News Category 3
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2016] UKSC 18 - Caroline Kane, BLM
12/07/16. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has finally settled the argument as to whether claims for consequential damages are permissible for losses incurred as the result of a riot. The case relates to a major incident that occurred on 8 August 2011, during the height of the rioting and violence that had erupted throughout the UK.
The facts of the case
On 8 August 2011, a group of 20-25 youths broke into the Sony Distribution Warehouse in Enfield. They looted what they could carry and threw homemade firebombs at the rest before running off, scattering games consoles. The warehouse rapidly became engulfed in flames and was gutted in what is considered to have been the biggest arson attack in Europe.
Following insurance pay-outs to the owner of the building and Sony, claims under the 1886 Act were presented by Sony’s insurers and the owner as well as three uninsured businesses that had items stored in the warehouse at the time of the fire. Losses totalled £60 million once consequential losses (such as loss of rent and trading losses) had been taken into account...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/i_frontier
Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Conception: The Rights of the Father - Rebecca Jones, Hardwicke
11/07/16. The law on recovery for damages in wrongful birth and wrongful conception cases has been settled for some time; since the cases of McFarlane v Tayside Board of Health [2000] 2 AC 59, Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 and Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 88 there has been little, if any, disruption to the status quo. It is clear however that there do remain some unanswered questions regarding the limits of recovery in this area; one such query arose in the more recent case of Whitehead v Searle [2008] EWCA Civ 285, where the rights of a father in these actions was considered.
The Established Case Law
The progression of the three key authorities in respect of wrongful birth and wrongful life actions was as follows:
Image ©iStockphoto.com/onurdongel
Legal Mind Case and Commentary No.6: Stress at Work, a Fit Area for Legal Enquiry? - Dr Hugh Koch & Dr Simon Midgley
03/07/16. Ten years ago, the Court of Appeal collated four cases to be heard together with the intention of providing guidance on handling stress at work cases claims. Known as Hatton v Sutherland, the Court of Appeal recognised difficulty in judging such cases, especially with complex issues of causation. Principles exposed as a result included:
-
Stress related injuries must be plain enough that any reasonable employer will realise its implications.
-
Plausible causes of stress were work related, family related or personality-related.
The debate continues as to whether psychological claims should be justifiable. A holistic and comprehensive approach which includes perusal of occupational health records, GP and other medical records, therapy or counselling records and statements from colleagues and others are essential. (Fowles, 2015).
Image ©iStockphoto.com/PhaticPhotography
Mrs H v Mr Robinson - Emma Melia & Miray Wahba, Spencers Solicitors
30/06/16. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION. Case Number HQ14P03794. Accident Date 1 October 2011. Settlement Date 19 June 2015. TOTAL GROSS SETTLEMENT £700,000 net of contributory negligence but gross of interim payments (totalling £121,500)
Background
The Deceased, male aged 50 at the date of the accident died in a tragic road traffic accident which occurred on 1 October 2011.
The claim was brought by the Deceased’s wife, who was appointed Administrator of the Deceased’s estate and was the Claimant...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/pikerslanefarm/2349052897
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Editorial: Vacated Trials - Aidan Ellis, Temple Garden Chambers
29/06/16. In the course of June so far, three of my trials have been vacated – two for lack of Court time and one converted to a 30 minute CMC because the trial bundle was filed one day late. On one further occasion, I attended Court for the trial only to find that no Judge was available and there was only time to deal with the case because the Claimant failed to attend. Conversations with my colleagues in Chambers and Solicitors suggest that this experience is not unique.
This poses a particular challenge because cases are often vacated on the day before trial, when some or all of the preparatory work has already been done. But CPR 45.29C and D provide for a single fixed trial advocacy fee. In relation to fast track cases, which seem particularly prone to vacation, there is thus no scope for either party to recover an additional brief fee to reflect the vacation of a trial (unless...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/imagemonkey
More Articles...
- New Book Reviews - PIBULJ.COM Editorial
- Why Settlement of a Personal Injury Claim Does Not Bring the Application of the RTA Protocol to an End - Ben Hicks, 1 Chancery Lane
- Don’t Overlook Foreseeability: Scott v Gavigan [2016] EWCA Civ 544, [2016] All ER (D) 35 (Jun) - Niall Maclean, 12 King’s Bench Walk
- Injuries Resulting in Blindness - Rose Gibson, Simpson Millar LLP
![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)
