Category: Personal Injury

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council: HL 24 May 2000

An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, that the possibility of injury to children playing on such an object was foreseeable. The judge had also found a particular danger of an older boy seeking to prop it up and repair it. The council had argued that this latter event was unforseeable.
Held: The Court of Appeal had not been justified in disturbing the Judge’s finding of fact. Given the ingenuity of children for mischief, mischief which went beyond that foreseen, but which was of the same type, was capable of leaving the authority liable under the Act.
There was no social value or cost saving to the Council in creating a risk by leaving a derelict boat lying about. It was something which they ought to have removed whether it created a risk of injury or not. They were liable for an injury which, though foreseeable, was not particularly likely. Foreseeability does not denote a fixed point on the scale of probability.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 24-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1082, [2000] UKHL 31, [2000] 3 All ER 409
House of Lords, Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v London Borough of Sutton, ex parte Jolley CA 19-Jun-1998
The plaintiff, a boy, was injured when playing on a derelict boat left on council land. The council appealed an award of damages against it.
Held: A local authority may be liable for injury caused by a derelict boat not removed from their land . .
First instance – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council QBD 1998
The claimant, a boy was injured when playing around a boat abandoned on land owned by the defendant. He had propped it up to attempt a repair, and was crushed when it fell on him. He said that in not removing the boat they had been negligent.
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Cited – Hughes 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 . .
Cited – Overseas 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 . .
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .

Cited by:
Cited – Groom v Selby CA 18-Oct-2001
The defendant negligently failed to discover the claimant’s pregnancy. A severely disabled child was born. The question was as to the responsibility for payment of excess costs of raising a severely disabled child, a claim for economic loss. The . .
Cited – Tomlinson 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 . .
Cited – The Attorney General v Hartwell PC 23-Feb-2004
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also . .
Cited – Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council CA 24-Mar-2004
The claimant (aged 6) sought damages after being hurt when other children playing on a building site threw stones from the site, hitting him as he passed by.
Held: The case raised questions of law and it was incumbent on the judge to provide . .
Cited – Islington London Borough Council v University College London Hospital NHS Trust CA 16-Jun-2005
The local authority sought repayment from a negligent hospital of the cost of services it had had to provide to an injured patient. They said that the hospital had failed to advise the patient to resume taking warfarin when her operation was . .
Cited – London General Holdings Ltd and others v USP Plc and Another CA 22-Jul-2005
Copyright was claimed in a draft legal agreement. Infringement was established, but the court was asked to look at the assessment of damages.
Held: ‘what is the basis upon which damages for breach of copyright are awarded? The question cannot . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
Cited – Hone v Six Continents Retail Ltd CA 29-Jun-2005
The employer appealed a finding that it was liable in damages for negligence to the claimant, and employee who suffered psychiatric injury cause by stress at work. He said he had been left to work very excessive hours, between 89 and 92 hours a . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Geary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.82576

Spearman v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust: QBD 4 Dec 2017

The Claimant suffered a hypoglycaemic attack (being Type 1 diabetic) and was taken by ambulance to the Hospital, arriving at 22.00 hours. Within 15 minutes, he had left the emergency department of the hospital, climbed five flights of stairs to a flat roof, climbed over a protective barrier and either fallen or jumped into a courtyard below where he suffered serious injuries.
The issue for decision is whether this accident occurred as a result of the breach of duty of the defendant whether owed to the Claimant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and/or the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 or at Common Law, or whether the Claimant was the author of his own misfortune.

Martin Spencer J
[2017] EWHC 3027 (QB)
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Occupiers Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.601123

Ahanonu v South East London and Kent Bus Company Ltd: CA 23 Jan 2008

Laws LJ said that the duty to take reasonable care can sometimes look more like a ‘guarantee of the Claimant’s safety’ when evaluated by reference to ‘ . . fine considerations elicited in the leisure of the court room, perhaps with the liberal use of hindsight.’

