|
PERSONAL INJURY
Human Rights
Alder v Chief Constable of Humberside & Ors, CA (Civ Div) 18/12/2006
The ignoring of a person's expressed concerns as to the manner in which the Crown Prosecution Service had carried out a prosecution could arguably amount to treatment of that person within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976, even if those concerns related to the taking of decisions germane to the prosecution process.
Religious Beliefs and Care
Ahsan v University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust, High Ct, 28/7/2006
The religious beliefs of an individual should not be disregarded in deciding how that person should be cared for in the event of supervening mental incapacity, and the wishes of the family should be taken into account.
Civil Procedure
Aird & Anr v Prime Meridian Ltd, CA (Civ Div) 21/12/2006
Where an expert joint statement was made pursuant to CPR r.35.12 and was not privileged, it did not acquire without prejudice status because it was used in mediation.
Richardson v Watson & Anr, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006; Times, December 13, 2006
Where a claimant had not given timely notice of her claim to the Motor Insurers' Bureau and the MIB was not prepared to overlook the fact, there was no objection in principle to the claimant discontinuing proceedings and commencing a fresh action in which a timely notice was given to the MIB.
Corbett v South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority, CA (Civ Div) 6/12/2006
A case management decision not to adjourn the determination of the appropriate measure of indexation for periodical payments due to the claimant for his future care pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Appeal in another case had been appropriate.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
Thompstone v Tameside & Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust, High Ct, 23/11/2006
Where a party sought to invoke the Damages Act 1996 s.2(9), it bore an evidential burden, namely an obligation to adduce evidence sufficient to establish a case that the retail price index was an inappropriate measure of indexation and that there was a more appropriate measure that could be adopted. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to make a periodical payments order that provided for the amount of payments to vary by reference to the 75th percentile of the annual survey of occupational earnings for care assistants and home carers as that index provided a reasonable and accurate indicator of the growth of the earnings of carers of the type to be employed by the claimant.
DAMAGES
Exemplary Damages
Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside, CA (Civ Div) 20/12/2006
The acts of a police officer in physically restraining the appellant, handcuffing her, procuring her detention and giving false evidence in an attempt to secure her conviction could be capable of supporting a finding that he had behaved in an oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional manner and the jury should have been able to consider an award of exemplary damages against the chief constable under the Police Act 1996 s.88 and in accordance with the principles set out in Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Thompson [1998] Q.B. 498.
Accident at Work
Tame v Professional Cycle Marketing Ltd, High Ct, 19/12/2006
The claimant was awarded special damages for past and future losses, and general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity following an accident at work that caused brain damage.
Clinical Negligence – Wrongful Birth
U v Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust, Out of Court Settlement 28/6/2006 LTLPI 15/12/2006 (Unreported elsewhere)
The claimant, a 40-year-old woman, received £1,200,000 for the wrongful birth of her daughter as a result of a hospital's failure to detect chromosomal abnormalities on an amniocentesis.
HEALTH & SAFETY AT WORK
Robb v Salamis (M&I) Ltd, HL (Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell) 13/12/2006; Times, December 22, 2006
An employer was in breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 reg.4 and reg.20 by providing removable suspended ladders for employees to access the top bunks in their sleeping accommodation because the risk of injury, if the ladders were not replaced properly, should have been foreseen. An employee injured when descending an incorrectly replaced ladder was contributorily negligent because he knew that the ladders were often moved and should have checked the ladder.
CIVIL EVIDENCE
Diamond v Mansfield & Ors, High Ct, 20/12/2006
Whilst the Bar Council, when considering or dealing with a prosecution in respect of a disciplinary matter, had to apply the principles of natural justice and could not act out of improper motive, malice or bad faith, that was a duty owed to all its members and did not arise out of a contract with any one individual member.
NUISANCE
Younger v Molesworth & Anr, High Ct, 7/12/2006
There was a real prospect that, if the evidence were accepted, the appellant could establish at trial that the respondent had been aware of the serious ingress of water into the appellant's property and that the respondent knew that his drainage system was not satisfactory to prevent a build-up of pressure in the adjoining wall and could therefore be liable in nuisance for a failure to bring that defect to an end.
|
