone or in writing. In addition, the changes make minor procedural corrections to Parts 8 and 23 and modernise Part 31 by using gender-neutral language and allowing a litigation friend to make a disclosure statement on behalf of a party who lacks capacity.

Civil – Civil Procedure Rules – Justice UK