Laws, Collins LJJ, Black J
[2008] EWCA Civ 274
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sinclair v Joyner QBD 23-Jun-2015
The claimant cyclist sought damages from the defendant motorist after a collision in which she was severely injured. They approached each other on a narrow lane. The claimant said that the defendant did not pull over as much as she should, and the . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.266483

Haggerty-Garton and Others v Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd: QBD 3 Nov 2021

This disease based personal injury claim is for damages arising from the death of the deceased due to his exposure to asbestos whilst at work for the Defendant between 1973/4 and 1978/9. Judgment has been entered for damages to be assessed.

Mr Justice Ritchie
[2021] EWHC 2924 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.669721

Revill v Newbery: CA 2 Nov 1995

The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. One night the plaintiff and another man attempted to break into the shed intending to steal from it. The resultant noise woke the defendant who, intending only to frighten them, loaded the shotgun and fired it through a hole in the door. The shot injured the plaintiff, who was standing about five feet away from the door. In subsequent criminal proceedings he admitted attempted burglary of the premises. He brought an action for damages for personal injuries against the defendant, alleging that the latter was negligent in firing the shot. The judge at first instance, Rougier J, found that the defendant had been negligent in firing the shot. He made the following relevant findings of fact:'(1) The defendant believed, though mistakenly, that there was no one in front of the door. (2) When he fired the gun the defendant had no means of knowing for sure whether it was pointed at anyone; the defendant was effectively blindfold. (3) When he fired the gun the defendant’s perception and judgment were clouded by fear. (4)The defendant was carrying out a preconceived contingency plan.’ A trespasser (even a thief) is entitled to protection from unnecessary violence, and to an award of damages for personal injuries inflicted. To deny the claimant compensation for an assault which went beyond self-defence was a different thing from denying him the fruits of his crime and was akin to outlawing him. In such a case there was simply no room for the turpitude doctrine.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld Rougier J’s finding of negligence, confirming his view that the defendant certainly did not intend to hit the plaintiff, but that he was in breach of a duty of care towards him and therefore negligent.

Neill LJ, Evans LJ, Millett LJ
Gazette 06-Dec-1995, Times 03-Nov-1995, Independent 10-Nov-1995, [1995] EWCA Civ 10, [1996] QB 567, [1996] 1 All ER 291, [1996] 2 WLR 239
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section . .
Cited – Ovu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.88754

Nyang v G4S Care and Justice Services Ltd and Others: QBD 11 Dec 2013

The claimant suffered very substantial injury. He was detained at an immigration removal centre. He said that he suffered a mental illness, and that through a negligent failure to diagnose and control his condition he ran head first into a wall causing the injuries. He had made threats to kill himself, but no steps had been taken for investigation or care.

Lewis J
[2013] EWHC 3946 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518922

Shearman v Folland: CA 1950

The injured plaintiff had lived before the accident in hotels to which she paid seven guineas a week for board and lodging. After the accident she spent just over a year in nursing homes at a cost of twelve guineas a week exclusive of medical expenses. The judge, in awarding damages, deducted the smaller figure from the larger, treating the difference as her loss.
Held: The deduction was excessive, but the court accepted the principle that a deduction should be made for the cost of food and lodging which would have had to be incurred even if the plaintiff had not been injured. The court also considered the relevance of the plaintiff having insured himself against personal injury: ‘If the wrongdoer were entitled to set-off what the plaintiff was entitled to recoup or had recouped under his policy, he would, in effect, be depriving the plaintiff of all benefit from the premiums paid by the latter and appropriating that benefit to himself.’ The court gave as an example: ‘A millionaire, accustomed to live at a palatial hotel, where his weekly expenses far exceed the charges of the nursing-home to which, after being injured by the defendant’s negligence, he is transplanted, would recover nothing by way of special damage. Could it really lie in the mouth of the wrongdoer in such a case to say: ‘I am entitled to go scot-free; I have, by my negligent act, not merely inflicted no loss but conferred a net financial benefit on the plaintiff by saving him from the consequences of his habitual extravagance’?’

Asquith LJ
[1950] 2 KB 43, [1950] 1 All ER 976
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Cited – O’Brien and others v Independent Assessor HL 14-Mar-2007
The claimants had been wrongly imprisoned for a murder they did not commit. The assessor had deducted from their compensation a sum to represent the living costs they would have incurred if living freely. They also appealed differences from a . .
Cited – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (Formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain ComC 21-May-2014
The former owners of the ‘New Flameno’ appealed from an arbitration award. A charter of the vessel had been repudiated with two years left to run. The owners chose to sell. They made a substantial profit over the price they would have received after . .
Cited – Globalia Business Travel Sau of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama SC 28-Jun-2017
The court was asked how to assess damages arising out of the repudiation of a charterparty by charterers of a cruise ship, the ‘New Flameno’. The charter ending two years early, the owners chose to sell, and in the result got a much better price . .
Cited – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel Sau CA 21-Dec-2015
The charter of the ship ‘New Flameno’ was repudiated two years early. The owners sold it, making rather more profit than they would have if sold after the end of the term. The court was now asked how the profit should affect the loss claim on the . .
Cited – Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia Business Travel SAU (Formerly Travelplan SAU) of Spain ComC 21-May-2014
The former owners of the ‘New Flameno’ appealed from an arbitration award. A charter of the vessel had been repudiated with two years left to run. The owners chose to sell. They made a substantial profit over the price they would have received after . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.237532

Jones v Gleeson: 1965

(Australia) When a policeman who had retired retired through injury sought damages for that injury, the pension he received as a result of his retirement was to be ignored entirely: ‘In recent years, however, the relevance or otherwise to the issue of damages of the fact that an injured person is entitled to a pension has been considered by this Court on several occasions (see Paff v. Speed; The National Insurance Co. of New Zealand, Ltd. v. Espagne, and Graham v. Baker n) and a very different view has been taken from that which is expressed in the majority judgments in Browning’s case.’

(1965) 39 ALJR 258, [1966] ALR 235
Citing:
Cited – Paff v Speed 6-Apr-1961
(High Court of Australia) ‘The first consideration is what is the nature of the loss or damage which the plaintiff says he has suffered.’
Damages – Personal injuries – Matters to be considered in reduction of damages – Plaintiff policeman at . .

Cited by:
Cited – Parry v Cleaver CA 9-May-1967
The plaintiff policeman was hit by a car whilst he was on traffic duty. When he claimed damages in negligence the defendant sought to have deducted from his award an amount received by way of additional pension payments received which had been . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.237511

McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government and Another: CA 6 Nov 2013

The claimant was a lorry driver making collections from a power station. On his visits, he visited areas where asbestos sludge was being used. He contracted mesothelioma, and now sought damages. The defendants replied that he was not a worker at the plant within section 47. He now appeaed against rejection of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. A person visiting the premises of a different employer where a process was under way likely to be injurious to health, was not a worker so as to receive the protection of the 1937 Act.
However, he was owed a duty under the 1931 Regulations.

Lord Dyson MR, McCombe, Gloster LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1346, [2013] WLR(D) 431
Bailii, WLRD
Factories Act 1937 47(1), The Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – McDonald v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc SC 22-Oct-2014
Contact visiting plants supported asbestos claim
The deceased had worked as a lorry driver regularly collecting pulverized fuel ash from a power station. On his visits he was at areas with asbestos dust. He came to die from mesothelioma. His widow now pursued his claim that the respondent had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517455

Alves v Attorney General of The Virgin Islands (British Virgin Islands): PC 18 Dec 2017

From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (British Virgin Islands)

Lord Neuberger

Lord Kerr

Lord Carnwath

Lord Hughes

Lord Hodge
[2017] UKPC 42
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.601883

Matthews v Collins (T/A Herbert Collins and Sons) and Others: QBD 4 Oct 2013

Application to strike out claim as an abuse of process. The claim was for asbestos related condition leading to the death of the claimant’s husband. The defendants denied liability and causation, saying that he had been a confirmed smoker. The post mortem had found asbestos fibres. The defendants complained that the actions of the claimants solicitors had led to the tissue samples, which they had wanted to examine, being destroyed.
Held: The application failed. The defendant’s criticism of the claimant herself were not justified, and nor were those of her solicitor.

Swifte J DBE
[2013] EWHC 2952 (QB)
Bailii
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Civil Procedures Rules 3.4(2)(b)

Personal Injury

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516604

West Sussex County Council v Pierce (A Child): CA 16 Oct 2013

‘The question which has to be addressed therefore is whether as a matter of objective fact, visitors to the School were reasonably safe in using the premises’

Sharp McFarlane LJJ, Lord Dyson MR
[2013] EWCA Civ 1230, [2014] PIQR 101
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 1 2(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Ltd v Manley QBD 30-Sep-2016
The appellant company managed a prison They now appealed against an order finding them liable to the claimant prisoner for personal injury under the 1957 Act. The claimant had been returned to the prison after a hip operation. The lights went out. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Land

Updated: 21 November 2021; Ref: scu.516540

Streeter v Hughes and Another: QBD 20 Sep 2013

The claimant cyclist sought damages after suffering very serious injuries in a collision with a car driven by the defendant. Other witnesses said that the claimant emerged from a side road into the defendant’s car’s path. Experts said that the distance the claimant had been thrown suggested the car had been driving too fast.
Held: Examinng the evidence, the claimant had emerged in such a way as to preclude the defendant seeing him in time to stop.

Jeremy Baker J
[2013] EWHC 2841 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515376

George v Pinnock: CA 1973

The court awarded pounds 19,000 for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity for severe disablement.

[1973] 1 WLR 118
England and Wales
Cited by:
Considered – Cunningham 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: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.225259

London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman: HL 1946

Railway workers duties outside scope for damages

A railway worker’s widow sought compensation after her husband was killed by a train.
Held: He had been involved in routine maintenance and oiling at the time of the accident and was not ‘relaying or repairing’ tracks. She was not entitled to compensation.
Lord Porter said that the word ‘repair’ contains ‘some suggestion of putting right that which is wrong’.
Lord MacMillan said: ‘I recognise that when Parliament employs technical terms without definition in a statute dealing with a particular art or industry, courts of law are entitled to have the assistance of skilled persons in the interpretation of such terms. Indeed the present statute and rules contain numerous technical terms as to whose meaning in railway parlance evidence would be almost indispensable.’
Lord Simonds said that a person is ‘not to be put in peril upon an ambiguity, however much the purpose of the Act appeals to the predilection of the court.’
and ‘It is only by reference to the industry that the meaning can be ascertained . . It remains a question of evidence what the words mean in the industry. They are a term of art and it is by those skilled in the art that I must be instructed.’

Lord Simonds, Lord Porter, Lord MacMillan
[1946] AC 278, [1946] 1 All ER 255, 115 LJKB 124
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hereford and Worcester County Council v Newman CA 1975
The council had been found responsible by the magistrates for allowing footpaths to be ‘out of repair’. The paths were unusable for various reasons including having a hawthorn hedge growing down the middle, and having barbed wire fencing strung . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
Cited – Baker 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.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.200610

RS v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority: CA 13 Jun 2013

The claimant had sought compensation for psychiatric shock after an attack on his wife. The authority rejected his claim, and the First Tier Tribunal rejected his appeal. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his further Appeal, ordering its remittal, and the Authority itself now appealed, saying that the claimant had neither witnessed the assault, nor been involved in its immediate aftermath.
Held:

Laws, Lewison,McFarlane LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1040
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514393

Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp: SCS 7 Aug 2013

Outer House – damages after carer’s fall in snow.
Held: The Outer House found Cordia liable under the PPE Regulations, the Management Regulations, and the common law. Both risk assessments for Cordia had been faulty.
Lord McEwan summarised the expert evidence: He then looked at the risk assessments. Agreeing in general with the later evidence of Miss Rodger, he said account had to be taken of controls to overcome hazards before any rating could be arrived at. However, he said that in his opinion the measures specified did not reduce the risk. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should have been provided. He was critical of the omission of ‘inclement weather’ in [the 2010 risk assessment]. Such weather did not cease to be a hazard and simply to rate the risk as ‘tolerable’ did not take account of changes in the risk when seriously adverse weather could and did occur that winter. This risk could be eliminated altogether by not going to the house, but accepting the need to go, the employer (his emphasis) should choose and supply the correct footwear which was available at that time. That was not done . .
Being asked again about research papers he said some were surveys and some were lists. He agreed that icy and snowy surfaces varied and shoe attachments varied in their reaction to these. He described in detail how Yaktrax performed and how he had used his own set for 18 months in snow and ice. He said that they reduced the risk although there was no one answer to the problem. Everyone still had to take care. Had he done a risk assessment for Miss Kennedy’s job he would have assessed the risk as likely and the severity as harmful. It was for the employer to find out what PPE was best and in his opinion they should have provided Yaktrax or some other type of fitting.
. . under reference to the [British Standard], he said that the assessment of the risk should have been ‘substantial’. Slipping and falling could give a variety of serious injuries. What the employer had to do was reduce or eliminate the risk. That would have been done if Yaktrax had been provided.’

Lord McEwan
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 130
Bailii
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Scotland
Cited by:
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SCS 19-Sep-2014
The respondent, Mrs Kennedy was working for the reclaimers as a carer. She had been injured walking up a snowy client’s path. The reclaimer appealed against an award for damages after a finding that she should have been provided with grips for her . .
At Outer House – Kennedy v Cordia (Services) Llp SC 10-Feb-2016
The appellant care worker fell in snow when visiting the respondent’s client at home. At issue was the admission and status of expert or skilled evidence.
Held: Mrs Kennedy’s appeal succeeded. ‘There are in our view four considerations which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514285

Poole v Wright (T/A Simon Wright Racing Development) and Others: QBD 5 Aug 2013

The claimant had been severely injured whilst driving a go-kart at a track operated by the defendant. She had been wearing a scarf which became entangled with the moving parts causing very substantial injuries. She said that the cart did not comply with the 1992 Regulations, but the judge had found such Karts to be excluded.

Swift J
[2013] EWHC 2375 (QB)
Bailii
Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514268

Wembridge Claimants and Others v Winter and Others: QBD 30 Jul 2013

There had been a large explosion of fireworks stored in a steel shipping container. The court heard claims in damages from relatives of a firefighter and civilian police support technician who had died, and from others injured in the blast. The defendants had been convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

Irwin J
[2013] EWHC 2331 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Criminal appeal – Winter and Another v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2010
The defendants, father and son, operated a firework storage facility. Two fire service employees died when a fire was fought. They were thought to have been storing Type 1 fireworks for which they had no licence. They were each convicted of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513783

Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd: CA 21 Jul 1961

An employee with dermatitis returned to work when it was known both to him and his employers that continuing to work would carry a small risk of it recurring or being exacerbated.
Held: The Court allowed the employer’s appeal against the trial judge’s award of damages.
Sellers LJ said: ‘the defendants gave her what they thought to be the best available work they had. In fact, if she had not taken that work it would seem that she would not have worked at all and would not have earned any wages, which apparently she sought to do. I cannot believe that the common law requires employers to refuse to employ a person who is willing to work for them simply because they think that it is not in the person’s best interests to do the work. That would be imposing a restriction on the freedom of the individual which I think is foreign to the whole spirit of the common law of our country.’ and
‘there is no duty at common law requiring an employer to dismiss an employee rather than retain him or her in employment and allowing him or her to earn wages, because there may be some risk. The duty of the defendants in this case was to take all reasonable care for the plaintiff in the employment in which she was engaged, including a duty to have regard to the fact that she had had dermatitis previously. Beyond that I do not think the common law can be invoked.’
Devlin LJ: ‘In my opinion there is no legal duty upon an employer to prevent an adult employee from doing work which he or she is willing to do. If there is a slight risk, as the judge has found, it is for the employee to weigh it against the desirability, or perhaps the necessity, of employment. The relationship between employer and employee is not that of a schoolmaster and pupil. There is no obligation on an employer to offer alternative safe employment, though no doubt a considerate employer would always try to do so – as the defendants thought they had done here. Nor is there any obligation on an employer to dismiss an employee in such circumstances. It cannot be said that an employer is bound to dismiss an employee rather than allow her to run a small risk. The employee is free to decide for herself what risks she will run. I agree with what [Sellers LJ] has said, that if the common law were to be otherwise it would be oppressive to the employee, by limiting his ability to find work, rather than beneficial to him . . . It may be also, on the principle of Paris v Stepney Borough Council, that when the susceptibility of an employee to dermatitis is known there is a duty on the employer to take extra or special precautions to protect such an employee.’

Sellers LJ, Devlin LJ
[1961] 1 WLR 1314, [1961] EWCA Civ 4, [1961] 3 All ER 676
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Paris v Stepney Borough Council CA 1949
. .

Cited by:
Considered – Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Limited CA 22-Jul-2002
The employee worked at a plant using chemicals. After starting, the work system was changed. The staff were given the best protection available, but the claimant suffered a pre-existing tendency to asthma, which was excited by the chemicals used. He . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181793

Taylor v Corporation of Glasgow: HL 18 Nov 1921

A father brought an action of damages against the Corporation of Glasgow as proprietors and custodians of the Botanic Gardens there, which were open to the public as a public park, for the death of his child aged seven. The pursuer averred that in close proximity to a portion of the gardens used as a playground for children there was a plot of ground which, though enclosed by a fence, was open to the public, access being obtained by a gate in the fence; that in this plot there was growing along with specimen shrubs of various kinds a belladonna shrub bearing berries rather similar in appearance to small grapes, and presenting a very alluring and tempting appearance to children, but which were in fact poisonous; that no precautions to protect children were taken by the defenders, though they, the defenders, were well aware of the poisonous character and inviting and deceptive appearance of the berries; that his child when in the gardens with some of his companions picked the berries and ate them, and in consequence thereof died; and that the accident was due to the negligence of the defenders in failing to take the necessary precautions for the safety of children. Held ( aff. judgment of the Second Division) that the pursuer had relevantly averred fault on the part of the defenders, and that the case must go to trial.

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Sumner, and Lord Wrenbury
[1921] UKHL 14, 59 SLR 14
Bailii
Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.632644

Mohad v Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers), Ltd: HL 13 Dec 1921

A seaman who was engaged for a round voyage from Bombay to the United Kingdom and back to Bombay met with an accident during the voyage which partially incapacitated him. He was thereafter maintained by his employers in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906, and brought in one of their vessels to Liverpool and thence by train to Glasgow, where he rejoined his ship. Before the expiry of his contract of service he deserted, and thereafter claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Held ( diss. Lord Sumner, aff. the judgment of the Second Division) that as the liability of the shipowners under the Merchant Shipping Act had been terminated by the seaman’s desertion the latter was entitled to claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that the shipowners could not postpone their liability therefor until the termination of the voyage.

Viscount Haldane, Viscount Finlay, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shaw, and Lord Sumner
[1921] UKHL 61, 59 SLR 61
Bailii
Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.632646

Birch v Ministry of Defence: CA 14 Jun 2013

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. He had been driving a Land Rver whilst on active duty in Afghanistan. He said that he was known not to be properly qualified to drive.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Once it was known to the defendants that the claimant was to be selected to drive though unqualified, they were in breach of their duty of care to him, and the court would not make any deduction for contributory negligene.

Longmore, Tomlinson, Lewisn LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 676
Bailii
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510862

Ireland v David Lloyd Leisure Ltd: CA 14 Jun 2013

The claimant sought damages after being injured working out in the defendant’s gym. A weights machine had chopped off the top of her finger when it came to rest. The defendant appealed against a finding that the warnings had been inadequate.
Held: The appeal failed. The case had been inadequately pleaded, with certain factual elements only becoming clear at trial, but further evidence or an adjournment would not have assisted the defendant.

