Church v Ministry of Defence: QBD 23 Feb 1984

The 62 year old claimant sought damages after working in in the defendant’s dockyard and being exposed to asbestos. Pleural plaques were apparent on X-ray and the pleura would constrict the lung and induce breathlessness; and the asbestos must have passed through the lung to reach the pleura so that it was probable that there was some concurrent fibrosis. It was probable that there would be no future deterioration ‘but there is undeniably a substantial risk that, the condition having been stable for many years, there will suddenly be a marked progression of lung fibrosis with consequent effect on breathing and on health’. There was an extremely small risk of mesothelioma. For his part the claimant had worried ‘very considerably’. The defendant submitted that this dod not amount to injury. It was ‘undeniable that some physiological injury has been done’ but it was symptomless and unlikely to lead to future incapacity. The damage to the pleura and any damage to the lung should be regarded as minimal. No damages should be awarded for anxiety: it was not substantial and was not ‘attached’ to some physical cause. He cited Cartledge v E. Jopling.
Held: The cliam succeeded. The pleural plaques had to be considered in conjunction with damage that had probably been caused to the lungs; he could not, therefore, regard the damage as minimal. He regarded anxiety as the natural consequence of the radiological finding, so that it was justifiably ‘considerable’ for some months. Saying ‘I do not think I can rate the damages as being very substantial in this case’, he made a final award of andpound;1,500 general damages

Judges:

Pain J

Citations:

Unreported, 23 February 1984, (1984) 134 NLJ 623

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRothwell 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 . .
CitedSykes v Ministry of Defence QBD 19-Mar-1984
The claimant was exposed to asbestos whilst working for the defendant in the naval dockyard at Portsmouth, and sought damages having developed pleural plaques, but no further damage was expected, save ‘a slightly increased risk of developing a lung . .
CitedJohnston 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 . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238193

Patterson v Ministry of Defence: QBD 29 Jul 1986

The plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos when working for the defendant. X-rays revealed development of pleural plaques, but these would remain asymptomatic.
Held: Material damage sufficient to set time running was the same as damage necessary to complete a claimant’s cause of action in negligence. The court rejected arguments that this was yet insufficient damage: ‘I have no doubt whatever that the Plaintiff has suffered material damage. It consists of the symptom – free pleural changes, the risk of pleural thickening deteriorating with the consequences I have indicated, the risk of mesothelioma developing and the understandable worry attendant upon these matters.’ A provisional award was made: ‘I therefore have to value in combination (a) the present symptom-free pleural changes; (b) the 5%-odd risk of further diffuse changes developing so as to aggravate the plaintiff’s breathlessness, and (c) the anxiety which the plaintiff entirely understandably, and in my judgment reasonably, has hitherto suffered, in particular over the last two years, and to a far more limited degree, the worry he may still experience in the future, even though, as I have sought to emphasize, these future risks are really very small. Doing my best to arrive at a figure which accords reasonably with the scale established by Church and Sykes, both now 2 years old, and with my own views upon the particular facts of the instant case, I assess such damages in the sum of andpound;1,250. There will accordingly be judgment for the plaintiff for damages in that sum assessed on the assumption that the plaintiff will not develop mesothelioma at any future stage.’
‘[S]ymptom-free pleural changes’ could not, of themselves, constitute significant damage for the purpose of founding a cause of action but ‘In deciding whether material damage has been caused it is appropriate to have regard not merely to actual physical manifestation of injury, but also to whatever risks consequent upon the original injury may exist of future symptoms becoming manifest’

Judges:

Simon Brown J

Citations:

Unreported 29 July 1986, [1987] CLY 1194

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDarley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell HL 1886
The owner of land whose land was affected by subsidence in 1868 and who received compensation from those who had worked coal and caused the subsidence, was able, in 1882 when further subsidence took place causing further injury, to bring a fresh . .
CitedPirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .

Cited by:

CitedRothwell 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 . .
CitedJohnston 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 . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation, Damages

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.238189

Badger v The Ministry of Defence: QBD 16 Dec 2005

The widow of the deceased sought damages after his exposure to asbestos whilst working for the defendant. He had contracted lung cancer. The defendant argued that the deceased had continued to smoke knowing of the risks, and that he had made a significant contribution to his getting lung cancer.
Held: The damages should be reduced by 20% to allow for the deceased’s contribution to his condition. Though smoking increased by a factor of ten the chances of getting lung cancer, as opposed to the factor of five from exposure to asbestos, the latter gave rise to other doiseases, including asbestosis which was contracted by the claimant. Foreseeability of injury from smoking can be inferred from the general knowledge of the risks associated with smoking, particularly since the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packets in 1971. The apportionment of damages if necessary after finding that contributory negligence was established, was to be approached on the ‘broad jury like and commonsense way.’

Judges:

Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-2005, [2005] EWHC 2941 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 173

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Contributory Neglience) Act 1945 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFroom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .
CitedJones v Livox Quarries CA 25-Apr-1952
The plaintiff had ridden on the back of a kind of tractor in a quarry and in defiance of his employer’s instructions, risking being thrown off and injured. Another vehicle ran into the back of the first vehicle, injuring the plaintiff. He contended . .
CitedO’Connell v Jackson CA 7-Jul-1971
Motorcyclist negligent without helmet
The plaintiff sought damages after an accident. The defendant car driver had negligently moved forward into the path of the plaintiff motor cyclist who was injured. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was contributorily . .
CitedDavis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council HL 19-Apr-1956
Effect of Contract Frustration
The defendant appellants contended that their construction contract was frustrated because adequate supplies of labour were not available to it because of the war.
Held: The court considered how the frustration of the performance of a contract . .
CitedStapley 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 . .
CitedBoothman v British Northrop Ltd CA 1972
Once relevant fault on the part of the plaintiff has been established, a reduction on account of his fault in the damages recoverable is obligatory Stephenson LJ: ‘Speaking for myself, I do not find that the words of section 1(1) of the Law Reform . .
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .

Cited by:

CitedSt George v The Home Office CA 8-Oct-2008
The claimant was taken into prison. He was known to be subject to epilepsy, with high risks on withdrawal from drugs, but was allocated a high bunk. He had a seizure and fell, suffering head injuries. He sought damages in negligence. The defendant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.236705

Dermot Gerard Richard Walsh v Andre Martin Misseldine: CA 29 Feb 2000

The claimant sought damages for injuries from 1989. His claim was pursued effectively, but a four-year delay ensued after 1994. He then sought to enlarge his claim greatly by introducing a lot of new issues of which the defendant’s insurers had no notice when they calculated the value of the claim in the early 1990s for the purposes of a payment into court CPR 3.1(2)(a) and 3.1(3)(a) give the court power to extend time for compliance with a rule subject to conditions. The court declined to strike out his claim despite the considerable delay on condition that the claimant was limited to prosecuting his claim on the basis of his case as it stood before the long period of delay commenced. ‘Although CPR 3.1(a) expressly preserves the courts’ inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse, this is a residual long-stop jurisdiction. The main tools the courts have now been given to exterminate unnecessary delays are to be found in the rules and practice directions and in the orders they may make from time to time.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 61, [2000] All ER (D) 261

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) 3.1(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
CitedSarah Lloyd Jones and others v T Mobile (Uk) Ltd CA 31-Jul-2003
The claimant challenged a stautory notice. The Act required the notice to be fixed to the structure in question, but because of its location, the notice was not legible without going on to private land.
Held: Appeal lay here from the County . .
CitedDi Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135784

Cape Distribution Ltd v Aine O’Loughlin: CA 8 Feb 2001

The company appealed the calculation of an award of damages to the respondent following the death of her husband, a former employee. The deceased had operated a company in Ireland as a property developer. The company alleged that the earnings were not directly dependent upon his input, but upon capital and otherwise.
Held: Such assessments were notoriously dependent upon the particular facts of the case. Here the judge had correctly looked at the cost of buying in professional services to replace those of the deceased and otherwise.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge, And Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 3(1), Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWood v Bentall Simplex Ltd CA 1992
No aspect of the law of damages has been found in practice to be more dependent on the facts of each particular case than the assessment of loss of pecuniary benefit to dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135583

Sally Rall v Ross Hume: CA 8 Feb 2001

A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the obligations which would apply to other documents as to disclosure and inspection. Application for the use of such material must be made at the first practicable opportunity. Where video evidence is available which, according to one party substantially undermines the case of the other, it should be admitted to allow cross examination on it.
Potter LJ said: ‘For the purposes of disclosure, a video film or recording is a document within the extended meaning contained in CPR 31.4. A defendant who proposes to use such a film to attack a claimant’s case is therefore subject to all the rules as to disclosure and inspection of documents contained in CPR 31. Equally, if disclosure is made in accordance with CPR 31, whether as part of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 or the duty of continuing disclosure under CPR 31.11, the claimant will be deemed to admit the authenticity of the film unless notice is served that the claimant wishes the document to be proved at trial. If the claimant does so, the defendant will be obliged to serve a witness statement by the person who took the film in order to prove its authenticity. If the claimant does not challenge the authenticity of the film, however, it is, in the absence of any ruling by the court to the contrary, available to the defendant for the purposes of cross-examining the claimant and/or the claimant’s expert medical witnesses at court.’
and ‘It is therefore necessary in the interests of proper case management and the avoidance of wasted court time that the matter be ventilated with the judge managing the case at the first practicable opportunity once a decision has been made by a defendant to rely on video evidence obtained.’
Where the authenticity of such evidence is not challenged: ‘the issue was whether or not the defendant should be prevented from exercising what prima facie was his right to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting to her for her comment such parts of the video as the defendant thought appropriate for the purposes of undermining her case . . In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush.’

Judges:

Potter LJ

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001, Times 14-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 146, [2001] 3 All ER 248, [2001] CPLR 239, [2001] CP Rep 58

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 31.4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones v University of Warwick CA 4-Feb-2003
The claimant appealed a decision to admit in evidence a tape recording, taken by an enquiry agent of the defendant who had entered her house unlawfully.
Held: The situation asked judges to reconcile the irreconcilable. Courts should be . .
CitedDouglas v O’ Neill QBD 9-Feb-2011
The defendant sought permission to adduce CCTV evidence taken secretly. The claimant sought an order for the footage not to be used being an attempt at trial by ambush.
Held: The defendant’s application succeeded. There had been no breach of . .
CitedO’Leary v Tunnelcraft Ltd 2009
Surveillance took place over a long period of time but was not disclosed until a short time before a settlement meeting and trial. The claimant objected.
Held: The court identified this as a form of trial by ambush. From the time of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135585

Richard Thurber Carlson v Karen Townsend: CA 10 Apr 2001

A claimant’s solicitor did not like the advice given by a medical expert whose identity had been agreed with the other side and then sought to instruct a different expert without obtaining the other side’s agreement first. They sought to draw a distinction under the protocol between a jointly instructed medical aexpert and one jointly selected.
Held: It was not the aim of the Pre-action protocol to deprive a claimant of the opportunity to obtain confidential pre-action advice about the viability of his claim, which he would be at liberty to discard undisclosed if he did not agree with it. There is no hint in the protocol that its authors intended the parties’ solicitors to instruct the acceptable expert on a joint basis

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 511, [2001] 3 All ER 663

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCauston v Mann Egerton (Johnsons) Ltd 1974
The common law has always recognised a privilege in communications, such as medical reports in personal injury cases, which come into existence when litigation is contemplated, if they have been made with a view to such litigation. The court has no . .

