|
PERSONAL INJURY & EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
Majrowski v Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Trust, HL ( Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) 12/7/2006; Times, July 17, 2006; Independent, July 14, 2006
An employer could be vicariously liable in damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.3 for a course of conduct by one of its employees that amounted to harassment in breach of s.1 of that Act.
Daniels v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, High Ct, 5/7/2006
In cases of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 the claimant had to prove a course of conduct by either an individual employee or a group of employees in order to establish the primary liability for which the employer would be vicariously liable.
Darwish v Egyptair Ltd, High Ct, 16/6/2006
A claim for damages for personal injuries, namely post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting from an assault causing the claimant to apprehend that he would be subjected to immediate, unlawful force upon his person was dismissed where the claimant on the facts did not anticipate or apprehend an attack nor did he have reason to.
HEALTH
Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council, HL (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance) 5/7/2006; Time, July 7, 2006
A Bangladeshi suffering from arsenical poisoning had no reasonable prospect of success in an action against the Natural Environment Research Council for negligence arising from a geological report that, according to him, had induced the health authorities in Bangladesh not to take steps that would have ensured that his drinking water was not contaminated by arsenic.
STRICT LIABILITY – ANIMALS
Clark v Bowlt, CA (Civ Div) 26/6/2006
The owner and rider of a horse that collided with a motorist and caused an accident was not strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971 s.2(2) because the risk of damage was not due to a characteristic normally found in horses in the particular circumstances.
DAMAGES
Harding v Wealands, HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Woolf, Lord Hoffman, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell) 5/7/2006; 3 WLR 83; Times, July 6, 2006
The English court dealing with a personal injury claim in respect of a road traffic accident that occurred in New South Wales had to apply English law to the assessment of damages as a matter of procedure to be regulated by the law of the forum under the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 s.14 and was not to apply the procedural provisions of the New South Wales Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 limiting the amount of damages recoverable.
Ronan v J Sainsbury Plc, CA (Civ Div) 6/7/2006
In a quantification of damages for personal injury, a claimant's decision not to abandon his studies towards a qualification upon which he had embarked could not be characterised as an unreasonable failure to mitigate his loss. Further, Blamire and Smith v Manchester awards were distinct and any awards under those bases had to be assessed separately.
Manley v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, CA (Civ Div) 28/6/2006
An award of basic damages for malicious prosecution below the range recommended by the judge and the failure to award aggravated damages were decisions that no reasonable jury could have come to in the circumstances.
Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison & Ors, High Ct (Ch D) 23/6/2006
A solicitors' firm did not owe a general implied duty under its retainer to seek the instructions of a committee, which had been established to negotiate licences of media rights, as to a bidder's solvency or as to whether requests were to be made for parent company guarantees. However, the firm had, in the circumstances, breached its duty of care by failing to take instructions in respect of a financial paragraph in a bid document and by not seeking to negotiate the inclusion of guarantees in an agreement. Nominal damages were awarded as neither breach had caused substantial damage.
NEGLIGENCE
Regent Leisuretime Ltd & Ors v Skerrett & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 21/7/2006
There was no such thing as a general retainer imposing a duty on a solicitor to consider all aspects of a client's interest whenever the solicitor was consulted. It was important to bear in mind the limits of what would be expected of a solicitor: he was not bound to know all the law, and would be entitled to rely on the advice of experienced and specialist counsel.
Kiani v Land Rover Ltd & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 28/6/2006
It was open for the court, after finding that accidental death was possible, to discount the less likely possibility of suicide, thus finding on the balance of probabilities that accidental death had occurred.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
R v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, High Ct (Admin) 13/7/2006
A homeless person did not have a status within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.14 and the cessation of payments of a disability premium whilst he was without accommodation was not unlawful.
CIVIL EVIDENCE
Toth v Jarman, CA (Civ Div) 19/7/2006
A party who wished to call an expert with a potential conflict of interest should disclose details of that conflict at as early a stage in the proceedings as possible.
|
