News Category 3
What is a Montreal Convention "Accident"? Recent Court of Appeal Guidance - Matthew Chapman, 1 Chancery Lane
24/10/13. Ford v Malaysian Airline System [2013] EWCA Civ 1163 (27 September 2013) - The Claimant was travelling on the Defendant’s scheduled flight from Heathrow to Melbourne, via Kuala Lumpur. She fell asleep during the flight and woke up at 6am and went to the toilet. She found that she was unable to urinate, which she attributed to her pre-existing cystitis. Her cystitis medication was inaccessible, having been stored in the hold. She asked the cabin crew for some cranberry juice or bicarbonate of soda, neither of which was available. Sometime later, the claimant was informed that...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/cb34inc
Suspicions, Beliefs and Knowledge: the Date of Knowledge Test After AB v Ministry for Defence - Martin Canny, Barrister
22/10/13. The 'date of knowledge' provisions in s 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 ('LA 1980') play an important role in personal injuries litigation. The predecessor to this section was introduced in 1963 to reverse the result of Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758, where workers exposed to noxious dust found that their cause of action for damages for personal injuries had become become statute barred prior to them realising they had suffered any injury. The word 'knowledge' is crucial to an understanding of the section, but it does not have a fixed meaning: there are levels of what be described as 'knowledge of facts' ranging from suspicion, intuitive belief or irrational belief to knowledge that a certain state of affairs exist which has been...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/serggn
Farewell to Civil Actions for Breach of Stat. Duty: Revision To s.47 H&SW Act ’74 by #ERRAct In Force From 1st October - Jamie Clarke, Hardwicke
21/10/13. Philip Mead of Old Square suggested an interesting angle to post 1/10 claims: taking (of course) the starting point that negligence actions survive, i.e. breach of the duties at common law to provide safe place/systems of work etc remain actionable in damages, Philip argues that the standard of that duty is set by the regulations made under the H&SWAct which, of course, remain in force for the purposes of criminal enforcement. That’s my view, albeit that the “standard” at common law relates to the specific duties on the employer but subject to usual common law concepts of foreseeability, reasonableness etc. So, e.g., duty to provide a safe system of work embraces the PUWER duties in relation...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Eagle_373
Suitability and Work Equipment: a New Test and an Even Greater Burden on Employers? - Jack Harding, 1 Chancery Lane
19/10/13. On 23rd April 2013 the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act received royal assent. One of the most controversial changes that it will introduce is an amendment to the Health and Safey at Work Act 1974, the effect of which will be to abolish civil liability for breach of the various ‘six pack’ regulations which govern employer’s liability. The regulations can still be relied upon as evidence of a failure to exercise reasonable care, but the burden will rest with the injured employee to prove that the accident has been caused by the negligence of the employer.
The difference between liability for negligence at common law, and the stricter requirements of regulations emanating from Europe, was brought into sharp focus by the recent court of appeal decision in...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
A Nearby Defect Ought to Have Triggered a Thorough Investigation of the Area of the Highway, That Would Have Identified the Index Defect (Under a Parked Car) - James Osborne, Clerksroom
17/10/13. Simson v London Borough of Islington, [2013] EWHC 2527 (QB) was an appeal against the decision of Mr Recorder Bowley QC sitting in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court in relation to a claim for damages for breach of section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. In the first instance the judge found for the Claimant and awarded her damages of £9,476.62.
The appeal went before Mr Justice Lewis on the 17th July 2013. James Osborne Barrister, was instructed by Ann Lee of Minster Law appeared on behalf of the Claimant/Respondent. Lisa Dobie appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/unaemlag
![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)