Cited by:

CitedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135502

Morgan v William Dixon Ltd: HL 13 Nov 1911

It is not a matter of law but is a question of fact for the decision of the arbiter whether the demand of a workman, who is to be medically examined on the employer’s behalf, under section 4 of the First Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, that his own doctor shall also be present at the examination, is reasonable ( diss. Lord Shaw).

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 45, 49 SLR 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619216

Barnes v Nunnery Colliery Co Ltd: HL 11 Dec 1911

The dependant of a deceased workman claimed compensation from his employers. The circumstances of the workman’s death are narrated in the judgment of Lord Mersey as follows-‘William Francis Barnes, a boy of seventeen, was employed at the Nunnery Colliery as a ‘clamper.’ In the early morning of the 2nd May last he and three other boys, Greaves, Bell, and Thackeray, were starting for the end of a level, known as 5 South Level, where they were to work. This place, which was some distance from the spot where they were gathered together, ought in the proper course of work to have been approached on foot. But there existed near to the footway an endless rope carrying tubs to the lower part of the mine. This rope was about to start. It had thirty-eight empty tubs attached to it, and was in charge of Greaves, who sat in the front tub. At the moment of starting, the other three, of whom Barnes was one, got into the tub in which Greaves was seated in order that they might ride to their work instead of walking. The train was then started by Greaves. After it had travelled about half a mile Barnes’s head came in contact with the roof of the mine, with the result that he was killed. The others, who had probably travelled in this way before, avoided the danger by stooping in
the tub. It appeared that Barnes had not previously ridden in the tub, and that he had only been in the employment of the colliery company about three weeks. The evidence shows that it was quite a common practice for boys to ride in the tubs in order to get to their work, but it also appears that the use of the tubs for this purpose was forbidden, and that notices to this effect were placed at the pit bottom and in the lamp room. There is also a special rule of the colliery-rule 90-forbidding workmen to use the tubs. All the boys, including the deceased, knew that they ought not to ride in the tubs, and boys in fact never did ride in them if any deputy or official of the colliery could see them. They then walked.’
The County Court Judge held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, and awarded compensation. This judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Farwell, L. J., diss. Fletcher Moulton, L.J.). The dependant appealed.
Held: Where an act committed imprudently or disobediently by a workman is different in kind from anything which he is required or expected to do, and is also put outside the range of his service by a genuine prohibition, an accident which he thereby suffers does not arise out of his employment.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 688

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619219

Airbus Operations Ltd v QBE Insurance Company (UK) Ltd and Another: Admn 14 Dec 2012

The defendants sought to have the claimant committed for contempt, alleging that in exaggerating his symptoms, he had sought to inflate the amount of his damages claim.
Held: Contempt was found. Some of the allegations were found to have been proved. He had delliberately misled the doctors as to the extent of his medical condition: ‘there can be no doubt that it [his behaviour] was intended to persuade the court to find that he was seriously and permanently disabled and to award him damages to which he was not properly entitled. Had it not been for the surveillance evidence, it is very likely that that statement, supported by what he had told the doctors, would have led to his being awarded a substantial sum in damages to which he was not entitled. We therefore find that the defendant was in contempt of court in making a statement which he knew to be false with a view to influencing the outcome of the proceedings.’

Judges:

Moore-Bick LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3631 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedIn re Bramblevale Ltd 1970
For reasons of policy or pragmatism, the actual criminal standard of proof may be used in civil proceedings such as contempt of court. Contempt of court is a criminal offence. Accordingly, the burden of proving that the defendant is in contempt . .
CitedFairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510727

Harcourt v FEF Griffin and others: QBD 27 Jun 2007

The claimant sought damages after being very severely injured whilst training in gymnastics at the defendant’s gym. The parties now disputed the existence of an obligation to discover to the claimant the nature and extent of insurance to cover the claim and its costs.
Held: The matter should be disclosed. This was a high value claim, and the existence of insurance was directly relevant to any award of interim damages.

Judges:

Irwin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1500 (QB), [2007] PIQR Q9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271250

David v Honeywell Normalair-Garrett Ltd: QBD 2 Mar 2006

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries arising from exposure to depleted uranium whilst working for the defendant. An earlier claim had been compromised. The defendant denied liabilty and relied also on the compromise.
Held: The evidence from expert witnesses was conflicting, but there was no sufficient evidence of exposure of the claimant to depleted uranium, or that his condition was caused by exosure to depleted uranium at his place of work. Furthermore the compromise agreement had been effective to defeat this claim.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 351 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Management of Health Safety at Work Regulations 1992, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985, Factories Act 1961

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238932

Sykes v Ministry of Defence: QBD 19 Mar 1984

The claimant was exposed to asbestos whilst working for the defendant in the naval dockyard at Portsmouth, and sought damages having developed pleural plaques, but no further damage was expected, save ‘a slightly increased risk of developing a lung cancer and a definite increased risk of developing mesothelioma’. The plaintiff also sought damages for his anxiety.
Held: The change in the structure of the pleura constituted by the pleural plaques amounted to a ‘significant and definite degree of damage’ which could not be treated as minimal or negligible and which entitled the plaintiff to compensation as he had established ‘actual damage.’ Rejecting the defence that this did not yet constitute damage: ‘there has been a definite change in the structure of the pleura due to the presence of the asbestos. In my judgment that amounts to a significant and definite degree of damage which entitled the Plaintiff to compensation as he has established actual damage . . he is entitled to be compensated not only for the physical damage . . but also for the aspect of anxiety which seems to me to have a connection with physical damage, to be entirely genuine and thoroughly understandable in a person who has worked in such conditions and has known his workmates to die in the circumstances that he has described. I have also come to the conclusion that he is entitled to be compensated for the risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma.’

Judges:

Otton J

Citations:

Unreported, 19 March 1984, Times 23-Mar-1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedChurch v Ministry of Defence QBD 23-Feb-1984
The 62 year old claimant sought damages after working in in the defendant’s dockyard and being exposed to asbestos. Pleural plaques were apparent on X-ray and the pleura would constrict the lung and induce breathlessness; and the asbestos must have . .

Cited by:

CitedRothwell 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 . .
CitedJohnston 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 . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238194

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another: QBD 15 Feb 2005

The claimant had been exposed to asbestos whilst employed by the defendant and sought damages for the pleural plaques which had developed as a consequence. The defendant replied that such plaques and pleural thickening were not a sufficient injury to found a claim.
Held: The defendants were liable. The defendants focussed wrongly on the pleural plaques: ‘I start by rejecting any notion that pleural plaques per se can found a cause of action. I am not satisfied that for forensic purposes they can be categorised as a ‘disease’ nor as an ‘impairment of physical condition’. This whole forensic exercise arises because for practical purposes there is no disease, nor is there any impairment of physical condition.’ As to the associated anxiety: ‘I am satisfied that when, as in the instant cases, anxiety is engendered by tortiously inflicted physiological damage it can properly contribute to ‘damage’ or ‘injury’ so as to complete the foundation of a cause of action. It becomes that which is routinely encompassed in ‘pain and suffering’ or ‘loss of amenity’. I take it to be beyond dispute that a continuing anxiety engendered by a tortiously inflicted external scar can contribute to the compensatable injury and I see no logical difference between that situation and such that arises in the instant situation.’ and ‘ . . , I cannot myself regard as minimal the presence of asbestos within the body that is permanent, raising a possibility (albeit no higher than that) of the future onset of asbestosis or the even more daunting mesothelioma,’

Judges:

Holland J Mrs

Citations:

Unreported, 15 February 2005, B3/2005/0528, MA324838, 4NE05336, NE301177, CH301273, HQ309X00927, HQ4MY00912

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRothwell 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 . .
At first instanceJohnston 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, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238192

Cameron and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the defendant after the death of her father in the Potters Bar rail crash. The defendant applied for summary judgment saying that English law did not recognise a claim by a family member of a deceased save through the claim of the estate itself. The claimant said that this would deny her human rights, and sought a declaration of incompatibility with regard to s1A of the 1976 Act.
Held: ‘It is within the reasonable margin of appreciation of the State to limit those who are entitled to claim compensation to those who are financially dependent on the deceased. Who otherwise should say where the line should be drawn between those who may claim from those who may not? ‘ The claimants had also lost any possibility of a claim through limitation.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1133 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, Human Rights Act 1998, Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1A, Railways Act 1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedMiddleton, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the Western District of Somerset HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had committed suicide in prison. His family felt that the risk should have been known to the prison authorities, and that they had failed to guard against that risk. The coroner had requested an explanatory note from the jury.
CitedFoster and others v British Gas plc ECJ 12-Jul-1990
The defendants (BGC) were nationalised suppliers of gas. BGC was by statute a body with a legal persona operating under the supervision of the authorities. Its members were appointed by the Secretary of State, who also determined their remuneration. . .
CitedParochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Human Rights, Personal Injury, Transport, Health and Safety

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

Christmas v Caledonian Club: 1952

A window cleaner. employed by independent contractors, came to clean the windows of a club. One window was defective, falling onto and trapping his hand, causing him to fall.
Held: He had no cause of action against the club. The landowner was concerned to see that the windows are safe for his guests to open and close, but he need not be concerned to see that they are safe for a window cleaner to hold on to. The risk of a defective window is a special risk, but it is ordinarily incident to the calling of a window cleaner, and so he must take care for himself, and not expect the householder to do so.

