If the general public were asked about ‘compensation culture’ in 21st century Britain, popular perception might be that businesses can barely function for the strangulating effect of unworkable health and safety law and fear of civil litigation. 

Clearly, this fear is borne out in insurance levels which have served to price some small businesses out of operation (notoriously in equine business, following a spate of court actions over the past five years). 

If we follow where the USA leads, litigation prompted insurance premiums have  served to leave areas with limited medical cover as entire small towns find themselves without, for example, obstetricians. 

Less dramatically, we have all heard of games of conkers being banned in school playgrounds by head teachers fearful of the consequences of exploding horse chestnuts - whether  apocryphally or otherwise.

So what is the current climate of compensation?  How might professionals be affected by past and current court activity?

This paper has been prompted by prime ministerial speeches, government reports, Health and Safety Executive statements and a number of recent cases which, together, present a slightly different view to the above. 

These will be explored, with a consideration of whether a fundamental change of policy has filtered through to the courts, (indeed what effect policy has on  court decisions, if any), or whether cases can simply be explained as an application of existing law on the facts.

Practitioners will be prompted to consider how this might affect them in a wider context, e.g. professional negligence.