News Category 2
Future Loss of Earnings at £1,446.431: A High Court Case Examined - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
07/09/15. Continuing with the practice of looking at judicial decisions in relation to loss of earnings we look at Siegel -v- Pummell [2014] EWHC 4309 (QB) where Mr Justice Wilkie considered a claim for loss of earnings where a high achieving IT Consultant.
THE CASE
The claimant was an IT Consultant and suffered injuries in his accident. There was a major dispute as to the extent of the injuries. The claimant put his loss of earnings claim in excess of £2 million.
“viii) My assessment of the employment experts...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/peepo
Breach of Statutory Duty After the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, A Scottish Decision: Daleks Are Not That Dangerous After All - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
01/09/15. The precise impact of the ERRA upon liability is still very much open to debate. Some guidance may be found in the Scottish case of Gilchrist -v- Asda Stores Ltd [2015] CSOH 17. A judgment of Lady Stacey where judgment was given on the 17th June 2015.
THE CASE
The pursuer (claimant to those in E&W) was employed by the defendant as a shop assistant. She was was provided with a dalek footstool to allow her to reach high racks. Whilst she was working hanging clothes on hooks some 7 feet off the floor she fell and suffered injury.
KEY POINTS
-
The Regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act remain in force and remain relevant as evidence of standards expected of employers in civil cases.
-
On the facts of this case any breach by the employer was not causative of the injury.
THE CAUSE OF THE FALL
[7] “The evidence of the pursuer was clear to the effect that the fall was nothing to do with her having to reach above her head to put clothes onto racks. She had completed that work before she fell. Her fall happened when she was stepping backwards off the stool and she fell for no reason she could explain; it was just an accident in which she lost her footing.”
THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE ERRA UPON THE EMPLOYER’S DUTY
“[13] Counsel argued that in the face of foreseeable risk of injury, the defenders failed to...
Image cc Gage Skidmore
Editorial: Consultation on Court Closures - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
28/08/15. The Ministry of Justice is currently consulting on proposals to close around 90 Courts, including 19 County Courts and other Combined Courts. Following the closure of around 140 Courts in 2010, there are currently 460 operational Courts and Tribunals. Thus roughly one in every five courts could be closed, with a loss of around 16% of all hearing rooms as the Ministry of Justice estimates.
Given the number of closures, there is bound to be an impact on the delivery of court services. In the North-West, the consultation envisages inter alia closing County Courts in Bolton, Bury, Macclesfield, Oldham, Runcorn, St Helens, Stockport, Tameside, Altrincham and Warrington. This is a striking number of closures for a relatively small area, which would surely place significant additional pressure on those Courts that remain. In London, County Courts at Bow, West London, Woolwich and Lambeth are identified for closure. The caseload of any of these Courts, particularly Bow, is too heavy to...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/andrearoad
Secondary Victims: a Race Between the Claimant and the Ambulance? - Brenna Conroy, Hardwicke
25/08/15. It is hard to escape the notion that the rise in the number of secondary victim claims in recent years owes its success to the amorphous concept of ‘proximity’. The test of proximity itself is well established: a secondary victim claimant can only establish a claim in law as a result of witnessing an event or its immediate aftermath. Establishing proximity does not pose much of a problem if the claimant has witnessed an accident itself; what remains controversial is defining the limit of “the event” and its “immediate aftermath”. Having looked at the decisions of the Courts on this issue, one would be forgiven for thinking that the boundaries are imposed somewhat arbitrarily.
A comparison of two cases illustrates this. In Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd [1994] PIQR P329, CA a 14 year old boy suffered very severe head injuries when he was pulled beneath the wheels of an HGV. The parents were not present at the accident and therefore had to establish that they witnessed the immediate aftermath of the event. In fact, the parents learned of the accident very soon after it had occurred by telephone and a subsequent visit by the police. The parents drove to hospital where they were told that their son was being transferred to another hospital and were advised to follow the ambulance. When they arrived at the...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/didbygraham/219375981/
Curbing the Excesses: Post Stevens Case Law Round Up - Gary Herring, Horwich Farrelly Solicitors
20/08/15. Almost seven months on from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Stevens v Equity [2015] EWCA Civ 93, and County Court lists remain busy with credit hire disposals requiring the court’s determination of the basic hire rate.
The continued disputes arise largely as a result of a concerted attempt by credit hire organisations to confine the effect of the decision in Stevens to cases where BHR quotes are on precisely the same terms as the credit hire and include a comparable excess. However, whilst a significant level of dispute and litigation remains, there seems to be little doubt that the majority of those disputes are thus far being resolved in favour of defendants.
Indeed, since the decision in Cheung v UKI at Birmingham County Court (reviewed in more detail here) handed down shortly after Stevens, we are not aware of any decision at Circuit Judge or Recorder Level in which has allowed the full credit hire rate to be recovered on the basis that BHR evidence does not include an excess waiver, or because any other terms are not comparable.
The following are summaries of a handful of the most significant recent cases.
Shaw v McLeans, Oxford County Court, April 2015
Whilst rates evidence of the type habitually relied upon by claimants pre-Stevens has now virtually disappeared, the claimant did in fact choose to rely on it in this case. That may be explained by the fact that, unlike in the Stevens case, the evidence...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/blueclue
More Articles...
- Can the Court Consider Hourly Rates in the Budgeting Process? - Marc Banyard, John M Hayes
- PI Practitioner, August 2015
- Court of Appeal Overturns 'Michelin Man' Pay-Out Decision - Charles Bagot, Hardwicke
- Coventry v Lawrence: Old Style Costs Regime Survives Human Rights Challenge - Robert Weir QC, Devereux Chambers
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
