News Category 2
Claims Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
25/06/14. It is clear that the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 has no application where there are trespassers on land as opposed to a visitor within the meaning of the 1957 Act. A visitor within the meaning of the 1957 Act is someone who is invited onto premises for a specific purpose or anyone who goes onto the premises with the express or implied permission of the occupier as opposed to someone who is not permitted to be on the premises and is thus a trespasser.
Therefore if there is a general invitation to members of the public i.e. retail premises or public buildings then anyone entering will be a visitor for the purpose of the 1957 Act.
However the 1957 Act will not extend to persons who are not lawfully entitled to be on the premises and therefore this is where the 1984 Act will apply since that person will become a trespasser.
Who Is Owed A Duty Of Care Under The 1984 Act?
The duty is owed to anyone not a visitor for the purpose of the 1957 Act for example someone using a private right of way may not be a trespasser but would...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/athomeinscottsdale/3279949186/
Dealing With Occupiers’ Liability Claims: the Law, Case Summaries and Gathering Evidence - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
21/06/14. Occupiers’ Liability Act cases are possibly one of the most common types of slipping and tripping cases that the claimant lawyer will deal with. The claimant’s solicitor will commonly find that these types of slipping and tripping accidents occur in supermarkets, shopping centres and other licensed premises where there is a risk from either tripping or slipping accidents.
This chapter will deal with slipping and tripping cases in relation to supermarkets, shopping centres and other licensed premises, on private land where the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is likely to apply. This chapter in particular will look at how to deal with these cases economically and efficiently and the ways in which these types of cases can be investigated particularly with references to fixed costs post-Jackson.
This chapter is aimed to be a quick reference guide for the majority of Occupiers’ Liability 1957 Act cases. It should be borne in mind that Occupiers’ Liability Act cases can encompass a large cross sector of potential accident scenarios that will not be covered by the scope of this chapter, but the chapter is designed to provide a starting point for the investigation into these types of cases.
The Duty Under The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 sets out the duty of care required in relation to such cases and is as follows:-
“The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which she is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there”.
In other words, in order for the claimant to recover damages under the Act the claimant must...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/adisa
Fatal Accident Claims and Applicable Law of the Tort: Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG [2014] UKSC 22 - Matthew Chapman, 1 Chancery Lane
20/06/14. The claim arose out of fatal road traffic accident in Germany on 16 March 2004 in which the Appellant’s husband was tragically killed after being hit by a car whilst riding his bicycle. The driver of the car was German and was insured by the Respondent, a German insurance company, which admitted liability at an early stage. This was an Odenbreit-style claim brought, as German law permitted, directly against the relevant (foreign) motor insurer in the English Court. The issues to be determined on the appeal to the Supreme Court concerned only the assessment of damages, namely (1) whether English or German Law applied to that assessment and (2) if English law applied, whether damages were governed by the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, or some other basis.
These questions were of importance as, by contrast with the German law position, the provisions of the 1976 Act do not require credit to be given in the assessment of damages for maintenance payments received by a claimant widow from a current partner. The value of the claim assessed on the basis of the English statute would...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/GNK82
No Sudden Outburst of Honesty by Under-Compensated Miner - Ivor Collett, 1 Chancery Lane
17/06/14. The Court of Appeal has recently upheld a County Court Judge’s decision to award damages to a former miner who complained that he had been under-compensated in an industrial injury scheme. One of the reasons given was that the Defendant’s explanation for the Claimant’s conduct was implausible in relying on a steady state of dishonesty interrupted by a brief “outburst of honesty” before he reverted to his mischievous ways in bringing the professional negligence claim.
The Claimant was an ex-miner who applied in 1999 to the government-endorsed scheme for compensating former NUM / British Coal miners for Vibration White Finger (“VWF”) injuries sustained during work with heavy power tools. The scheme had been the result of detailed negotiations between representatives of the unions and former workers and those of the employers. In 2002, while represented by Raleys, a solicitors’ firm, he accepted a settlement of his claim at around £10,800 for general damages and his handicap on the labour market. He later sued Raleys for failing to advise him of the advantages for holding out for an additional head of loss for “services” such as DIY, gardening and car maintenance...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/nito100
PI Practitioner, June 2014
16/06/14. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.
Further Guidance on Mitchell and Applications for Extension of Time
Last month's practitioner's section reported the case of Kaneria v Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch), in which it was held that Mitchell principles do not apply to in time applications for an extension of time. It was held that these applications should be decided by reference to the overriding objection. The Court of Appeal has now given further guidance on the matter in Hallam Estates & Another v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661.
In Hallam,the Claimants were due to serve their points in dispute on the Defendant for a detailed costs assessment. Six days before the points were due, the Claimants asked for a 21 day extension from the Defendant (who had served their bill of costs eight...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/EmiliaU
More Articles...
- Touching a Nerve: Clinical Negligence, Malcolm Atkinson v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 1590 (QBD) - Ruwena Khan, Zenith Chambers
- Trouble with the Uninsured Drivers Agreement - Paul Williams, Greenwoods Solicitors
- What's Trivial? - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
- Example of a Fatal Award at Trial: Brown –v- Hamid Considered: Claims for Loss of Consortium - Gordon Exall, Zenith 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)
