Share
A summary of key developments and insights relating to regulation of AI in healthcare; Liberty Protection Safeguards; damages for ‘lost years’; cost consequences for liability-only Part 36 offers; and a shift in the approach taken by Irish courts to the issue of cumulative inactivity in litigation.
Regulation of artificial intelligence in healthcare
From 18 December 2025 to 2 February 2026 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ran a call for evidence seeking views from members of the public, clinicians, industry and healthcare providers on how artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare should be regulated.
The evidence gathered will inform recommendations of the newly formed National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare. An MHRA press release set out the key themes as including ‘modernising the rules for AI in healthcare’; ‘keeping patients safe as AI evolves’ and ‘clarifying responsibility’.
Contact: Christopher Malla
Update on Liberty Protection Safeguards
On 18 October 2025 the Department of Health and Social Care announced plans to launch a consultation in the first half of this year, on the proposed Liberty Protection Safeguards to replace the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards system.
In October last year the UK Supreme Court heard a challenge put forward by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. The issue to be determined by the Court is whether the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland has “the power to revise the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice…so that persons aged 16 and over who lack capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment can give valid consent to their confinement through the expression of their wishes and feelings”.
As an intervener in this matter, a written case setting out submissions made on behalf of the UK Government has been filed with the Court.
The Supreme Court’s judgment is awaited.
Contact: Rob Tobin
Latest decisions
Supreme Court judgment: damages for ‘lost years’ recoverable where claimant is a young child
CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) [18.02.2026]
On 18 February 2026 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in this ‘leapfrog’ appeal, allowing the claimant’s appeal by a majority of four to one.
In CCC, an eight-year-old claimant sought ‘lost years’ damages after clinical negligence significantly shortened their life expectancy. The Supreme Court determined that child claimants should be entitled to 'lost years' damages on the same basis as an adolescent or adult claimant.
For more information, see our article here.
Related item: Supreme Court judgment: damages for ‘lost years’ recoverable where claimant is a young child
Contact: Christopher Malla
Cost consequences for liability-only Part 36 offers
Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School [2026]
In this recent decision, the Court of Appeal held that a 90:10 liability offer made in accordance with Part 36, could trigger the cost consequences under CPR 36.17(4); namely, an obligation to pay interest and indemnity costs for the party failing to beat a more ‘advantageous’ offer.
The claimant in this Fast Track personal injury claim made a Part 36 offer to settle liability on a 90:10 basis, which was rejected by the defendant. At first instance the Deputy District Judge approved the damages settlement for £2,650 and awarded fixed costs; importantly, there was no determination on liability. Although, on appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that it was not possible on the facts of this case to ascertain whether the award made at first instance was ‘more advantageous’, the Court confirmed that a liability offer could invoke CPR 36.17.
In circumstances where a liability only Part 36 offer is made, with damages subsequently determined (either in the form of a General Order or Judgment from Trial), provided there is sufficient clarity on apportionment of damages to assess whether the liability offer was ‘more advantageous’, the cost consequences at CPR36.17(4) should follow.
This case should prompt a review of historic liability only Part 36 offers, particularly when approaching settlement/Trial.
Contact: Rebecca Lawrence
High Court in Ireland confirms applicability of the Kirwan criteria to address cumulative inactivity in litigation
Holmes v The Attorney General & Ors [2026] IEHC 2
The Irish Supreme Court’s decision in Kirwan v Connors & Ors [2025] represented a landmark shift in the approach taken by Irish courts to the issue of delay and many have eagerly anticipated how this new approach might be applied by the Irish courts going forward.
Holmes v Attorney General & Ors is an important development in the post-Kirwan environment as it affirms the judiciary’s growing intolerance for drawn-out and inefficient litigation. It also emphasises that plaintiffs and defendants are not “co-adventurers” in litigation and that the onus rests with the plaintiff to progress their case in a timely manner.
The decision in Holmes, like Kirwan before it, signals a greater willingness on the part of the judiciary to strike out stale claims. It demonstrates that, where there has been a cumulative period of inactivity exceeding five years, a striking out of the plaintiff’s claim will ordinarily follow, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Contacts: Joanne O’Sullivan and David Murphy
Related items:
Healthcare
United Kingdom
Ireland