Citations:

[1952] 1 KBD 141

Cited by:

CitedRoles v Nathan CA 15-May-1963
Two chimney sweeps were overcome by fumes, and died in the basement of the Manchester Assembly Rooms. Whilst occupied working in flues (against advice), a boiler had been lit.
Held: (Majority – Pearson LJ dissenting) The land-owner’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568157

Greene v Chelsea Borough Council: CA 1954

Lord Denning MR said: ‘Knowledge or notice of the danger is only a defence when the plaintiff is free to act upon that knowledge or notice so as to avoid the danger’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1954] 2 QBD 127

Cited by:

CitedRoles v Nathan CA 15-May-1963
Two chimney sweeps were overcome by fumes, and died in the basement of the Manchester Assembly Rooms. Whilst occupied working in flues (against advice), a boiler had been lit.
Held: (Majority – Pearson LJ dissenting) The land-owner’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Land, Negligence

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568158

Worsley v Tambrands Ltd: CA 3 Dec 1999

The claimant sought damages following injury after the use of tampons. The matters were all defended. The judge, in an attempt to restrict the costs, agreed to hear a preliminary issue as to the adequacy of the warnings given.
Held: Such decisions should only be interfered with where clearly wrong, but in this case, the issues could not be taken out of order, and the issue of causation was not settled.

Judges:

Ebsworth J

Citations:

Gazette 17-Dec-1999, Times 11-Feb-2000, [1999] EWHC 273 (QB), [2000] PIQR P95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Protection Act 1987 1 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Consumer, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90614

Van Oudenhoven v Griffin Inns Ltd: CA 4 Apr 2000

When awarding damages to a claimant who lived abroad, it would not be correct to apply a lower discount rate, so as to award a higher level of damages to reflect the different taxation regime in that country which would take a greater share of the damages. This was not an exceptional circumstance which would allow departure from the rule.

Judges:

Lord Justice Tuckey, Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Stuart-Smith

Citations:

Times 10-Apr-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 102, [2000] All ER (D) 463

Links:

Gazette, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90121

Staples v West Dorset District Council: CA 5 Apr 1995

There was no duty of care on a landowner to warn of obvious danger on Lyme Regis Cobb. The quay clearly dangerous for anyone to see.

Citations:

Gazette 11-May-1995, Times 28-Apr-1995, [1995] PIQR 439, [1995] EWCA Civ 30

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89496

Steadman v Scholfield and Another: QBD 6 May 1992

A jet ski is neither a boat nor a vessel. The maritime limitation rules did not therefore apply to an accident involving a jet ski. The applicant could therefore claim full damages.

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992

Statutes:

Marine Conventions Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89518

Fisher v Walker, Cooper v Walker: 16 Jun 1862

The defendant occupied a house adjoining to a public street, with a cellar belonging to it, which cellar had existed before the defendant had anything in the house, The mouth of this cellar opened into the footway of the street by a trap door. During the day this trap door was open, but at night it was closed by a flap, which slightly projected above the footway, and it had so projected as long as living memory went back, The plaintiff, coming along the footway at night, stumbled over this flap, fell, and sustained injury, for which he brought an action.
Held: that the jury ought to draw the conclusion that the cellar flap had existed as long as the street, and that the dedication of the way to the public was with the cellar flap in it, and subject to its being continued there; and, therefore, that the defendant was not liable, as the maintenance of such an ancient cellar flap was not unlawful.

Citations:

[1862] EngR 814 (A), (1862) 2 B and S 770

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.286980

Ruddy v Marco and others: SCS 25 Jul 2008

Citations:

[2008] ScotCS CSIH – 47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See AlsoRuddy v Monte Marco and Another SCS 7-Mar-2008
. .
CitedBarber 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.

Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.271112

Morgan v Liverpool Corporation: CA 1927

The tenant claimed that he had been injured when as the upper portion of a window was being opened one of the cords of the window sash broke and the top part of the window slipped down and caught and injured his hand. The plaintiff admitted that the defect was latent one (of which the plaintiff did not know and about which accordingly he could not give any notice) but it was contended that (there was a statutory obligation on the landlord which was different from that contained in an ordinary covenant and that in the Act, there were no words requiring that any notice should be given to the landlord. He said that L failed to perform the statutory obligationn that the house would be ‘kept in all respects reasonably fit ‘for human habitation.’ L had a right to enter the property to inspect its condition.
Held: L was not liable. Liability would be conditional upon his having been given notice of any defects even though they were latent ones. The right to enter to inspect did not change this.
Lord Hanworth MR said that it was long established that where there is a covenant on the part of a landlord to keep premises in repair the tenant must give notice to the landlord of what is out of repair. Notice was required whether or not the landlord had means of access. The fact that the origin of a covenant was statutory did not give the covenant any higher authority than one inserted in a contract by the parties.
Atkin LJ said: ‘Here is a case of something which arose quite suddenly. It is possible that a very careful inspection of the window cords might have revealed the state in which they were, but there are many other defects which arise quite suddenly, leaks quite suddenly spring up in joints of water pipes and gas pipes, and so on, and to say that the landlord is responsible for the consequences of those not being in repair in circumstances in which no time could have elapsed between the time when the defect first arose and the time when the injury from it occurred, would certainly be to impose a very harsh obligation upon a landlord which the Courts do not impose except subject to a condition that he must receive notice of the defect. To my mind in those circumstances it is clear that, if the landlord gives the exclusive occupation to the tenant, the landlord does not in fact know, and in this case could not know of the defect.’
In ordinary circumstances L’s obligation to repair does not come into existence until he has notice of the defect which his contract to repair requires him to make good: ‘I think the power of access that is given, extensive though it may be, does not take the case away from the principle from which the Courts have inferred the condition that the liability is not to arise except on notice. The position is quite a satisfactory one, because as soon as the tenant is aware of the defect he must then give notice, and if the landlord does not repair it, the landlord will be liable. If in fact the tenant is not able to ascertain the defect, there seems to be no reason why the landlord should be exposed to what remains still the same injustice of being required to repair a defect of which he does not know, which seems to me to be the real reason for the rule. This was a case in which notice was not given to the landlord. As I have said, it appears to me that, as soon as the defect became so known by the fall of the sash, the tenant was able to give notice to the landlord and did give notice. In my view the landlord then became under a liability to repair in the circumstances of this case, because if he did not, the house would be in a state not in all respects fit for human habitation ; but as no notice was given, I think the landlord was not liable.’
Lawrence LJ said: ‘On the question of notice I am in complete agreement with the judgments delivered by the Master of the Rolls and Atkin LJ and have very little to add. In my opinion the established rule is that the obligation of the landlord to keep the premises in repair is not broken unless notice has been given to him of the want of repair, and that mere knowledge is not sufficient to saddle the landlord with liability. The foundation of such rule is that the tenant in occupation is generally in a far better position to know of any want of repair. I am further of opinion that for the reasons stated by Atkin LJ the rule applies to latent as well as to patent defects, and certainly applies to the defect which existed in the present case.’

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR, Atkin LJ, Lawrence LJ

Citations:

[1927] 2 KB 131

Statutes:

Housing Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedMcCarrick v Liverpool Corporation HL 1947
Premises’ Defect – No Notice Liability on L
The tenant’s wife was injured falling from defective stone steps leading from the kitchen to the back kitchen of the house. Under section the 1936 Act, the judge found the house not to have been kept in the state required. No notice of want of . .
CitedO’Brien v Robinson HL 19-Feb-1973
The plaintiffs sought damages after being injured when the ceiling of their bedroom fell on them. They were tenants of the defendants.
Held: The 1961 Act implied a duty on L to keep in repair the structure. What was meant by ‘keep in repair.’ . .
CitedCunningham v Birmingham City Council Admn 6-May-1997
The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural . .
CitedEdwards v Kumarasamy SC 13-Jul-2016
The claimant sub-tenant had been injured entering the block of apartments. He said that the freeholder was responsible despite no report of the disrepair having been made. The lease excused the landlord from unnotified liability. The parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259929

Peskett v Portsmouth City Council: CA 25 Jun 2002

The defendant had land across which a path ran. It had a right angled turn, and users cutting across wore away the land causing a dip, where the claimant tripped and fell. She claimed damages. The council accepted that the short cut was regularly taken, but said there had been no previous incidents or complaints, and appealed a finding of 50% liability for contributory negligence.
Held: The judge had been entitled to apportion liability as he had. The council had not been free to assume users would always succeed in avoiding the dangers. All such cases fall to be determined on their own facts.

Judges:

Lords Justice Pill and Potter

Citations:

Gazette 04-Jul-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1175

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers Liabilities Acts 1957, Occupiers Liabilities Acts 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.217313

Regina v Ministry of Defence, Ex Parte Walker: CA 5 Feb 1999

The scheme provided by the Ministry of Defence to compensate soldiers for being injured by criminal acts did not cover a wound inflicted by a shell fired from a tank whilst on peacekeeping duties. This was akin to a war injury.
Auld LJ said: ‘there is no irrationality in the Ministry’s adoption of the Scheme in its original or amended form. The purpose of the exclusion is to produce as nearly as possible some parity in the recovery of compensation for crime by military personnel abroad with that available to those injured by crime at home. To achieve that, it seeks to remove from the Scheme a feature peculiar to the life of a member of the armed services abroad in a theatre of war or where there is military activity between warring factions, but not present at home, the risk of injury from warlike behaviour. In my view also, the Ministry was entitled to develop the Scheme with the problems of the type posed by Bosnia particularly in mind, just as it was entitled to take the view that the circumstances in Northern Ireland were materially different from those in Bosnia so as to warrant different policies for the two territories.’

Judges:

Auld, Chadwick LJJ, Sir Christoper Staunton

Citations:

Times 11-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 726, [1999] PIQR Q168, [1999] 1 WLR 1209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Walker Admn 9-Feb-1998
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s request for judicial review of the refusal of the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme. He was injured serving as a United Nations Peacekeeper in Bosnia, from a single round fired into the block by a . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Walker HL 6-Apr-2000
The Ministry of Defence operated a scheme for compensating soldiers serving abroad who were injured as a result of criminal activity. The claimant, whilst serving on a peace-keeping mission in Bosnia, was injured when a hut was hit by a shell fired . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Armed Forces

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85413

Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc: HL 30 Jun 1998

In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might create claims.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Times 30-Jun-1998, [1998] UKHL 25, [1998] 3 All ER 462, [1998] 1 WLR 1189

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appeal fromAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
See AlsoICI Plc v Colmer (Inspector of Taxes) HL 15-Mar-1996
A ‘Holding company’ under the Act meant a company resident in the UK; A reference was made of the issues to the European Court. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toAnne Margaret Pickford v ICI CA 2-Aug-1996
A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84731

Murrell v Healy and Another: CA 5 Apr 2001

Documents held by an insurance company after settling a personal injuries claim by the same claimant but as regards a later unconnected claim were admissible, since they went to an issue in the later case, namely the nature and extent of the injury from the first occasion. They were admissible even though they had been used as part of without prejudice negotiations.

