News Category 2
A Review of Recent Criminal Injury Compensation Authority (CICA) Cases - Sophie Beesley, Old Square Chambers
12/03/14. Two recent decisions emphasise that for an injury to qualify under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS), it must be caused by a ‘crime of violence’. For an act to be simply criminal or merely irresponsible is not sufficient, no matter how severe the injury.
CICA v First-Tier Tribunal and CP (CIC) [2013] UKUT 0638 (AAC)
An offence is not committed under section 23 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 if a pregnant woman drinks alcohol causing damage to her unborn child.
CP is a young girl who suffers from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder as a result of her mother drinking excessively during pregnancy. During November 2009, a claim was made on CP’s behalf for compensation for her mother’s actions. Her application was refused on the basis that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/titlezpix
Courts Take Robust Approach Post Mitchell - Dr Maggie Bloom, Hardwicke
11/03/14. Another Mitchell decision has been handed down with a robust sanction – this time in a personal injury case. The case, heard in the Central London County Court, was Claim No. 2YL20478 Rahala Khalida (formerly Manna) (Personal Representative of Abdul Manna deceased) v (1) John Legg (2) Royal & Sun Alliance plc, heard by HHJ Lochrane.
This was a personal injury claim in which liability had been admitted and there was a trial on quantum set down for 27 January 2014. By a case management order dated 27h May 2013, the defendants were to serve a counter schedule on 23 October 2013. In its Pre-Trial Checklist dated 30 October 2013, the defendants stated they would serve their Counter Schedule by 13 November 2013. It was not served. The claimant agreed to an extension of time to 14 December 2013, as a conference had been arranged with the client on 16 December 2013. The claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendants several times stating that they would not accept service without an application for relief from sanctions after 14 December 2013. The counter schedule was served on 2 January and the claimant’s solicitors wrote...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Kuzma
Yates v National Trust - William Norris QC, Thirty Nine Essex Street
09/03/14. Jamie Yates was 22 and was working as a tree surgeon for Joe Jackman – trading as Joe Jackman and Sons – when on 4th December 2009, he fell some 50 feet from a tree and suffered catastrophic injuries. The accident happened in Morden Hall Park, where Mr Jackman had been engaged to carry out various tree felling jobs for the owners and occupiers, the National Trust (NT).
At the time of his accident, Mr Yates had been working for Mr Jackman for about 2 years. He was always self-employed but worked under the direction of Mr Jackman and on Mr Jackman’s contracts. Mr Jackman himself had been introduced to the NT over 2 years previously when he had been carrying out work for one of the NT tenants on the property. He always represented that his contracts would be performed by ‘experienced and fully qualified arborists’ – though whether the job in question (felling a large chestnut in sections) required greater paper qualifications than Mr Yates (and, indeed, Mr Jackman) actually possessed was controversial.
Mr Yates’s case, in a nutshell, was that he was too inexperienced and/or insufficiently trained and supervised to be doing what he was. He argued that this should have been...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Lya_Cattel
Rebecca Coles v David Perfect - Augustus Ullstein QC, Thirty Nine Essex Street
07/03/14. On the 11th May 2008, when she was 14 years of age, Rebecca Coles was being towed on an inflatable ring by a speedboat owned and driven by Mr. Perfect on the river Orwell in Suffolk. Mr. Perfect failed to see a sailing boat in front of him and swerved to avoid a collision. That manoeuvre caused the ring to swing around and hit the side of the sailing boat. Rebecca struck her head on the boat and suffered a head injury.
The incident was properly classified as a marine accident. It was, therefore, governed by the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Marine Shipping Act 1995. Under that Act the Defendant and his insurers were entitled to limit their liability to a sum of approximately £1.439 million. Mr. Perfect’s insurers had paid just over £33,000 to another girl who had been...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/kreinick
Asbestos in Schools: The Need for Urgent Action - Julie Winn, Pattinson & Brewer
07/03/14. The Department for Education (DfE) has launched its policy review on the asbestos management in schools. The consultation closing date is 31st March. The review calls for evidence from all organisations and individuals with an interest in the issue.
This includes local authorities, schools, teachers, support staff, governors, unions, parents, epidemiologists, scientists, risk experts, asbestos consultants, politicians, victims, doctors, solicitors, coroners- everyone who is involved with, or has been affected by asbestos in schools.
It is essential that DfE is provided with wide ranging evidence that clearly shows them the scale of the problem and whether or not their present policies are working.
The consultation questions are of a limited nature. Do not be restricted by them.
This is the chance to make a fundamental difference to Government policies on asbestos in schools.
Please respond fully and distribute the call for evidence as widely as possible.
The call for evidence for the DfE review of policy on asbestos management in schools is now live on the Government’s website and at the link below:
Asbestos management in schools: DfE policy review – Consultations – GOV.UK ;
For more information about the asbestos in schools campaign visit the juac website
To read the APPG booklet Asbestos in Schools – a need for further action please follow follow this link
I urge you to read it and if you have something to say then please say it!
Julie Winn
Chair, Joint Union Asbestos Committee and Head of Asbestos Unit
Pattinson & Brewer
Image ©iStockphoto.com/clubfoto
More Articles...
- Simson v London Borough of Islington [2013] EWHC 2527 (QB) - Daniel Tobin, 12 King's Bench Walk
- Presenting Evidence of Executive Functions Deficit in Court: Why Is Behaviour So Important? - Dr Nicolas Priestley & Dr David Manchester
- Case Report: (A) (A Child by her mother and Litigation Friend) v Guy's & St Thomas Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Antonia Jones, Stewarts Law
- Post-Mitchell: Relief from Sanctions in Practice - Rhiannon Lewis, 1 Chancery Lane
![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)
