Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Overseas Treatment for NHS Patients

April 26, 2006/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

"Overseas Treatment for NHS Patients" by Cara Guthrie (Outer Temple Chambers) and Hannah Volpe (Bevan Brittan LLP) Journal of Personal Injury Law J.P.I. Law (2006) No.1 Pages 12-20.

The article considers the legal position of patients and NHS trusts in the event of a clinical negligence action arising from substandard medical treatment received outside the UK. Reviews the main principles underpinning both the NHS Overseas Commissioning Scheme and the E112 scheme, and the likely outcome of actions in which an NHS trust argued that its duty of care did not extend to the clinical services given by an overseas provider, highlighting the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in A (A Child) v Ministry of Defence. Discusses, with the aid of case law, the potential conflict of laws issues arising under the E112 scheme where the defendant was either the NHS or the overseas hospital concerned.

Access Lawtel for more information.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2006-04-26 12:36:342006-11-25 15:36:42Overseas Treatment for NHS Patients

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Andromeda Marine SA v OW Bunker & Trading A/S Link to: Andromeda Marine SA v OW Bunker & Trading A/S Andromeda Marine SA v OW Bunker & Trading A/S Link to: EU Council reach political agreement on Rome II Link to: EU Council reach political agreement on Rome II EU Council reach political agreement on Rome II
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top