Judges:

Waller, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

Times 01-May-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 486, [2001] 4 All ER 345, [2002] RTR 2

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84140

Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another: CA 23 May 2000

Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor’s duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site’s main contractor.

Judges:

Mantell LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 171, [2000] BLR 287

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEH Humphries (Norton) Ltd. Thistle Hotels Plc v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd CA 10-Nov-2006
The sub-contractor’s workman fell through a skylight and died. His employers having settled, obtained contribution orders from the main contractors and building owners who each now appealed.
Held: Whether main contractors were also liable to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83341

McNulty v Marshalls Food Group Ltd: OHCS 7 Jan 1999

(Scotland) The pursuer had no pre-existing degenerative condition of his lower spine, although he had degenerative changes in his cervical spine. As a result of an accident he sustained a prolapsed inter vertebral disc in his lumbar spine as a result of which he required a discectomy, and he also sustained an injury to his neck which precipitated symptoms of pain and restriction of movement.
Held: The English decision in Wells v Wells on the calculation of lump sums to be awarded for future care and loss of earnings is to be applied in Scotland. It had included consideration of a Scottish case which previously applied.

Citations:

Times 07-Jan-1999, [1998] ScotCS 35, 1999 SC 195

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedWells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .

Cited by:

CitedIseabal Emslie v Anne Bell OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The defender had driven into the back of the pursuer’s car, causing the injuries. She claimed that the accident had aggravated a pre-existing slight injury to her knee.
Held: The pursuer’s accounts of her injuries had not been entirely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83581

Jebson v Ministry of Defence: CA 28 Jun 2000

The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents occurring whilst drunk, the rule is not absolute. The defendant had assumed some responsibility to the claimant, and that responsibility did not disappear only because of the claimant’s drunkenness. This was an organised night out from an army training camp. Ignoring any particular duties, the defendant would know that the troops were being carried in a lorry with a tailgate, and that the drunken soldiers might be expected to stand up in the back. It was foreseeable that injury (whether slight or serious) would occur as a result of the drunken and rowdy behaviour of the passengers, including the danger that someone would fall from the vehicle as a result, such wider risk being apt to include within its description the accident which actually happened. Though the defendant was liable, the claimant was still largely the author of his own misfortune and was 75% responsible for his own injuries.

Judges:

Kennedy, Potter LJJ, Steel J

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000, Gazette 13-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 198, [2000] 1 WLR 2055

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHaynes v Harwood CA 1935
The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
CitedJolley 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, . .
CitedHughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
CitedBarrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995
The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . .
CitedSacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary and others CA 15-May-1998
The claimant a seventeen-year-old youth who had been arrested during a drunken brawl, kicked his way out through the door of the police van in which he was being transported and jumped out while it was moving at about twenty-five mph striking his . .

Cited by:

CitedCook v Thorne and Another CA 23-Jan-2001
. .
CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Cheshire County Council CA 18-Jun-2001
The appellant sought leave to appeal against an order dismissing his claim for damages. He had been injured swimming in water on the defendant’s land. The defendant asserted that they had no duty of care to those who came onto the land and imperiled . .
CitedCalvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008
The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The defendant company had a policy for achieving responsible gambling, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82503

Jones (A Minor) v Wilkins (Wynn and Another, Third Parties): CA 6 Feb 2001

Where a child had not been properly restrained by a seat belt, the damages should be reduced but not by a great percentage. Here, although the child was partially restrained by sharing her mother’s lap belt, in fact this had made the injuries worse. Nevertheless, the genuine cause of the accident was the defendant’s driving, and the damages should not be reduced by more than 25%. Froom v Butcher remained valuable guidance. Although it was decided under the earlier Act, the wording in the new Act was strikingly similar.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 06-Feb-2001, [2000] EWCA Civ 3024, [2001] PIQR P12, [2001] RTR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFroom v Butcher CA 21-Jul-1975
The court asked what reduction if any should be made to a plaintiff’s damages where injuries were caused not only by the defendant’s negligent driving but also by the failure of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt. It had been submitted that, since . .

Cited by:

CitedWilliams v Williams (The Estate of) CA 30-Apr-2013
A child aged three had been injured as a passenger in her mother’s car when it was hit by another negligently driven vehicle. The mother appealed against a finding that she was 25% contributorily negligent in that the child seat used had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82585

Kinnear and Others v Falconfilms Nv and Others: QBD 27 Jan 1994

The actor Roy Kinnear died on being thrown from a horse while making a film in Spain. His widow sought damages from the fim company who in turn sought to issue a third party notice against those involved in Spain.
Held: A third party claim with a sufficient nexus may bring a main claim with Brussels Convention.

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-1994, [1994] EWHC QB 1, [1996] 1 WLR 920, [1994] 3 All ER 42, [1994] ILPr 731

Links:

Bailii

International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82801

Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 20 Dec 2000

The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not otherwise have done. The duty was a target duty, rather than an absolute one. The absence of advance warnings of a Give Way duty at a junction was within that discretion. It might be that a common law duty could arise to promote road safety, but only in truly exceptional circumstances. ‘so far as section 39 of the 1988 Act is concerned, we would accept that there can be circumstances of an exceptional nature where a common law liability can arise. For that to happen, it would have to be shown that the default of the authority falls outside the ambit of discretion given to the authority by the section. This would happen if an authority acted wholly unreasonably.’

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2001, Gazette 22-Feb-2001, (2001) RTR 469, [2000] EWCA Civ 359

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Road Traffic Act 1988 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .

Cited by:

CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council CA 2-May-2002
The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority’s negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A ‘Slow’ sign had become faded and had not been maintained.
Held: The judge had . .
CitedGreat North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited QBD 30-Oct-2003
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty.
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedJane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Local Government

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82953

Haiselden v P and O Properties Ltd: CA 28 May 1998

Where one party was a litigant in person and the other was legally represented, the legal advisers had a duty to inform the court and the other party where a patent mistake had been made. The small claim had been referred to full hearing by mistake and not to arbitration. The claim for andpound;1000 by the LIP was mistakenly tried rather than arbitrated as a small claim, the award of costs against plaintiff should be set aside. It was wrong of a legally assisted party to take advantage.

Judges:

Thorpe, Mantell LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jul-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCH Civ 773

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81137

Griffiths and Others v British Coal Corporation and Another: CA 27 Feb 2001

The interest payable on an award of damages for past loss of earnings for personal injury was liable to be subject to the deduction rules applying in respect of benefits paid. Such interest fell within the definition of ‘compensation for earnings lost’ as defined in the Act.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 336

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81044

Edwards v Peter Black Healthcare (Southern) Limited: CA 10 May 1999

A defendant in a personal injury case, who asserted that the plaintiff’s injuries as described in the claim form did not fit those described by the plaintiff’s medical expert, must accept the onus of proving that point.

Citations:

Times 27-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1369

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80266

Daniels v Walker: CA 3 May 2000

Counsel should not advance arguments under the Human Rights legislation which were without merit, and judges should be robust in rejecting references without merit. Where one party was unhappy with a joint expert’s report, he should nevertheless be free to appoint his own further expert in order to have a fair trial.

Judges:

Aldous, May LJJ

Citations:

Times 17-May-2000, Gazette 31-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 508, [2000] PIQR 193, [2000] CPLR 462, [2000] 1 WLR 1382

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79798

Coxon v Flintshire County Council: CA 13 Feb 2001

The guidelines on damages for psychiatric damage did not apply to the damages claims of those who had been subjected to sexual abuse whilst children in local authority care homes. The injury in these cases was of a different character, and the Judicial Studies Board guidance could not be applied simply. In these cases there was often suffering over many years, and the injury was not a compounding of a pre-existing condition.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v The Archbishop of Birmingham QBD 30-Jun-2005
Assessment of damages following child abuse by Catholic priest.
Held: General damages of andpound;50,000 were in line with Coxon and were approved. A had not been shown to be, and is not, incapable of managing his affairs. The court differed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79589

Cachia and Others v Faluyi: CA 11 Jul 2001

The words of the section had to be construed so as to make it compatible with the human rights convention. Accordingly the term ‘action’ in the Act was to be interpreted to mean an action where a writ was served. Children whose mother had been killed, had the human right to claim compensation for their loss of dependency. Whilst it was legitimate to impose certain restrictions on access to the courts, the effect of the words of the statute had not been considered or intended, and the court would read the section so as to make it compatible with the Act.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2001, Gazette 19-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78816

Caisse De Pension Des Employes Prives v Kordel et Al Case C-397/96: ECJ 22 Oct 1999

Where a citizen was injured in one member state, but resided and claimed benefits in another, the rights against the person who caused the injury had to be assessed under the law of the member state in which the accident took place, but a state claiming subrogation could not claim more than the amounts of benefits it actually paid in accordance with its own law.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1999

Personal Injury, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78827

Burke v Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh National Health Service Trust: OHCS 8 Jun 1998

A 26 year old man who had no pre-existing condition sustained damage to his lumbar spine in a fall. He suffered from constant lumbar pain and also sudden shooting pains through his left buttock and thigh to his knee. He developed an abnormal pain disorder, and was forced to retire from work on medical grounds about nine months after his accident.
Held: Where an accident victim had a pre-disposition to suffer pain and inability to work despite absence of actual physical cause, the psychological damage was claimable in damages.

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1998, 1999 SLT 539

Cited by:

CitedIseabal Emslie v Anne Bell OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The defender had driven into the back of the pursuer’s car, causing the injuries. She claimed that the accident had aggravated a pre-existing slight injury to her knee.
Held: The pursuer’s accounts of her injuries had not been entirely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Scotland, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78751

Burrows v Vauxhall Motors Ltd; Mongiardi v IBBC Vehicles Ltd: CA 19 Nov 1997

After acceptance of money paid into court in proceedings issued unnecessarily quickly, the taxing officer alone has the power to disallow costs.
Powers of the County Court to deal with costs unnecessarily incurred as the result of the premature issue of proceedings in personal injury actions where liability was not in issue.

Judges:

Lord Woolf

Citations:

Gazette 10-Dec-1997, Times 17-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2756

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

County Court Rules 1981 Order 11 r 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRidehalgh v Horsefield; Allen v Unigate Dairies Ltd CA 26-Jan-1994
Guidance for Wasted Costs Orders
Guidance was given on the circumstances required for the making of wasted costs orders against legal advisers. A judge invited to make an order arising out of an advocate’s conduct of court proceedings must make full allowance for the fact that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78763

Margaret Patricia Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority: QBD 21 Jan 2000

The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.

Judges:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-2000, Times 01-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC QB 178

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toBriody v St Helens and Knowlsey Area Health Authority CA 29-Jun-2001
The appellant had claimed and been awarded damages for a negligently performed caesarean operation. She had been refused damages for the cost of later going to California to go through a commercial surrogacy procedure.
Held: Such claims were . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBriody v St Helens and Knowlsey Area Health Authority CA 29-Jun-2001
The appellant had claimed and been awarded damages for a negligently performed caesarean operation. She had been refused damages for the cost of later going to California to go through a commercial surrogacy procedure.
Held: Such claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78586

Black v Braer Corporation and Others: OHCS 12 Oct 1998

A person claiming under the Act was able to claim not only for physical damages suffered as a result of breach of the Act but also for psychological harm suffered. Wrong to limit damage to physical harm once liability admitted for personal injury.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 1 12

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78432

Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others: CA 1 May 2001

The discretion of a judge to deal with a case at the close of the claimant’s case, and without putting the defendants to their respective election was only to be exercised with the greatest caution. There was a risk that, if the claimant appealed successfully, an entire re-trial could result with considerable extra expense. ‘The course taken by the judge of deciding the case following the hearing of the claimant’s evidence without putting the defendants to their election is one which calls, on any view, for considerable caution.’ ‘If no election is extracted, then there is the risk, as here, that if the claim is dismissed, there may be a successful appeal against the judge’s view of the merits, and the matter may then have to be remitted, quite likely to a different judge, for a complete retrial. ‘

Judges:

Mance LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 692

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlexander v Rayson CA 1936
The action was for arrears of rent. The evidence at trial was that the plaintiff granted a lease to the defendant at a rent of andpound;1200 and contracted that certain services in connection with the flat would be performed. The plaintiff sent the . .
AppliedMullen v Birmingham City Council QBD 29-Jul-1999
Under the new rules, judges were required to take greater control over court proceedings, and accordingly had the power to entertaining a submission of no case to answer at the close of the claimant’s case and without first requiring the defendant . .

Cited by:

CitedMiller (T/A Waterloo Plant) v Cawley CA 30-Jul-2002
At the end of the claimant’s case the defendant wished to submit that there was no case for her to answer. The judge then put the defendant to an election as to whether or not she would call any evidence. She appealed.
Held: It is not . .
CitedBenham Limited v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2003
The appellant complained that the judge had accepted a case of no case to answer before the close of the claimant’s case and without putting them to their election. The claimant estate agents sought payment of their account. The defendants alleged a . .
CitedLloyd v John Lewis Partnership CA 1-Jul-2001
The judge allowed the defendant’s submission of no case to answer without putting them to their election and again the claimant’s appeal succeeded. The trial judge had been persuaded that the rule in Alexander -v- Rayson had been altered by the . .
CitedNeina Graham v Chorley Borough Council CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant had submitted after the close of the claimant’s case that it had no case to answer. The judge did not put the defendant to its election as to whether to call evidence, but instead decided to accede to the submission. The claimant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78524

Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd: CA 30 Mar 2001

It was appropriate to reduce the interest discount rate used to calculate damages awards in personal injury cases for future losses, from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. This reflected the general reduction in such interest rates since the Act came into effect. The House of Lords had set down guidelines for the discount rate to be applied on the award of damages for future losses. The decision had been expressed to apply only until the Act was put into effect. The parties sought to argue that they were not bound since the limitation was not essential to the decision, and the Lord Chancellor was thought to be about to announce a rate under the Act. The Court of Appeal stated that whilst guidelines were not immutable principles of law, they were clearly to be applied, and the time scale, set down in the judgement, was just as much part of the guidelines as the rate.

Judges:

Hnry, Judge, Hale LJJ

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-2001, Gazette 01-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBarry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd QBD 22-Mar-2000
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff’s delay. . .
CitedWells v Wells; Thomas v Brighton Health Authority; etc HL 16-Jul-1998
In each of three cases, the plaintiffs had suffered serious injury. They complained that the court had made a substantial reduction of their damages award for loss of future earnings and the costs of future care.
Held: The appeals succeeded. . .

Cited by:

CitedEagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
CitedTortolano v Ogilvie Construction Ltd SCS 21-Feb-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78259

M (a child) v Leeds Health Authority: QBD 2002

The claimant, her brother and her parents had lived in a detached house before the relevant negligence occurred, but thereafter had moved into a bungalow purchased and adapted to meet her needs. The defendant sought to deduct, during the period (to the age of 25 years) for which the claimant was expected to share the house with her family, the value to the claimant’s parents of having a house provided free of charge for the whole family.
Held: The argument was rejected: ‘I come back to the basic proposition, which is that this is a compensation claim made on behalf of M. It is intended to compensate her for the effects of her disability. While she, for the purposes of this calculation, notionally lives at home with her parents until the age of 25, it seems to me that she is in no different position from any child who could not reasonably be expected to go out into the market place and buy accommodation.’
The defendant argued also for a deduction of the value of the property that, if the claimant had not been injured, she would have been likely to have purchased herself when she left home. Sullivan J accepted that such a deduction was appropriate from the time when the claimant could have been expected to leave the family home and acquire her own accommodation.

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2002] PIQR Q46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567516

Almeroth v WE Chivers and Son Ltd: CA 1948

The plaintiff peddler had his barrow by one kerb. He crossed the road to serve a customer, but on return when crossing the kerb from a roadway tripped over a small pile of slates and was injured. The slates did not overlap the kerb. They had been left there for collection as part of the clearance of war damaged buildings.
Held: The slates were a nuisance, even though they made no substantial obstruction.
The plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The slates ‘might easily not be noticed by a reasonably careful person crossing the road as the plaintiff did’, talking to someone. Somervell LJ said that a person walking along a pavement does not have to keep ‘his eyes on the ground to see whether or not there is any obstacle in his path’.
The ordinary principles of causation in tort are applicable to an action in nuisance. The obstacle was capable of being a nuisance despite its small size.

Judges:

Somervell LJ

Citations:

[1948] 1 All ER 53, 92 Sol Jo 71

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHarper v GN Haden and Sons CA 1932
The occupier of a ground floor and basement shop sought damages from the tenants of the upper floors. In order to construct an additional storey, they had erected scaffolding and a hoarding which obstructed the highway outside the plaintiff’s . .

Cited by:

CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.517227

Brown v Nelson and others: 1971

A pupil at an approved school went on an Outward Bound course including riding on a cable and pulley slung between two trees. From the cable hung a knotted rope. When the pupil got onto the rope the cable snapped, and he fell with it. He suffered serious injuries from which some years later he died. The Outward Bound confidence course was run by parties independent of the school.
Held: The claim was dismissed against the school. Nield J said: ‘What duty did the school authorities owe to the deceased? They were not the occupiers of the site or of the apparatus. They had, in my view, a general duty to take reasonable steps for the safety of those under their charge and use such care as would be exercised by a reasonably careful parent. Counsel tell me that there is no authority covering the situation where a school makes use of someone else’s equipment at premises other than the school premises. In my judgment, where a school must take their pupils to other premises, they discharge their duty of care if they know the premises and if the premises are apparently safe, and if they know that the premises are staffed by competent and careful persons. They further discharge their duty if they permit their pupils there to use equipment which is apparently safe and is under the control of competent and careful persons who supervise the use of such equipment. They do not in such circumstances have an obligation themselves to make an inspection.’

Judges:

Nield J

Citations:

[1971] LGR 20

Cited by:

CitedWoodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445619

The Esso Malaysia: 1974

A Russian seaman died as the result of a collision in international waters between two foreign registered vessels. His family sought to claim here.
Held: The benefit of the Fatal Accidents Acts can, in principle, be claimed by a foreigner. The rule which imposed liability for negligently causing a fatal injury was a universal rule of the law maritime. Brandon J declined to express any view on the applicability of the 1846 Act to deaths occurring abroad or in territorial waters.

Judges:

Brandon J

Citations:

[1974] 3 WLR 341, [1975] 1 QB 198

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedDavidsson v Hill CA 1901
Ships collided at sea. The negligent crew were aboard the British ship. A crew member on the Norwegian ship died in the collision, and his family sued here.
Held: The family had a right of action against the defendant owners of the British . .

Cited by:

CitedRoerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
CitedCox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
CitedCox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.449036

Berry v Stone Manganese and Marine Ltd: 1972

The plaintiff sought damages in common law negligence respect of noise at work which ‘amounted to about 115 to 120 decibels, whereas the. . tolerable noise is about 90’ and no ear muffs had been provided.
Held: The claim succeeded.

Citations:

[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 182

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.440380

Edwards v National Coal Board: CA 1949

A regulation encompassed a requirement to take specified action, so far as it is reasonably practicable, in order to prevent danger. Asquith LJ discussed the term: ”Reasonably practicable’ . . seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.’

Judges:

Asquith LJ

Citations:

[1949] 1 KB 704

Cited by:

CitedAustin Rover Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Inspector of Factories HL 1990
The relevant factors in the phrase the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ are the foreseeable risk of injury and the cost of the preventive measures. ‘Sections 2 and 3 impose duties in relation to safety on a single person, whether an . .
CitedMann v Northern Electric Distribution Ltd CA 26-Feb-2010
Climb over high fence was unforeseeable
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages after suffering very severe injury when climbing onto an electricity substation. He said that the defendant had not satisfied its statutory obligation to fence off the substation. The . .
CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others CA 5-Jun-2009
The court considered a request that one of the three judges (Sedley LJ) recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias. It was a case claiming damages for personal injury in the form of hearing losses incurred at work. Sedley LJ was Hon President of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.401956

Armstrong, Whitworth and Co Ltd v Redford: HL 1920

Lord Wrenbury said: ‘I have long since abandoned the hope of deciding any case upon the words ‘out of and in the course of’ upon grounds satisfactory to myself or convincing to others’.

Judges:

Lord Wrenbury

Citations:

[1920] AC 757

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346527

Smith v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd: HL 1940

The Regulations imposed an absolute obligation from the words ‘all staging . . shall be maintained.’ Lord Atkin said: ‘It is precisely in the absolute obligation imposed by statute to perform or forbear from performing a specified activity that a breach of statutory duty differs from the obligation imposed by common law, which is to take reasonable care to avoid injuring another.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin

Citations:

[1940] AC 242

Statutes:

Shipbuilding Regulations 1931 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346525

Hamilton v National Coal Board: HL 1960

A duty to maintain involves an obligation to keep the thing in proper order by acts of maintenance before it falls out of condition, in a state which enables it to serve the purpose for which it exists.
Lord Jenkins said: ‘Were it not for the presence in the Act of 1937 of the definition of the word ‘maintained’ quoted above, which has no counterpart in the Act of 1954, I would have no hesitation in regarding the case of Galashiels Gas. Co. Ltd. v Millar as sufficient to conclude the present question in the appellant’s favour. The process of construing one statute by reference to another, and treating decisions on the meaning of the latter as determining the construction of the former is a process which should be applied with caution. But in the present case the language, the subject-matter and the intent of (for example) section 24 (1) of the Act of 1937 and section 81 (1) of the Act of 1954 are so closely allied that (apart from the ground of distinction afforded by the omission from the Act of 1954 of the definition contained in the Act of 1937, whatever it may be worth) it would, to my mind, be clearly wrong to give the words ‘properly maintained’ in section 81 (1) a different meaning from that which has been authoritatively assigned to precisely the same words in comparable provisions of the Act of 1937. I confess I would not willingly attribute this to my mind untoward effect to the absence from the Act of 1954 of the definition of the Act of 1937. It would, as I think, be manifestly absurd if the same statutory language applied to two precisely similar machines with precisely similar defects contracted in precisely similar circumstances should give rise to a breach of statutory duty with respect to one of them, but not with respect to the other, merely because the locus in quo was in the one case a mine and the other a factory.’

Judges:

Lord Jenkins, Lord Keith of Avonholm

Citations:

[1960] AC 633

Statutes:

Mines and Quarries Act 1954

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith v Northamptonshire County Council HL 20-May-2009
The claimant, a health care worker was visiting the home of a client when she fell from a defective wheelchair ramp and suffered injury. She sought damages from her employer.
Held: Her appeal failed (Lord Hope and Lady Hale dissenting). The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346526

Joyce Andrews v Initial Cleaning Services Limited McDougalls Catering Foods Limited: CA 14 Jul 1999

Employees of one company were injured whilst working cleaning the premises of another. The issue was as to apportionment of the personal injury damages between the two companies.
Held: There was an error of approach by the Recorder entitling the Court of Appeal to interfere with the apportionment. The defendant employer’s duty was not delegable, and their substantial presence in the premises placed a duty upon them to check the safety of the premises and was a very significant factor in any proper apportionment. Where employees of a company were working at a remote site, the employers retained the primary responsibility for ensuring that a safe place of work and method of work were provided, even when this extended to the condition of fittings at the remote premises. In this case the employers had 75 per cent and the owners of the building 25 per cent responsibility.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Laws

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 18-Aug-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1831

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBritish Fame v MacGregor (‘The MacGregor’) HL 1947
Two ships had collided. One party sought to appeal the apportionment of damages.
Held: The House considered the reluctance of an appellate court to interefere with an apportionment of damages applied by the court at first instance: ‘It seems . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77796

Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI: CA 2 Aug 1996

A failure to provide guidance to employee resulting in repetitive strain injury. A prescribed disease PDA4 of RSI type was found. The issue was causation not forseeability.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Aug-1996, Gazette 23-Oct-1996

Citing:

Appealed toPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc HL 30-Jun-1998
In the absence of conclusive evidence establishing a cause of a condition, the judge was free to find that causation was not established and that the claim was lost. There was no necessary obligation on an employer to have procedures which might . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77802

Alexander and Others v Midland Bank Plc: MCLC 26 Aug 1998

(Mayor’s and City of London Court) In claim for repetitive strain injury for typists in absence of obvious physical damage was on balance not psychosomatic. Plaintiffs could show more than passing pain and discomfort and the scheme of work imposing heavy burden was the cause.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Aug-1998

Citing:

CitedWalker 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:

Appeal fromAlexander and others v Midland Bank Plc CA 22-Jul-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77715

Brown v North British Steel Foundry Ltd: OHCS 1968

The 1954 Act passed on 4 June 1954 but was not to affect any action or proceeding if the cause of action arose before that date. The Lord Ordinary found that the pursuer who sought damages for pneumoconiosis did not begin to suffer from until 1955. But the pursuer contended that the injury had been done to his lungs by 1949 because he had been inhaling dangerous dust for some years before that and, as subsequent events showed, he was susceptible to pneumoconiosis in 1949. So the cause of action had arisen at that date. The First Division of the Court of Session rejected that argument.
Held: Lord President Clyde said that there was no cause of action in 1949 and added: ‘To create a cause of action, injuria and damnum are essential ingredients. In the present case there is no evidence of any injuries to the workman’s lungs in 1949. He had then merely a deposit of dust in his lungs, which might or might not subsequently create an injury. But, in addition, he had then sustained no damnum. He could not then have been awarded damages for any loss, because at that stage he had sustained no loss of wages and had suffered none of the discomforts and disabilities which, he avers, followed upon the onset of pneumoconiosis and which in fact flowed from the outbreak of that disease in 1955.’

Judges:

Lord President Clyde

Citations:

1968 SC 51

Statutes:

Law Reform (Limitation of Actions etc) Act 1954

Cited by:

CitedJohnston 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 . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.260124

Arafa v Potter: CA 1994

Staughton LJ said: ‘We have been referred to the guidelines of the Judicial Studies Board. They are not in themselves law; they form a slim handy volume which anyone can slip into their briefcases on their way to the County Court or travelling on Circuit. But the law is to be found elsewhere in rather greater bulk. In this Court we ought to look to the sources rather than the summary produced by the Judicial Studies Board.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

[1994] PIQR 73

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237589

Mitchell v Mulholland (No. 2): CA 1972

The plaintiff was severely injured, and recovered substantial damages. andpound;20,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, and andpound;21,350 for nursing care. The court declined to adjust the award for anticipated inflation: ‘an award of damages for personal injury should not reflect the possibility of continuing inflation.’

Judges:

Widgery LJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoMulholland v Mitchell HL 1971
The House was asked whether to re-open an assessment of damages where there had been a very marked change in the injured person’s situation shortly after the trial. There was no suggestion of fraud. The Court of Appeal had decided to admit the fresh . .

Cited by:

CitedCunningham v Harrison CA 17-May-1973
The plaintiff had been severely injured, and would need nursing care for the rest of his life. His wife nursed him until her death, but had given a statement that if not for her two full time nurses would be required. His employer continued to pay . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225260

Woodrup v Nicol: CA 1993

To decide the reasonableness of private medical and related expenses, regard must be had to section 2(4) [of the 1948 Act], which entails: ‘if, on the balance of probabilities, a plaintiff is going to use private medicine in the future as a matter of choice, the defendant cannot contend that the claim should be disallowed because National Health Service facilities are available. On the other hand, if, on the balance of probabilities, private facilities are not going to be used, for whatever reason, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim for an expense which he is not going to incur.’

Judges:

Russell LJ

Citations:

[1993] PIQR Q104

Statutes:

Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 2(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDixon v Were QBD 26-Oct-2004
The claimant and others were being driven by the defendant. All had drunk, and none wore seat belts. The claimant sought damages for his injuries. General damages were agreed, and the issue was as to loss of future earnings.
Held: The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.219086

Anderson v Davis: QBD 1993

The court referred to the judgment in Francis -v- Bostock: ‘That judgment of Russell J., as he then was, has been followed in other cases and it is with some trepidation that I decided not to follow it here, for the following reasons. First, in a case like this, which is one where any wise plaintiff without financial or investment expertise would be bound to require skilled advice on the management of his fund, I can see no difference, in principle, between an expense which is necessary under the Rules of the Supreme Court or pursuant to the direction of the judge on the one hand, and an expense which is enforced by circumstance, or which will probably be enforced by circumstance, save that the Court of Protection fees are bound to be judged as reasonable expenses, whereas other management fees may or may not be judged to be reasonable, in all the circumstances. Secondly, if the plaintiff has, in commonsense and good judgment, to spend management fees to use his fund to provide true compensation, that seems to me to be part of the economic loss which the Court is enabling him to recover. Put another way, if he does not take such management advice, at a cost to him, the reality is that the award will not compensate him as the Court intends it to do my making its award of damages.’

Judges:

Rodger Bell QC

Citations:

[1993] PIQR Q87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not FollowedFrancis v Bostock 8-Nov-1985
The court considered the question of whether the court should award the additional costs of receiving investment advice to deal with an award of damages: ‘The award I make is compensatory. The whole object of the exercise upon which I have embarked . .

Cited by:

CitedEagle (By Her Litigation Friend) v Chambers CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been severely injured, and a substantial damages award made. Cross appeals were heard as to the several elements awarded. The claimant sought as part of her award of damages for personal injuries the fees she would have to pay to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200636

McWhinney v British Coal Corporation: 1993

A 41 year old man claimed that as a result of an accident, he was able to walk only 50 yards at a time and that with the assistance of a stick, and who was described as being for all practical purposes unlikely to ever work again.

Citations:

1993 SLT 467

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIseabal Emslie v Anne Bell OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The defender had driven into the back of the pursuer’s car, causing the injuries. She claimed that the accident had aggravated a pre-existing slight injury to her knee.
Held: The pursuer’s accounts of her injuries had not been entirely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages, Scotland

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200618

Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd: 1994

A fourteen year old boy died three days after he had been crushed by a reversing vehicle. The appellants were informed of the accident soon after it occurred and went to the hospital. The boy was seen in the ambulance and as he was rushed to the Intensive Care Unit the parents stayed with their son during the two days he was on the life support machine and saw him grievously injured. When there was no significant improvement the father bravely took upon himself the task of switching off the life support machine. The parents’ claim failed.
Held: The appeal failed.The mother had a dawning consciousness that they were going to lose their son and he declined to extend the notion of proximity to this ‘elongated process’. The court rejected the argument that the post-accident treatment continued up to the time of this boy’s death. Moreover on the medical evidence the real psychiatric damage resulted from grief at their son’s death and the parents’ illnesses were not shown to have been caused by the shocking events relied upon.

Citations:

[1994] PIQR 329

Cited by:

CitedNorth Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E’s . .
CitedLiverpool Women’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne CA 17-Jun-2015
The respondent was an experienced ambulance driver. His wife underwent emergency treatment at the appellant’s hospital. He had claimed as a secondary victim for the distress he suffered witnessing her suffering.
Held: The hospital’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183346

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Staten: 1972

The words of the scheme should be given ‘their ordinary sensible meaning’

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 569

Statutes:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board IHCS 9-Feb-2000
The petitioner appealed a refusal of his claim for compensation. He was a serving police officer injured whilst arresting an offender. He had retired on medical grounds and received pensions, which the Board found deductible from any award reducing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181848

Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd: HL 1979

The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He could not do so. He was not prejudiced by the primary limitation period since he had properly issued his initial claim within it; there was accordingly no discretion to be exercised under section 33 which by subsection (1)(a) postulates that the primary limitation provisions ‘prejudice the plaintiff’. The court may not exercise its power to disapply the ordinary time limit in a personal injury action under section 33 of the Limitation Act where the plaintiff had brought an action before the expiry of that limit and was bringing a second action in which the application under section 33 was being made.
Lord Diplock: ‘So, to entitle the court to give a direction under [section 33(1)], there must be some prejudice to the plaintiff and the cause of that prejudice must be the requirement under [section 11] that he should start his action before the expiry of the primary limitation period.
My Lords, in my opinion, once a plaintiff has started an action (the first action) within the primary limitation period it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that he would be able to bring himself within section 2D in respect of a second action brought to enforce the same cause of action. If the first action is still in existence, as it was in the instant case when the matter was before the Master or the judge, cadit quaestio; he has not be prevented from starting his action by section 2A or section 2B at all, so the provisions of those sections cannot have caused him any prejudice. Does it make any difference if the first action is no longer in existence at the time of the application under section 2D either because it has been struck out for want of prosecution or because it has been discontinued by the plaintiff of his own volition? In my view, it does not. These are self inflicted wounds. The provisions of section 2A caused him no prejudice at all; he was able to start his action. The only cause of the prejudice to him in the case of dismissal for want of prosecution is dilatoriness which took place after the action was started whether on his own part or on the part of his legal advisors. In the case of discontinuance the only cause of prejudice is his own act.
The only exception I have been able to think of where it might be proper to give a direction under section 2D, despite the fact that the plaintiff had previously started an action within the primary limitation period but had subsequently discontinued it, would be a case in which the plaintiff had been induced to discontinue by a misrepresentation or other improper conduct by the defendant; but there is no suggestion of this in the instant case.
I would allow the appeal upon the ground that Mr Walkley, having previously started an action for the same cause of action within the primary limitation period prescribed by [section 11], cannot bring himself within section 2A at all. Any application by him under that section would fail in limine.’ and ‘Despite the use of the phraseology ‘an action shall not be brought,’ it is trite law that technically the Limitation Act does not prevent the commencement of an action by the Plaintiff after the limitation period has expired. What it does is to provide the defendant with a cast-iron defence if he chooses to avail himself of it; which he may do either by pleading it or, in a case where the action is in indisputably statute-barred, by taking out a summons to have it dismissed as vexatious. For the sake of brevity, however, I shall speak of the effect of the expiry of a primary limitation period as preventing the starting of the action.’
HL Wilberforce L: ‘My Lords, as a matter of principle I have very great difficulty in understanding how in this case or indeed in any case that I can imagine where an action has been started within the normal limitation period, section 2D can be invoked at all. The section opens with the words:
‘(1) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which- (a) the provisions of section 2A or 2B of this Act prejudice the plaintiff . .
The provisions of section 2A are those which require an action for personal injuries to be brought within three years. So subsection (1)(a) must be contemplating a case in which, because the three years have expired without an action being brought, section 2A applies to the prejudice of the plaintiff. But if the plaintiff has brought his action within the three years, how has he been prejudiced by section 2A? This I fail to understand. If this argument is sound, the respondent’s case fails in limine. He brought his first action within the normal limitation period, and if he has suffered any prejudice, it is by his own inaction and not by the operation of the Act. However, since the Court of Appeal did not decide the case on this argument, or, it seems, consider it, and since the provision is a new one, understanding of which may have to come with time, I will consider the appeal on the assumption that these initial words may apply to the case.’
Viscount Dilhorne: ‘In my opinion this appeal should be allowed for it cannot be said that it was the provisions of section 2A (that is to say, the imposition of the three year period after which an action such as this cannot be proceeded with without the directions of the court) which prejudiced the respondent when within that period he brought an action for damages for the same personal injuries and in respect of the same cause of action as in his second action. He was prejudiced by his delay in proceeding with the first action and by his discontinuance of that action, not by the provisions of section 2A.’

Judges:

Wilberforce Lord, Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 606, [1979] 2 All ER 548

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1963

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Dimsey; Regina v Allen CA 14-Jul-1999
A deeming section could create a taxation liability, even where the liability appeared to be duplicated. The clause under which the foreign income of a company came to be chargeable did not affect the existing liability to pay tax on the sums so . .
Appeal fromWalkley v Precision Forgings Ltd CA 1978
The plaintiff appealed the strict application of the limitation laws against his claim. He had been injured whilst working as a grinder. He began one claim which lapsed, and began a second claim outside the limitation period, requesting the court to . .
CitedFirman v Ellis CA 1978
Writs had been issued within the limitation period, but then allowed to lapse.
Held: Section 2D gave a wide discretion to the court which was not limited to a residual class of case or to exceptional cases.
Ormrod LJ said: ‘The appellants . .

Cited by:

CitedPiggott v Aulton (Deceased) CA 29-Jan-2003
The claimant had issued proceedings against the deceased after his death, but before a personal representative had been appointed. They later discontinued and re-issued against the person appointed by the court to defend the action. The defendant . .
CitedBarry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
ExplainedDeerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd HL 1983
The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries as a passenger in a car, and a writ was issued within the three-year period against the driver and the owner of the car whose insurers made a substantial interim payment. The writ was not served, nor . .
CitedForward v Hendricks CA 6-Dec-1996
. .
CitedShapland v Palmer CA 23-Mar-1999
The plaintiff’s car was struck by a company car driven by the defendant in the course of her employment and she sought damages. Her action, against the employer, was struck out as late under the 1980 Act. She then commenced an action against the . .
ExplainedThompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
CitedMcevoy v AA Welding and Fabrication Ltd CA 15-Dec-1997
Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period is itself ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been issued variously without consent against a company in liquidation.
Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to . .
CitedWhite v Glass CA 17-Feb-1989
The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant . .
DistinguishedRe Workvale Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 8-Apr-1992
A limited company was correctly restored to the register from dissolution so that its insurers could face an arguable claim. Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period was ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been . .
CitedClay v Chamberlain QBD 2002
The claimant sought the judge’s discretion to disapply the rule in Walkley. The judge characterised the defendant’s conduct as ‘though not improper, sufficiently blameworthy to result in a situation which was at any rate analogous to an estoppel and . .
CitedHerbert George Snell and others v Robert Young and Co Limited and others CA 21-Nov-2002
The claimants had sought damages for poisoning from organophosphates used in sheep dipping. Evidence linking the injuries to the use of the chemicals had not been found, and the actions struck out as an abuse of process. The group litigation had . .
Confined to its factsJacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action . .
DiscussedChappell v Cooper CA 1980
The plaintiff’s writ had not been served within the required time, and it had become too late to extend its validity. The plaintiff isued a second writ. The defendant argued limitation. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to distinguish Walkley on the . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
OverturnedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
DistinguishedRose v Express Welding Ltd CA 21-Jan-1986
. .
CitedHartley v Birmingham City District Council CA 1992
The writ was issued one day late; there had been early notification of the claim; and the defendant’s ability to defend the case was unaffected. The plaintiff asked the court to exercide its discretion to allow the claim t proceed.
Held: The . .
CitedMcDonnell and Another v Walker CA 24-Nov-2009
The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in . .
CitedAktas v Adepta CA 22-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, when a claim was issued towards the very end of a limitation period, but was then not served, and the claim was struck out, CPR Part 7.5(1) gave a further four months in which it could be resurrected at the discretion of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.179321

Green v Argyll and Bute Council: SCS 28 Feb 2002

Judges:

Lord Bonomy

Citations:

[2002] ScotCS 56

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedWalker 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.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.168783

Taylor v O’Connor: HL 1970

The appellant driver had caused a car accident in 1965, in which the respondent’s husband died. The respondent sought damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts for herself then aged 52 and for her 18 year old daughter. The husband died aged 53 and a partner in a successful firm of architects. His life expectancy on death was 18 years, and of the respondent 21 years. After tax, his income was pounds 7,500 per year up to retirement. Under the partnership deed he would have to leave some part of his income in the partnership as working capital and at the time of the death this amounted to pounds 10,000 and during the rest of his working life as a partner he would have left pounds 1,500 per year in the firm. When assessing damages the trial judge, holding that he might have continued as a full partner beyond the normal retirement age, or may have continued as a consultant, ruled that the husband would have continued to enjoy a net spendable income of pounds 6,000 per annum for the remainder of his life. The dependency of the respondent and the daughter were estimated at pounds 4,000 profit. Pounds 250 was to be deducted in respect of the accelerated benefit from the savings of pounds 10,000; tithe dependency for the purposes of the award of Damages was reckoned at pounds 3,750 per annum. The judge increased the proposed multiplier to allow for inflation. To the resulting song of pounds 45,000, the judge added pounds 9,000 as the present value of pounds 18,000, being the product of pounds 1,500 left in the firm for each of the 12 years. The Court of Appeal had refused to disturb the trial award. The driver now appealed against quantum.
Held: There were no grounds for interfering with the amount of Damages awarded by the trial judge.
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest, Viscount Dilhorne, and Lord Pearson said that prospective inflation is not a valid reason for increasing a multiplier.
Lord Reid and lord Dilhorne said that in assessing the effect of the incidence of tax on and awarded damages, any private income of the recipient should be ignored.

HL

Judges:

Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest, Viscount Dilhorne, and Lord Pearson,

Citations:

[1970] 1 All ER 365, [1971] AC 115, 114 Sol Jo 132, [1970] TR37, [1970] 2 WLR 472

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKnauer v Ministry of Justice SC 24-Feb-2016
The court was asked: ‘whether the current approach to assessing the financial losses suffered by the dependant of a person who is wrongfully killed properly reflects the fundamental principle of full compensation, and if it does not whether we . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606462

Graham v Dodds: HL 1983

A court dealing with personal injury claims normally makes a discount in respect of damages for the future loss of earnings
Lord Bridge said ‘The only issue arising in this appeal which is strictly one of law is whether, in assessing damages for loss of dependency arising from a fatal accident, the multiplier or number of years purchase should be calculated from the date of death or from the date of trial. Counsel for the defendant has contended for the former. Counsel for the plaintiff has throughout contended for the latter and this view prevailed with the learned Lord Chief Justice and the majority of the Court of Appeal. The judge, in a short note appended to the transcript in his report of the trial, said:
‘I took the view that there is no legal principle that the number of years of purchase (in this case I suggest 11 to 14) should be automatically reduced having regard to the number of years special damage since the death of the deceased and that the contrast sometimes made with personal injury cases is not a sound one’.
On this issue the majority of the Court of Appeal examined the speeches in your Lordships’ house in Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 and reached the conclusion that Lord Diplock and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton had expressed opposite and irreconcilable opinions. Gibson L.J. illustrated his understanding of the supposedly conflicting doctrines by indicating how they would apply in assessing the dependency of the widow of a young man killed at the age of 21, in the following terms:
‘Should the action not come to hearing until five years had elapsed Lord Fraser of Tullybelton would assess at death the multiplier, which I take at say 18, and he would then allow five years’ special damage and 13 years as the multiplier of future loss. Lord Diplock, on the other hand, would also give five years’ special damage and then fix the multiplier on the assumption of the death of the deceased at the age of 26 years, which Mr. Hill conceded would not be appreciably less than the original figure of 18′.
On the basis of such a conflict, Gibson and O’Donnell L.JJ. held themselves free to choose which of the two doctrines they preferred and both came down in favour of the view they attributed to Lord Diplock.
It is to be observed that in Cookson v. Knowles Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon and Lord Scarman all expressed their agreement with the speeches of both Lord Diplock and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. Gibson L.J. recognised this and described it as a ‘confusing feature’ of the case. It would indeed be astonishing that such a radical conflict should have escaped the attention of the three concurring members of your Lordships’ House, but still more astonishing that neither Lord Diplock nor Lord Fraser of Tullybelton should have said a word to indicate any awareness that they were disagreeing with each other on a matter of fundamental principle.
My Lords, I have to say, with respect, that the majority of the Court of Appeal based their decision in this case on a misunderstanding of the decision in Cookson v. Knowles [1979] AC 556. In that case the widow’s claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts arose from the death of her husband at the age of 49. The trial judge took 11 years’ purchase from the date of death as the appropriate multiplier. But he applied it to the estimated annual dependency at the date of trial, 2 1/2 years after the date of death, to arrive at a single capital sum of damages on which he awarded interest at 9 per cent from the date of death to the date of trial. The Court of Appeal reduced the capital award by estimating the dependency in two parts: (a) from the date of death to the date of trial, (b) from the date of trial onwards and allowed interest on the first part of the award only at a reduced rate. For the purpose of the capital assessment, the trial judge’s figure of 11 years purchase from the date of death had to be divided; 2 1/2 was applied in calculating the pre-trial loss, 8 1/2 in calculating the future loss. But the propriety of calculating the overall multiplier from the date of death was not questioned. In the unanimous decision of this House affirming the Court of Appeal, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton dealt with the last point expressly in the following passage, at pp. 575-576:
‘In the present case the deceased was aged 49 at the date of his death and the trial judge and the Court of Appeal used a multiplier of 11. That figure was not seriously criticised by counsel as having been inappropriate as at the date of death, although I think it is probably generous to the appellant. From that figure of 11, the Court of Appeal deducted 2 1/2 in respect of the 2 1/2 years from the date of death to the date of trial, and they used the resulting figure of 8 1/2 as the multiplier for the damages after the date of trial. In so doing they departed from the method that would have been appropriate in a personal injury case and counsel for the appellant criticised the departure as being unfair to the appellant. The argument was that if the deceased man had had a twin brother who had been injured at the same time as the deceased man was killed, and whose claim for damages for personal injury had come to trial on the same day as the dependant’s claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts* the appropriate multiplier for his loss after the date of trial would have been higher than 8 1/2. On the assumption, which is probably correct, that that would have been so, it does not in my opinion follow that the multiplier of 8 1/2 is too low in the present claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts where different considerations apply. In a personal injury case, if the injured person has survived until the date of trial, that is a known fact and the multiplier appropriate to the length of his future working life has to be ascertained as at the date of trial. But in a fatal accident case the multiplier must be selected once and for all as at the date of death, because everything that might have happened to the deceased after that date remains uncertain. Accordingly having taken a multiplier of 11 as at the date of death and having used 2 1/2 in respect of the period up to the trial, it is in my opinion correct to take 8 1/2 for the period after the date of trial. That is what the Court of Appeal did in this case/
If I may say so, respectfully, I find the reasoning in this passage as cogent as it is clear. But, what is perhaps more important, I can find nothing in the speech of Lord Diplock which conflicts in any way with Lord Fraser of Tullybelton’s reasoning or with his conclusion. The two passages cited by Gibson L.J. from Lord Diplock’s speech dealing with the assessment of the dependants’ future loss from date of trial are not directed to the question of the appropriate multiplier and certainly lend no support to the doctrine that this can be calculated on the assumption that the deceased, if he had survived the accident, would certainly have remained alive and well and in the same employment up to the date of trial. Such a doctrine, ignoring the uncertainty which, as Lord Fraser of Tullybelton pointed out, affects everything that might have happened to the deceased after the date of his death, is clearly contrary to principle and would lead to the highly undesirable anomaly that in fatal accident cases the longer the trial of the dependants’ claims could be delayed the more they would eventually recover.
Accordingly, in so far as the learned Lord Chief Justice based his directions to the jury with respect to the multiplier to be applied in assessing future loss on the considerations appropriate in awarding damages for future loss of earnings to a surviving plaintiff in a personal injury case aged 4 5 (the age the plaintiff’s husband would have attained at the date of trial if he had survived) and treated the pre-trial loss as ‘special damage,’ and in so far as the majority of the Court of Appeal approved the directions given on that basis, they erred in law’.

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

[1983] 1 WLR 808, [1983] NI 22, [1983] 2 All ER 953

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Not FollowedKnauer v Ministry of Justice SC 24-Feb-2016
The court was asked: ‘whether the current approach to assessing the financial losses suffered by the dependant of a person who is wrongfully killed properly reflects the fundamental principle of full compensation, and if it does not whether we . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606461

Bunyan v Jordan: 1 Mar 1937

(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff sought damages having been put to severe fright by a shot fired by her employer, the defendant, who had stated an intention to shoot someone, gone to a local thoroughfare with a gun, produced it and fired it.
Held: The word ‘calculated to’ were to be taken include those things which were ‘naturally to be expected’ to result from the conduct. However, it was sufficient to dispose of the appeal that the majority found the acts of the defendant were not ‘calculated or likely to cause harm to any person’

Judges:

Latham C.J., Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ

Citations:

(1937) 57 CLR 1, [1937] HCA 5, [1937] ALR 204

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

CitedWilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .

Cited by:

CitedRhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.566202

Moore v R Fox and Sons: CA 1956

The plaintiff, a workman in the course of his employment, was injured by an unexplained explosion.
Held: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied, no explanation for the explosion having been offered. ‘Res ipsa loquitur’ is a rule of evidence based upon common sense.
Lord Evershed MR said: ‘It will be necessary, therefore, for me to consider in some detail the evidence produced before the judge. But I will anticipate at once my conclusions. If, as the judge thought, this was a case of res ipsa loquitur,that is, a case in which this accident having regard to all the circumstances in which it occurred, spoke for itself and led to the inference of negligence, then, with all respect to him, I do not agree with his conclusion that the defendants thereafter discharged that onus by calling four expert witnesses, the result of whose evidence was, after all, that the accident was inexplicable.’ and ‘It must, as I venture to think, always be a question whether upon proof of the happening of the particular event, it can with truth be said that the thing speaks for itself. The event or thing offending, may, or may not, produce that result. Not every accident has, without more, that effect. If, on a closer analysis of the happening and in circumstances, it does not in truth appear fairly to follow that the proper inference is one of negligence, then the case is not one of res ipsa loquitur at all’.

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1956] 1 QB 596

Cited by:

CitedDevine v Colvilles Ltd HL 11-Mar-1969
The House considered the position of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitir. The plaintiff had been injured falling or jumping from a raised platform.
Held: The claim succeeded. ‘ I hold it proved that there was a general panic. Now the defenders . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Evidence

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.554759

Pritchard v Post Office: CA 1950

Servants of the Post Office had protected a hole where they were working by surrounding it with their usual light fence but the plaintiff, a blind woman, stumbled through the fence and was injured.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. In this case, the sole cause of the accident was the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. There was no special duty to protect the blind or infirm.

Citations:

(1950) 114 JP 370

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.517228

Pope v Energem Mining (IOM) Ltd: QBD 27 Jan 2010

Judges:

Royce J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 96

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPope v Energem Mining (IOM) Ltd CA 5-Sep-2011
The deceased had been one of several abducted and killed whilst employed by the defendants in Angola. The company had promised to insure his life, but the insurers said that liability under the policy was capped. The claimant, the deceased’s mother . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.443628

Rose v Colville’s Ltd: 1950

Citations:

1950 SLT (Notes) 72

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.440369

Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd: 1969

The plaintiff suffered injury from the admitted negligence of the defendant. After attending the hospital she felt shaken and the movement of her head was constricted by a collar which had been fitted to her neck. In consequence she was unable to use her bi-focal spectacles with her usual skill and she fell while descending stairs, sustaining further injury.
Held: Eveleigh J gave an account of the meaning of forseeability in the law, saying: ‘In the present case I am concerned with the extent of harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of actionable injury. In my view the injury and damage suffered because of the second fall are attributable to the original negligence of the defendant so as to attract compensation. If necessary I think the plaintiff’s case can also be put against the defendant in another way. If it can be said that it is foreseeable that one injury may affect a person’s ability to cope with the vicissitudes of life and thereby be a cause of another injury and if foreseeability is required, that is to say, if foreseeability is the right word in this context, foreseeability of the general nature will, in my view, suffice.’
. . And ‘It has long been recognised that injury sustained in one accident may be the cause of subsequent injury. The injury sustained by accident victims on the operating table is an example of that situation. So too are cases of suicide resulting from a mental condition produced by an accident. Pigney v Pointers Transport Services, Ltd (2) [1967] 2 All E.R. 807; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 1121. It is always a question of course for the court in each case to determine whether or not on the facts of that case the accident did cause the second injury or death as the case might be; see Hogan v Bentinck West Hartley Collieries (Owners), Ltd. [1949] 1 All E.R. 588.’

Judges:

Eveleigh J

Citations:

[1969] 3 All ER 1006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHogan v Bentinck West Hartley Collieries (Owners) Ltd HL 1949
The workman plaintiff suffered from a congenital defect, having an extra thumb in his right hand. He met with an industrial accident and fractured the false thumb. It was treated by splinting but he continued to be in pain. He was then sent to the . .

Cited by:

CitedSpencer v Wincanton Holdings Ltd (Wincanton Logistics Ltd) CA 21-Dec-2009
The claimant suffered injury for which he sought compensation from his employers. He later had to have his leg amputated as a consequence, but then through his own inadvertence suffered further injury to his other leg and a complete loss of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.392547