News Category 3
Is It Strictly Illegal? - Simon Anderson, Park Square Barristers
06/10/15. It is with starry-eyed nostalgia that lawyers recall undergraduate law questions. I was recently presented with the following set of facts that resembled an examination paper on the topic of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
Master Dennis sustained a significant subdural haematoma in a motorcycle accident when he was aged 16. He owned a trials bike, although it had no number plates, lights or road fund licence. Unsurprisingly, Dennis had not yet obtained his motorcycle licence, and was uninsured.
Whilst riding at about 20 mph on a public highway with his best friend, Gnasher, riding as pillion, Dennis was passed by two police officers on motorcycles. Dennis was wearing a crash helmet and goggles, which he removed as the police approached. Neither officer was sounding sirens, displaying lights or making hand gestures. Unfortunately for Dennis and Gnasher one of the police officers kicked the wheel of their motorcycle and they fell off. Dennis was knocked unconscious and immediately taken to hospital.
Dennis was later prosecuted for offences relating to his absent tax, licence and insurance. He was not, however, prosecuted in respect of any other driving offence. Discuss the liability of the police (15 marks). What if Dennis had been riding dangerously? (5 marks)
Assuming Dennis not to have been driving dangerously, then the present facts can be distinguished from the Court of Appeal judgment in...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/alexfrance/3194662301
Practice, Procedure and Fair Proceedings in the Coroner’s Court: Wilson -v- Hm Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull - Gordon Exall, Zenith Chambers
02/10/15. In Wilson -v- HM Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull [2015] EWHC 2561 (Admin) l the Divisional Court rejected an application for judicial review of a Coroner’s narrative verdict. “Fairness in an inquest must be fashioned in an environment where there are no pleadings and in which those given leave to appear as interested persons do not have a case to put. The evidence at inquests often takes an unexpected turn and calls for a degree of flexibility in the procedure to be followed as a consequence. The rules of evidence applied in criminal and civil proceedings do not apply. Questions of fairness to those involved in inquest proceedings must be judged against all these essential features and also in the context that the statutory scheme prohibits a finding of criminal liability on the part of a named person, or of civil liability.”...
Image cc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coroners_Court_Entrance.jpg
What Is It About Driving? - Peter Harthan, 7 Harrington Street
01/10/15. Two people are walking down a busy High Street. They are reasonably well adjusted, unexceptional members of society. Use your imagination to attach further details as you think appropriate. Anyway, one of these people, perhaps glimpsing something in a shop window or distracted by their mobile phone, fails to spot the other and they bump into each other. No harm is done to either of them. Now, the outcome of this scenario, played out hundreds of times a day, is almost always both people apologising to the other, sentiments along the lines of “Sorry” or “oh don’t worry” and each eager to repair any upset caused.
Now contrast the above with what happens when essentially the same scenario occurs but with each person driving a car. Lets say one changes lanes at a roundabout without seeing the other. A collision results. No real harm is done to either, but there are some dents and scratches to the cars. Both drivers will pull over and each starts to blame the other for the collision “you changed lanes” - “but you were in the wrong lane”. What initially starts out as an exchange of views soon deteriorates into a shouting match with personal insults being thrown. One threatens to call the police. In due course insurance details are exchanged and the matter goes off to Insurers to sort out. If neither side concedes or no agreement can be reached as to an appropriate apportionment of blame, then the matter will eventually result in a court hearing many months, sometimes even years, later...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/baona
Norovirus Claims: Are They Worth Pursuing? - Tina Patel, Leigh Day
28/09/15. Norovirus, commonly known as the winter vomiting bug, is the most common stomach bug in the UK. It is highly contagious and transmitted by consumption of contaminated food or water, contact with contaminated surfaces or infected individuals.
Norovirus outbreaks can cause extended outbreaks because of their infectivity and resistance to common disinfectants. This makes it almost impossible to control an outbreak.
Symptoms:
Many report a sudden onset of nausea and experience projectile vomiting and diarrhoea. There can be other symptoms individuals may experience such as abdominal pain, headaches and fevers. Most people make a full recovery within 48 hours after on the onset of symptoms.
Whilst for many people an episode of winter vomiting disease is only an unpleasant experience, for some people norovirus can be more problematic, particularly for people whose health is already compromised, the very young and elderly and it can cause severe dehydration, malnutrition and even death.
Why is it on the increase?...
Image cc http://www.flickr.com/photos/54591706@N02/5148710483
Scottish Civil Jury Trials to Be Allowed at the Sheriff Court Level: A Run Through of Recent Scottish Jury Awards - Lorne Todd, Brodies LLP
24/09/15. The All Scotland Personal Injury Court will open its doors in Edinburgh on 22 September 2015, dealing with many cases with a value up to £100,000 which would previously have been dealt with in the Court of Session. It brings with it the right to a Civil Jury Trial for the first time in a Sheriff Court and this article provides a quick run through of recent jury awards in Scotland.
Historically jury awards have been significantly greater than judicial awards and accordingly a jury trial has been seen as a more favourable route for Pursuers. Most readers will of course be aware of the relentless march of jury awards in Scottish fatal claims, so it is a natural starting point for an examination of recent trends.
Back in 2012 the cases of Hamilton v Ferguson Transport (Spean Bridge) Ltd and Thomson v Dennis Thomson Builders Ltd [2012] CSIH 52, which were heard together on appeal. The appeal court held that the decision of the jury to make a bereavement award in the sum of £120,000 to a daughter and £90,000 to a father was excessive and “beyond what a jury, acting reasonably, might have awarded”.
In a ground-breaking move, the appeal court revamped the procedure by which juries would be asked to consider how much to award. Counsel for each party now addresses the judge as to the level of award to be made, and the judge then puts a spectrum of appropriate awards to the jury. Importantly, that spectrum is not binding...
Image cc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff_court#/media/File:Sheriff_Court,_Edinburgh.jpg
![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)
