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

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents