Category: Personal Injury

Armstrong and Another v First York: CA 17 Jan 2005

The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.

Judges:

Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223680

ICL Plastics Ltd and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review: SCS 11 Mar 2005

The applicants were concerned at the decision to exclude them from their premises to investigate the cause of an explosion leading to the collapse of the factory.

Judges:

Lord McEwan

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSOH – 35

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Cited by:

See Also – David T Morrison and Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SCS 9-Mar-2012
Outer House – Opinion – In May 2004 an explosion at the defenders factory caused nine deaths. A pipeline carrying LPG gas had not been assessed for risks. Morrison owned neighbouring premises which were damaged. They began an action for damages. The . .
See Also – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another SCS 14-Mar-2013
Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient . .
See Also – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223388

Alfa Begum v Supin Klarit: CA 15 Feb 2005

The court ordered the reduction of the success fees agreed between the claimant and her solicitors from 100% to 15%. The case was nearly a stone cold certainty.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal, Civil Division) Lord Justice Latham Lord Justice Neuberger The Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division)

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 210, Times 18-Mar-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Atack v Lee and Another CA 16-Dec-2004
Defendant insurers had challenged conditional fee agreements involving a two stage success fee. Both cases took place before limitations were introduced by Callery v Gray.
Held: It would be wrong to apply Callery v Gray retrospectively. A two . .
Cited – Callery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223300

Young v Post Office: CA 30 Apr 2002

The claimant had been absent from work with a psychiatric illness. When he returned, the employers intended that he should work at his own pace and continue to do so for as long as he wished. In practice this arrangement was ignored and he worked more intensely and for longer hours than was good for his health.
Held: Whilst the initial breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable, an employer could not simply devise a system for easing an employee back into work; it also had to take reasonable care to ensure that it was adopted.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Arden, May LJJ

Citations:

[2002] IRLR 660, [2002] EWCA Civ 661, [2002] Emp LR 1136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223056

Freakley and Curzon Insurance Ltd v Centre Reinsurance International Company and Another; similar: CA 11 Feb 2005

Claims were made for personal injury caused by asbestos. The re-insurers sought declaratory relief against the head insurers, and the administrators of the insolvent company. The administrators sought declarations in turn. Curzon insured the company for ultimate net loss, and then had re-insurance with Centre Reinsurance. Ultimate net loss meant all sums paid out less substantial excesses, but control of the claims was transferred to the insurer if the principal company became insolvent. A re-organisation was intended to be created so as to ring fence the company’s liabilities.
Held: The provision transferring control of the claim to the insurers meant that the re-insurance contract was voided by the 1930 Act. The phrase ‘the rights of third parties’ in s1(3) was to be construed to refer only to the rights of the parties in respect of the liability incurred by the insured to the third party, and further only those rights which if altered would give rise to a statutory transfer, and nullify the rights which the statute required to be transferred undiminshed. Parliament could not have intended to strike down provisions intended to put a third party in the same or a better position on a statutory transfer. As to claims handling costs, these were to be taken as part of the ultimate net loss, and the company was liable to reimburse the expenses incurred before the loss reached the retained limit.
Lord Justice Chadwick: ‘The relevant question . . is whether liabilities for claims handling expenses incurred on the instructions of the insurer – acting under the rights conferred by the policy . . are properly to be treated as liabilities incurred by the administrator in carrying out his functions . . ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 115, Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 65

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bradley v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 1989
Mrs Bradley was employed by Dart Mill several times from 1933 and 1970 and acquired byssinosis from inhaling cotton dust. The company was wound up in 1975 and dissolved in 1976. In 1984 she applied to the court for pre-action disclosure under . .
Cited – First National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .
Cited – Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others CA 16-May-1995
Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s . .
Cited – Firma CF-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (the ‘Fanti’) QBD 1987
The court considered the effect of section 1(3) on a ‘pay to be paid’ clause in a re-insurance contract.
Held: If, as a matter of construction of the membership rules, the condition survived the making of a winding-up order – which he thought . .
Cited – Re Allobrogia Steamship Corporation 1979
The court considered the effect, on the insolvency of the insured, of ‘pay to be paid’ conditions in contracts of insurance. It was asked to order the winding-up of a foreign registered company. The company had to own assets within the jurisdiction . .
Cited – Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (Padri Island) (No 2); Firma CF-Trade SA v Similar (Fanti) CA 30-Nov-1989
The court considered appeals from conflicting interpretations of the effect of s1(3) of the 1930 Act on pay to be paid clauses in the event of the insolvency of the insured.
Held: The condition did not purport to avoid the contract or to alter . .
Cited – Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc and others v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (the ‘Padre Island’) (No 2) 1987
. .
Cited – Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc and others v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd (Padri Island) (No 2); Firma CF-Trade SA v Similar (The ‘Fant’) HL 14-Jun-1990
The House was asked as to the effect of section 1(3) of the 1930 Act on policies including ‘pay or be paid’ clauses.
Held: The central question was whether the condition of prior payment was rendered of no effect by section 1(3) of the Act of . .
Cited – Re Harrington Motor Co Ltd, Ex parte Chaplin 1928
A person injured in a road accident had obtained judgment for damages against the company, but had been unable to enforce the judgment before the company went into liquidation. The company’s motor insurers paid the amount of the judgment to the . .
Appeal From – Centre Reinsurance International Co and Another v Curzon Insurance Ltd ChD 12-Feb-2004
It was a necessary part of the system of statutory transfers of insurance obligations under the Act, that the rights should be transferred before exhaustion of any policy excess, and notwithstanding the insolvency. The rights (inchoate at this . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Freakley and others v Centre Reinsurance International Company and others HL 11-Oct-2006
When it became clear that the company would be financially overwhelmed by asbestos related claims, a voluntary scheme of arrangement was proposed under s425. The House was now asked whether the right to re-imbursement of the company’s lawyers after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Insurance, Insolvency

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222782

Grieves and others v Ft Everard and Sons and British Uralite Plc and others: QBD 15 Feb 2005

Each of the claimants sought damages alleging that having been negligently exposed to asbestos in their working lives, they had developed pleural plaques which had arisen from the ingestion of asbestos.
Held: The court could infer permanent penetration by asbestos fibres from the presence of such plaques, but that could not per se found a cause of action. Nevertheless with the other factors enumerated, an award of damages could, and would in these cases be made.

Judges:

Holland The Honourable Mr Justice Holland

Citations:

Times 22-Mar-2005, [2005] EWHC 88 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222710

Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd: CA 3 Feb 2005

The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal.
Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an important point of principle or practice’ is to an important point of principle or practice that has not yet been established. The distinction must be maintained between (a) establishing and (b) applying an established principle or practice correctly. Where an appeal raises an important point of principle or practice that has not yet been determined, then it satisfies CPR 52.13(2)(a). But where the issue sought to be raised on the proposed appeal concerns the correct application of a principle or practice whose meaning and scope has already been determined by a higher court, then it does not satisfy CPR 52.13(2)(a). ‘In the phrase ‘some other compelling reason’: ‘Compelling’ is a very strong word. It emphasises the truly exceptional nature of the jurisdiction.’ The court gave the following definitieve guidance: ‘(1) A good starting point will almost always be a consideration of the prospects of success. It is unlikely that the court will find that there is a compelling reason to give permission for a second appeal unless it forms the view that the prospects of success are very high. That will usually be a necessary requirement, although as we shall explain, it may not be sufficient to justify the grant of permission to appeal. This necessary condition will be satisfied where it is clear that the judge on the first appeal made a decision which is perverse or otherwise plainly wrong. It may be clear that the decision is wrong because it is inconsistent with authority of a higher court which demonstrates that the decision was plainly wrong. Subject to what we say at (3) below, anything less than very good prospects of success on an appeal will rarely suffice. In view of the exceptional nature of the jurisdiction conferred by CPR 52.13(2), it is important not to assimilate the criteria for giving permission for a first appeal with those which apply in relation to second appeals.
(2) Although the necessary condition which we have mentioned at (1) is satisfied, the fact that the prospects of success are very high will not necessarily be sufficient to provide a compelling reason for giving permission to appeal. An examination of all the circumstances of the case may lead the court to conclude that, despite the existence of very good prospects of success, there is no compelling reason for giving permission to appeal. For example, if it is the appellant’s fault that the first appeal was dismissed, because he failed to refer to the authority of a higher court which demonstrates that the decision on the first appeal was wrong, the court may conclude that justice does not require this court to give the appellant the opportunity to have a second appeal. There is a reason for giving permission to appeal, but it is not compelling, because the appellant contributed to the court’s mistake. On the other hand, if the authority of a higher court which shows that the decision on the first appeal was wrong post-dated that decision, then there might well be a compelling reason for giving permission for a second appeal.
(3) There may be circumstances where there is a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal even where the prospects of success are not very high. The court may be satisfied that there are good grounds for believing that the hearing was tainted by some procedural irregularity so as to render the first appeal unfair. Suppose, for example, that the judge did not allow the appellant to present his or her case. In such a situation, the court might conclude that there was a compelling reason to give permission for a second appeal, even though the appellant had no more than a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of success. It would be plainly unjust to deny an appellant a second appeal in such a case, since to do so might, in effect, deny him a right of appeal altogether.

Judges:

Tuckey, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 60, [2005] 1 WLR 2070

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 52.13(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hashtroodi v Hancock CA 27-May-2004
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
Cited – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Cited – Cranfield and Another v Bridgegrove Ltd; Claussen v Yeates etc CA 14-May-2003
In each case claims had been late in being served and extensions in time were sought and refused.
Held: The recent authorities were examined. The words ‘has been unable to serve’ in CPR 7.6(3)(a) include all cases where the court has failed to . .
Cited – Practice Direction on the Citation of Authorities LCJ 9-Apr-2001
The court laid down rules for restricting the citation of authorities, which rules are to be applied in all courts except criminal courts. The increase in the number of judgments series being available had come to be problematic for all involved, . .
Cited – Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald CA 12-May-2000
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court . .
Cited – Ahmed v Stanley A Coleman and Hill CA 18-Jun-2002
The court considered the significance of CPR 52.13(2): ‘The restriction on second appeals is important because Parliament has made it clear that it wishes pretrial disputes in civil litigation to be dealt with, on the whole, at a level lower than . .
Cited – Brown and Brown v Fenwick CA 4-Oct-2001
Renewed application for leave to appeal: ‘Quite how securely the door to the Court of Appeal should be shut by narrowly confining CPR 52.13(2)(a) to new points or principle, and precisely what the interrelationship is between (2)(a) and (2)(b), are . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm) CA 16-Mar-2005
An accountant sought payment of his professional fees. The defendants had sought to re-amend their defence and counterclaim. Appeals had variously been allowed to go ahead or denied after the master had not been able to deal with all of them for . .
Cited – Cramp v Hastings Borough Council CA 29-Jul-2005
Cases challenged successful appeals by applicants for housing for homelessness, where a county court had ordered a second review of the application. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222170

Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc: CA 19 Jan 2005

The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still troubled the courts. The 16 issues identified in Hatton were not exhaustive. One of the appeals at issue in this case involved stress arising from one traumatic incident at work: ‘It is foreseeable injury flowing from the employer’s breach of duty that gives rise to the liability. It does not follow that because a claimant suffers stress at work and that the employer is in some way in breach of duty in allowing that to occur that the claimant is able to establish claim in negligence.’ Where an employer had knowledge that particular stresses carried with them the risk of psychiatric injury to employees, failure to implement recommended precautions against such injury could attract liability without any need to demonstrate knowledge that an employee was particularly vulnerable.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Philips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 6, Times 21-Jan-2005, [2005] ICR 782, [2005] IRLR 293, [2005] ELR 237, [2005] PIQR P19, (2005) 85 BMLR 136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Cited – Young v Post Office CA 30-Apr-2002
The claimant had been absent from work with a psychiatric illness. When he returned, the employers intended that he should work at his own pace and continue to do so for as long as he wished. In practice this arrangement was ignored and he worked . .
Cited – Bonser v UK Coal Mining Ltd CA 9-Jun-2003
The employer appealed a finding that it was responsible in negligence to a staff member for stress related injury at work. The claimant had worked in the coal industry for 20 years, but she had then been made redundant. The defendants took her on as . .
Cited – Croft v Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council CA 15-Apr-2003
The claimant acted as the town clerk. After an unexpected letter about her conduct there were meetings and correspondence. Her initial shock and distress were so exacerbated that she was rendered incapable of work through depression. The triggering . .

Cited by:

Cited – Banks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – D v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd QBD 23-May-2006
The claimant sought damages for stress incurred at work. She had suffered post natal depression and received counselling through her work and recovered. She suffered a second bout of depression after the birth of another child, but again was thought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221524

Amanda Claire Smith (A Patient proceeding by her Mother and Next Friend Jenny May Smith) v The Secretary of State for Health (Sued on behalf of the Committee on Safety of Medicines): QBD 15 Feb 2002

Mrs Smith’s daughter was unwell with chicken pox. She gave her aspirin, but she contracted a serious disease. She later learned that the Committee had been previously warned of the complication. The drug was later withdrawn for such cases.
Held: The statute avoided any liability for breach of statutory duty. Was the Secretary liable in negligence? No common law duty was owed in respect of the decisions allegedly negligent, even if there was fault in failing to stick to the original timetable. Such decisions are discretionary/policy and not justiciable. It was appropriate to withhold a warning until those who might implement it were ready. The delay of a month was not negligent.

Judges:

Justice Morland

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Medicines Act 1968 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health, Negligence

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.167623

Sweet v Owners of Blyth Lifeboat; The Edward Duke of Windsor: QBD 22 Jan 2002

A claim which was covered by the Act for damages for psychiatric injury arose not at the date of the accident, but from when the claimant first developed a recognised psychiatric injury. The two year period of limitation under the Act ran accordingly from the later date. Had parliament wished another result, it could easily have been provided for. Instead it made a clear distinction between the date of the accident, and the date of the injury resulting from it.

Judges:

Mr Justice Tomlinson

Citations:

Times 22-Feb-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 190(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.167649

Clarke v Carfin Coal Co: HL 27 Jul 1891

Reparation – Parent and Child – Action for Damages for Death of Illegitimate Child – Title to Sue.
A woman sued a company for damages for the loss, by the fault of the defenders, of her illegitimate son, who was fourteen years of age. The respondents, founding on the illegitimacy of the son, pleaded no title to sue.
Held ( aff. the decision of the Second Division) that the pursuer had no title to sue.

Judges:

Earl of Selborne, and Lords Watson, Macnaghten, and Morris

Citations:

[1891] UKHL 950 – 1, 28 SLR 950 – 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Children

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636778

Atack v Lee and Another: CA 16 Dec 2004

Defendant insurers had challenged conditional fee agreements involving a two stage success fee. Both cases took place before limitations were introduced by Callery v Gray.
Held: It would be wrong to apply Callery v Gray retrospectively. A two stage conditional success fee was to be encouraged. The success fee might properly be raised to up to 100% where a claim did not settle within the protocol period. However in each case the judge had used his discretion properly to assess the risk exposure in the light of knowledge available at the time. The appeals failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1712, Times 28-Dec-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 2643

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Callery v Gray, Russell v Pal Pak Corrugated Ltd (No 1) CA 18-Jul-2001
Claimants in modest, straightforward personal injury claims cases should have re-imbursed to them by the defendant, the cost of after the event insurance, if necessary by costs only proceedings. The solicitor’s success fee should also be recovered. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alfa Begum v Supin Klarit CA 15-Feb-2005
The court ordered the reduction of the success fees agreed between the claimant and her solicitors from 100% to 15%. The case was nearly a stone cold certainty. . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
The appellants challenged the compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights of the system for recovery of costs in civil litigation in England and Wales following the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The parties had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220343

Marks and Spencer Plc v Palmer: CA 9 Oct 2001

The claimant had tripped against a weather strip which protruded by less than 1 cm above the surface of doorway of the staff exit from one of the defendant’s stores. It was a permanent fixture and, as such, was part of the construction of the floor. It had never previously given rise to any accidents or complaints. At first instance, the recorder had found that the simple fact that Mrs Palmer had tripped over the weather strip showed that the floor was unsuitable and in breach of regulation 12(1).
Held: The Court considered whether a floor in which a weather strip had been inserted was of such construction as to breach Regulation 12(1), and gave guidance as to approach to be taken by a court to the question of suitability under Regulation 12(1).

Judges:

Schiemann, Waller LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1528

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rogers v George Blair 1971
The court considered the suitability of some goggles as a means of protecting a workman’s eyes.
Held: To be suitable, the protection need not make it impossible for an accident to occur but it must make it highly unlikely. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218442

Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Service: CA 9 Oct 2002

The claimant was severely injured when, as he emerged through traffic lights as they turned green. He was in a collision with a fire engine driving in response to an emergency call-out. The driver of the fire engine said the claimant should have seen the lights. The officers were not sounding the wailing alarm. The Regulations allowed a specific but limited exemption for emergency vehicles from compliance with traffic lights.
Held: The evidence from the fire officers to suggest that the claimant should have seen them coming was not convincing. The decision reached by the recorder was capable of being reached from the evidence before him. Both the regulations and the services own code of conduct required an emergency vehicle in this situation to give way. The driver had not done so. However: ‘With some hesitation, I am driven to conclude that a properly observant driver would and should have so noticed the fire engine and that Mr Purdue failed to do so. I think that this failure amounts to a want of observation and thus a want of due care. Accordingly, in my judgment there was a degree of contributory negligence but, for the reasons advanced by Mr Hillier, I do not think that that degree was great.’ The claimant was found to be 20% liable.

Judges:

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Bodey

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1538

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Traffic Signs And General Directions Order 1994 (1994 No 1519)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance CA 8-Oct-1997
A driver who had crossed through a green traffic light but had collided with an ambulance was 60 per cent contributorily negligent. He had failed to hear the ambulance, had failed to see it, and had ignored unusal driving of other motorists.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217736

Molloy v Shell UK Ltd: CA 6 Jul 2001

Liability had been conceded by the defendant in the personal injury claim, but the defendant now appealed against the order that it should recover only 75% of its costs incurred after the date of a Part 36 payment made by it. The claimant claimed some andpound;68,000 for past losses and some andpound;232,000 for future loss of earnings from his employment working on the oil rigs. But a few days before the trial the defendant discovered that the claimant had indeed returned to work as scaffolder on the oil platforms some 3 years previously.
Held: Laws LJ said that it was ‘entirely plain that the claim had been grossly and deliberately exaggerated by him’, and ‘his particulars of claim were spectacularly dishonest.’ The claimant did not better the payment into court but even if that was wrong there was only one way in which the judge’s discretion as to costs could properly have been exercised and that was to award the defendant its costs. He added obiter: ‘The judge was obliged by Part 44.3(5) as I have said, to consider the whole of the party’s conduct. It does appear that he may have considered the respondent’s conduct only after the date of the Part 36 payment. If that is so he fell into error. At least since the particulars of claim filed on 20th September 1999 and until he was found out the respondent’s approach to this action has been nothing short of a cynical and dishonest abuse of the court’s process. For my part I entertain considerable qualms as to whether, faced with the manipulation of the civil justice system on so grand a scale, the court should once it knows the facts, entertain the case at all save to make the dishonest claimant pay the defendant’s costs.’

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Laws LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1272, [2002] PIQR P7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Widlake v BAA Ltd CA 23-Nov-2009
The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218330

North v TNt Express (UK) Ltd: CA 25 May 2001

The claimant, who was drunk and a member of a group of people in a similar condition, asked the defendant, a lorry driver, for a lift. When the defendant refused, the claimant climbed onto the front bumper of the defendant’s lorry, holding on by the windscreen wipers, rather than by an adjacent handle. The defendant twice asked the claimant to move and, when the claimant did not, the defendant drove off very slowly, intending to find a quiet spot away from the claimant’s companions where he could persuade the claimant to get off the lorry. After the lorry had travelled about 100 metres, one of the windscreen wipers became detached, the claimant fell off and, although the defendant braked immediately, the lorry struck the claimant, causing serious internal injuries.
The trial judge had found that there had been ‘no pressing need’ for the defendant to take such a potentially dangerous step as to drive off with the claimant standing on the front bumper of the lorry. He concluded that, in doing so, the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. He found that the defendant was liable to the extent of 25%, the claimant’s contributory negligence being assessed at 75%. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
Hale LJ said: ‘It is interesting that in this case, when discussing contributory negligence, the judge remarked that it was extraordinary that the claimant did not get off the lorry the moment it started to move, when it was going very slowly indeed, and as indeed one of his own witnesses had also wondered. The judge also commented that the driver, although in breach of duty, was put in a difficult situation and his was an error of judgment.
It seems to me that the judge in this case applied too rigorous a standard of care when asking himself whether what the driver had done was reasonable in all the circumstances. He referred, as I have indicated, to the fact that there was ‘not such a pressing need.’ Later on he referred to the fact that ‘the exigencies of the situation did not . . require’ the driver to drive the lorry down the road. That is putting it too high. It seems to me that had the driver indeed done what the claimant said he had done, that is driven in such a violent and erratic way as to indicate that he was trying to dislodge the claimant from the front of the lorry, there could indeed have been a breach of the duty of care because he would have been going well beyond what could be considered a reasonable reaction to the difficult situation in which he was placed. But one has to take all the circumstances of that situation into account when deciding whether what he did do was such a reasonable reaction. These include the fact that he was put into the dilemma by the claimant himself who was behaving in an offensive and thoroughly irresponsible fashion, displaying a complete lack of regard for his own safety, let alone for the difficult position in which he had put the driver and his mate. One also has to take into account the surrounding circumstances. It is was late at night (just after the closing time for this particular establishment), there was a reasonably large group of people on the pavement, some of whom at least were friends of the claimant, some of whom had obviously been drinking, and even if the others were not actually aggressive, the claimant was. The claimant’s intention may only have been to hold up the lorry for five minutes but the driver and his mate had no means of knowing that and were put in a very difficult situation. In those circumstances I would not consider it unreasonable to drive off very slowly with a view to stopping at some quieter spot away from the group to persuade the claimant to get off.
Furthermore, the judge could have taken more account of the fact that the claimant only fell off when he was engaged in an even more stupid and dangerous act of pulling at the windscreen wiper on to which he was holding. I would agree with Mr Kilcoyne on behalf of the respondent claimant that that does not necessarily rob the driving of all causative effect, but it does indicate something about the reasonableness of the driver’s conduct up until that point.
For my part I would say that there was in the particular circumstances of this case, in the very difficult situation in which the driver found himself, no breach of the duty to take reasonable care. For that reason I would allow the appeal.’

Judges:

Schiemann, Tucker, Hale LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 853

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ayres v Odedra QBD 18-Jan-2013
The claimant sought damages for serious personal injury, saying that the defendant had deliberately or recklessly driven at him as a pedestrian, knocking him over. The defendant had been tried and acquitted of motoring offences. He said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218195

Mutch v Allen: CA 22 Jan 2001

Defendant’s appeal against part of an order made on a pretrial review. The part of the order appealed against is that by which the judge reversed an order previously made in the action on the case management conference by which the defendant was allowed to put written questions to the claimant’s medical experts under the provisions of CPR Part 35.6

Judges:

Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 76, [2001] PIQR P26, [2001] CPLR 200, [2001] CP Rep 77

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217946

Lee v Williams: CA 23 Jan 2001

The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, and though he checked to his left did not see the claimant, but said the cyclist must have come straight out across the entrance. He now appealed a afinding that he was 100% responsible.
Held: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the claimant was found to be 40% responsibe.
Smith J discussed the factors arising because the claimant had been a cyclist on the footpath: ‘It seems to me that the fact that the Claimant was cycling had a bearing on this accident, firstly, because the front wheel of the bicycle, which is the first object which is liable to be hit in a collision of this sort, projects some two or three feet in front of somebody who is standing, as the Claimant was, astride the bicycle and if the bicycle is hit then, as happened here, the Claimant is liable to be knocked over and injured. So it makes him more vulnerable than a pedestrian.
Secondly, it seems to me that it had a bearing in this case because when the Claimant saw that the accident was likely to happen he tried to dismount from his bicycle by getting his other leg over the crossbar to get out of the way, but not surprisingly he was not able to do that. Standing astride his cycle he inhibited himself from getting out of the way, he also inhibited himself from moving the cycle back out of the path of the collision. Therefore in my view, although it was not the primary cause of this accident, it seems to me that the Claimant was himself at fault in two respects: in putting himself further into the road than was necessary from the point of view of ensuring that it was safe to cross, and in making himself more vulnerable in the two respects that I have described.
I think the Recorder was wrong to acquit him of all blame in this accident, nevertheless I think that the greater proportion of the blame should attach to the Defendant. After all a pedestrian or a cyclist is more vulnerable than somebody in a motorcar. If the Defendant had, as he ought to have done, anticipated that pedestrians might have been crossing here and might have been taking less care of themselves than they should have been, he would have looked sufficiently carefully, in my judgment, to see that it was safe to proceed.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (Epn) Plc and Others QBD 15-Jun-2010
The claimant cyclist sought damages for severe personal injury. He was walking or riding his cycle through some roadworks by the roadside, and fell out through roadside barriers into the path of a car. The defendants admitted that the path was less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217941

Clenshaw v Tanner and others: CA 27 Nov 2002

The claimant was a cyclist. He passed along inside a line of traffic, and collided with a lorry turning left into a petrol station ahead of him, suffering serious injuries. He appealed against a finding that the lorry driver had signalled and that he had not been watching where he was going.
Held: The claimant was lucky to have had found against him only the degree of contribution applied. The cyclist was in a racing position with his head down, and : ‘any cyclist who is taking reasonable care for his own safety knows that any vehicle turning left ahead of him will endanger him and he should therefore keep a particularly careful look-out.’ His appeal as to apportionment of liability was dismissed.
As to the disregard of housing benefits in calculating damages: ‘Parliament has not expressly provided that housing benefit shall be disregarded. The benefit was payable because the claimant’s qualifying need arose in consequence of the tort of which he was the victim. In my judgment, it must therefore follow as the judge found that the payments of housing benefit should be taken into account in reduction of the claim for loss of earnings to date.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Chadwick, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1848

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clarke v South Yorkshire Transport Ltd CA 19-Mar-1998
. .
Cited – Chapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
Cited – Hodgson v Trapp HL 10-Nov-1988
The question was whether the attendance and mobility allowances which were payable to the plaintiff pursuant to statute should be deducted from damages she had received for personal injury.
Held: They should be. Damages for negligence are . .
Cited – Cresswell v Eaton 1991
The mother was tortiously killed, the father was no longer on the scene, and an aunt had to give up work to look after the three children.
Held: There were two heads of claim; the ‘disbursement dependency’, representing the mother’s financial . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217804

Clarke v Taylor: CA 11 Nov 2002

Application for permission to appeal against the decision determining the quantum of damages awarded to the claimant in an action brought against the defendant arising out of a road traffic accident.

Judges:

Kay LJ, Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1874

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217803

Jackson v Qureshi: CA 29 Aug 2002

Application by claimant for permission to appeal from a judgment apportioning liability 50/50 for a road traffic accident in which the applicant was struck and seriously injured by a taxi whilst she was crossing the road.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1286

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217529

Anderson v Newham College of Further Education: CA 25 Mar 2002

Sedley LJ said that: ‘people do not always look where they are going.’ Where the claimant was wholly to blame for the accident and there could be no liability on the defendant colege.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 505, [2003] ICR 212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Burgess v Plymouth City Council CA 30-Dec-2005
The claimant fell over plastic lunch boxes at the school at which she worked as a cleaner. The judge had held that the school was in breach of the regulations, and was liable but the claimant was 50% contributorially negligent. The defendant argued . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216882

Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd: CA 17 Jan 2002

The defendant sought leave to appeal against findings as to liability and quantum in an action for personal injuries. The claimant was an agency worker at a petrol station. She slipped on spilled fuel. The judge found the floor slippy from a mixture of diesel and water. The defendant appealed saying the judge had found on a basis not put forward by the claimant.
Held: There was sufficient weight in the argument to allow the appeal to go ahead.

Judges:

Latham LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 37

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Application for leave to appeal – Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd CA 1-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216705

Betts v Tokley: CA 18 Jan 2002

The appellant fell whilst leaving the premises of the respondent, her employer, and sustained a serious fracture to her humerus. The County Court Judge concluded that she had fallen down some steps which should have been lit. He held that the respondent was accordingly in breach of his ordinary duty of care at common law, and the common duty of care owed to the appellant as lawful visitor. He also found her contributorily negligent to the extent of 60%. She now appealed against that apportionment.
Held: The appeal failed. She had ‘to establish that no reasonable judge could have come to such a conclusion if he is to succeed. The statement of facts which I have related indicates, of itself, that the appellant was clearly at fault in the way she approached the dark area. As the judge essentially put it, she pressed on regardless of the risk, and the risk was the risk of tripping or falling, which is what ultimately happened to her.’

Judges:

Buxton, Latham LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 52

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupier’s Liability Act 1997, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216683

Green v Vickers Defence Systems and Others: CA 12 Jun 2002

The deceased died after commencing a claim for personal injuries for mesothelioma. The action had been compromised with an agreement for a provisional consent order. After his death, his widow sought to claim on the basis as settled.
Held: Having settled the action on the basis that if the deceased developed the disease, he would be compensated on a full liability basis, it was not now open to the company to go back on that agreement. The parties could have formed an agreement which left open such questions, but they had not done so.

Judges:

Ward, Clarke, Collins LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-2002, Gazette 01-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Hurditch v Sheffield Health Authority CA 1989
The plaintiff claimed for exposure to asbestosis. The parties could not agree as to his prognosis, and he claimed provisional damages. A written offer for provisional damages was made and accepted. The plaintiff requested judgment lodging a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.174125

McCotter v McNally and Another (John J McNally and Co Solicitors): QBNI 24 Sep 2004

Solicitor’s claim for work related stress.

Citations:

[2004] NIQB 59

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Personal Injury

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216028

Exel Logistics Ltd v Curran and others: CA 30 Sep 2004

The claimants sought damages for personal injuries after a crash in a Land Rover maintained by the defendants. The defendants appealed findings of negligence in failing properly to inflate the rear tyres, in continuing despite the danger, and poor overtaking. A further fault was identified in that dirt in the front wheel had led to a split in the inner tube causing that to deflate on the journey.
Held: ‘In the real world, that in which the man on the Clapham omnibus used to operate, nobody would sensibly suggest that Mr Curran should have checked the correct tyre pressures of a company vehicle, seemingly in immaculate condition and, which he knew, was maintained by a Land Rover employee who was highly conscientious about the condition of the vehicle. ‘ The deflation of the front tyre was the precipitating cause, and would not have been noticed until the execution of a left turn. It was hard to choose between the ‘causative potency’ of the activating or precipitating cause and that of the dangerous and underlying instability at the rear to which it gave life. Liability was apportioned equally between the companies providing and maintaining the car.

