The claimant had been knocked from his motor cyle by the defendant. He hired a replacement, but when he sought payment of the associated hire charges, the defendant said that the hire company had failed to comply with the 208 Regulations, and that since the claimant had no obligation to pay, he could not claim … Continue reading Salat v Barutis: CA 20 Nov 2013
The claimant removal company sought payment of its fees after the defendant purported to cancel the arrangement for moving his goods. The defendant now appealed against rejection of his claim that the the contract was cancellable within the 2008 Regulations. The district judge said that the Regulations applied to a contract made only on one … Continue reading Robertson v Swift: CA 15 Jan 2013
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts