Medical negligence news

Michelmores success in R (March) v Secretary of State for Health clarifies public law doctrine of material error of fact

In an e-bulletin published on 30 April 2010, the case brought by Michelmores' client Andrew March was singled out because it shows how the courts will respond to future challenges of government decisions on the grounds of material error of fact. It is important because it gives a methodology to the process of analysing the facts necessary for successful challenge.

R (March) has honed the approach in E v  Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49 which confirmed the view that public law decisions were amenable to judicial review on the basis of material error of fact as a distinct ground of review.

The Herbert Smith analysis accurately distils the approach of Holman J. to the difficult question of fact analysis. Michael Vian Clark, the Michelmores lawyer who represented Mr March, explains further:

"In order to be successful, claimants must be able to demonstrate that there has been an error of fact. In order to do this the evidence must be sufficiently clear to satisfy the court. Claimants must then be able to demonstrate that the error was material to the decision, such that a different decision might have been reached had the error not been made.

It is therefore essential that the evidence of fact before the court is straightforward and clear, particularly in complex cases such as this, before the question of materiality is considered. The relative weight of evidence was a particular feature of this case. It is important to ascertain the status and context of documents relied upon to support a challenge on grounds of material error of fact.

The judge in R (March) was convinced that the government had got it wrong about Ireland, but this required careful presentation of the evidence (in this case by Michael Fordham Q.C. and Jessica Boyd of Blackstone Chambers) and an approach that pinpointed exactly where the error had been made. This was particularly true in a case of this nature where the wider background to the facts in issue, namely the question of apppropriate compensation to the victims of the contaminated blood affair, was so controversial."

A link to the e-bulletin is provided by Michelmores public law below:

http://www.herbertsmith.com/NR/rdonlyres/7161736F-994A-4771-9F8E-9D4E38A24E82/0/Publiclaw300410.html

Created: 11/05/2010
Categories: Public law