Judges:

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld The Right Honourable Lord Justice Sedley and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 1249

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 27(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988 41A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tan Chye Choo and Ors v Chong Kew Moi PC 1970
Statutory obligations may indicate a standard of care, breach of which would be evidence of negligence. . .
Cited – Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co Ltd CA 1923
A breach of the regulation does not give rise to an action for damages. The distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance should no longer have significance. Atkin LJ said: ‘one who cannot be otherwise specified than as a person using the . .
Cited – Franklin v The Gramophone Company Ltd CA 1948
Compliance with statutory obligations, which may be of limited scope, does not necessarily absolve a defendant from liability in negligence. It is only if the section is ambiguous, unclear or open to two reasonable interpretations that its penal . .
Cited – Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .
Cited – Madden v Quirk QBD 1989
The plaintiff had been riding as a passenger in the open part of a pick up truck which crashed.
Held: The passenger contributed significantly (85%) to his own injuries by choosing an unsafe mode of travel. . .
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214647

Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust v King: CA 5 Jul 2002

The claimant was an ambulance worker. He had been assisting carrying a patient down stairs in a chair. He was injured when his colleague lost his grip, and he suddenly bore the full weight of the patient and chair. He alleged that under the regulations and the directive, the employer should have considered requesting the patient to be moved by the Fire Service.
Held: There was nothing to suggest that it would have been practicable to call the Fire Service. Giving greater prominence to that possibility in training would not have made a difference in this particular case. Though this case failed, another case might succeed for failure to provide appropriate equipment for the task to be undertaken.

Judges:

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 953

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Manual Handling Directive 1990 (90/269/EEC), Manual Handling Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2793)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.174303

Hone v Six Continents Retail Ltd: CA 29 Jun 2005

The employer appealed a finding that it was liable in damages for negligence to the claimant, and employee who suffered psychiatric injury cause by stress at work. He said he had been left to work very excessive hours, between 89 and 92 hours a week. No additional help was offered to him when other staff left or were re-assigned.
Held: ‘The significance of the Regulations is that, where an employee refuses to give his consent, an employer may not require the employee to work more than 48 hours per week. The plain and obvious purpose of the Regulations is to protect the welfare and health of employees. ‘ The company was found to be liable for the results of the stress placed on an employee on the basis of the very excessive hours worked in excess of the regulation hours.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 922, [2006] IRLR 49

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Mentioned – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Mentioned – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Islington London Borough Council v University College London Hospital NHS Trust CA 16-Jun-2005
The local authority sought repayment from a negligent hospital of the cost of services it had had to provide to an injured patient. They said that the hospital had failed to advise the patient to resume taking warfarin when her operation was . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Czarnikow (C ) Ltd v Koufos; The Heron II HL 17-Oct-1967
The vessel had arrived late at Basrah in breach of the terms of the charterparty. The House was asked as to the measure of damages. The charterers had intended to sell the cargo of sugar promptly upon arrival, and now claimed for the fall in the . .
Cited – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .

Cited by:

Cited – D v Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd QBD 23-May-2006
The claimant sought damages for stress incurred at work. She had suffered post natal depression and received counselling through her work and recovered. She suffered a second bout of depression after the birth of another child, but again was thought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231512

Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd: CA 1 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for leave to appeal – Holt v Holroyd Meek Ltd CA 17-Jan-2002
The defendant sought leave to appeal against findings as to liability and quantum in an action for personal injuries. The claimant was an agency worker at a petrol station. She slipped on spilled fuel. The judge found the floor slippy from a mixture . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.217419

Henser-Leather v Securicor Cash Services Ltd: CA 16 May 2002

The claimant was a security guard employed to collect cash from various sites. He was robbed and shot. The employer had not provided body armour nor encouraged its use. He appealed dismissal of his claim, which had been on the basis that since he was collecting relatively small sums of money, the risks were not high.
Held: The Regulations should not be read as a comfort to the employer. The particular claimant’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 816

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 15, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.217179

Raggett, The Executors of The Estate of v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Others: QBD 1 Jul 2016

Claim for personal injuries loss and damage brought on behalf of the estate of the late John Raggett deceased, pursuant to the provisions of the 1934 Act.

Judges:

Sir Alistair MacDuff

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1604 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.567068