最終更新日：2022/12/22
例文
In
Jones
v
Kaney
[2010]
EWHC
61
(Q.B.)
at
first
instance,
the
issue
was
whether
the
claimant's
psychologist
in
a
personal
injury
claim
was
negligent
because
in
a
joint
written
statement
with
the
other
side's
expert,
she
had
resiled
from
her
diagnosis
of
PTSD
without
comment
or
amendment
of
her
report,
greatly
damaging
the
claimant's
case.
The
claimant
sued
in
negligence,
the
judge
was
constrained
by
the
authorities,
but
granted
a
certificate
under
s.
12
of
the
Administration
of
Justice
Act
1960
to
leapfrog
the
case
to
the
Supreme
Court.
復習用の問題
In Jones v Kaney [2010] EWHC 61 (Q.B.) at first instance, the issue was whether the claimant's psychologist in a personal injury claim was negligent because in a joint written statement with the other side's expert, she had resiled from her diagnosis of PTSD without comment or amendment of her report, greatly damaging the claimant's case. The claimant sued in negligence, the judge was constrained by the authorities, but granted a certificate under s. 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to leapfrog the case to the Supreme Court.
英語 - 英語
項目の編集設定
- 項目の編集権限を持つユーザー - すべてのユーザー
- 項目の新規作成を審査する
- 項目の編集を審査する
- 項目の削除を審査する
- 重複の恐れのある項目名の追加を審査する
- 項目名の変更を審査する
- 審査に対する投票権限を持つユーザー - 編集者
- 決定に必要な投票数 - 1
例文の編集設定
- 例文の編集権限を持つユーザー - すべてのユーザー
- 例文の削除を審査する
- 審査に対する投票権限を持つユーザー - 編集者
- 決定に必要な投票数 - 1
問題の編集設定
- 問題の編集権限を持つユーザー - すべてのユーザー
- 審査に対する投票権限を持つユーザー - 編集者
- 決定に必要な投票数 - 1