Arden, Beatson, Ryder LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 665
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Beoco Ltd v Alfa Laval Co Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-1993
The tort loss of profit principles can apply in contract cases for damages. No economic loss damages were to be claimed after a supervening incident prevented a return to work.
As to costs incurred after a late amendment, Stuart-Smith LJ said: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510863

Collier v Anglian Water Authority: CA 26 Mar 1983

The plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a paving stone on the sea defence wall promenade at Mablethorpe, for which the defendants were responsible.
Held: The defendants were responsible for the area under the Act as occupiers, and accordingly owed the plaintiff a common law duty of care as a visitor and were liable in damages.

Times 26-Mar-1983
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.188811

Limpus v London General Omnibus Company: CExC 23 Jun 1862

Vicarious Liability – Act on Employers Business

The driver of an omnibus, seeking to disturb the omnibus of another company, drove his own across the path of another. His employers had furnished him and other drivers with a card saying they ‘must not on any account race with or obstruct another omnibus.’ Baron Martin had directed the jury that, if the defendant’s driver did it for the purposes of his employer, the defendants were liable: but if it was an act of his own, and in order to effect a purpose of his own, the defendants were not responsible. The jury found for the plaintiff.
Held: The employer was liable for the ensuing accident despite written instructions to the driver to exercsie care. The employer was liable because the injury resulted from an act done by the driver in the course of his service and for his master’s purposes; it was not done by the servant for his own purposes, but for his master’s purposes.
Lord Blackburn said: ‘A footman might think it for the interest of his master to drive the coach, but no one could say that it was within the scope of the footman’s employment, and that the master would be liable for damage resulting from the wilful act of the footman in taking charge of the horses.’

Wiles J, Blackburn J
(1862) 1 H and C 526, [1862] EngR 839, (1862) 158 ER 993
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Limpus v The London General Omnibus Company 1861
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.190002

Edwards v Kumarasamy: CA 28 Jan 2015

The claimant was tenant of the defendant under an assured shorthold tenancy. He had tripped injuring himself on a pathway between the front doorway of the block of flats and the rubbish bins. The defendant held the flat himself as a tenant under a long lease. The court was now asked as to the effect of section 11(1A) of the 1985 Act as regards common parts not subject of the tenancy. The landlord appealed against a finding that he was responsible.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The landlord could b liable without the tenant first having notified him of the item needing repair.

SirTerence Etherton Ch, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 20, [2015] 2 WLR 1408, [2015] WLR(D) 40, [2015] 1 CH 484, [2015] HLR 18, [2015] PIQR P11
Bailii, WLRD
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 11(1A)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Edwards 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.

Personal Injury, Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.541956

Mann 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 fencing was a total of 19 feet high, and topped in part by razor wire. The claimant had climbed it by the use of pieces of wood debris nearby. He had in effect created a three tier and precarious wooden climbing structure, which the judge had found to be unforeseeable.
Held: The appeal failed. Whether the supplier has erected a fence high enough to discharge the duty under the regulation will depend on all its surrounding features. However, ‘the height speaks for itself and precludes our interference with the recorder’s finding. As the recorder observed, no amount of security measures will keep out a sufficiently determined trespasser. Thus, for example, no wall, however high, is proof against the trespasser who has brought a ladder of equal height: entry by such means may be foreseeable but it may nevertheless, for other reasons, not be reasonably practicable for the supplier to prevent it. By contrast entry by the means adopted in the present case was, according to the unassailable finding of the recorder, not foreseeable and it was, for that reason, not reasonably practicable for the defendant to take further steps in relation to its wall, even when viewed in the context of its surrounding features, in order to prevent it.’

Wilson LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 141
Bailii
Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1057
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Austin 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 . .
Cited – Baker 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, Utilities

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.401839

Coia v Portavadie Estates Ltd: SCS 6 Jan 2015

(Extra Division Inner House) ‘In this action for damages for personal injury three central issues arise:
(1) Was the wardrobe pole which fell and injured the pursuer ‘work equipment provided by the defenders for use or used by an employee of theirs at work’ for the purpose of The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 when the accident happened?
(2) Was the pursuer at work when the accident happened?
(3) Was the lodge in which the accident happened a workplace for the purpose of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 when the accident happened? The pursure was a chef working for the defenders, satying at residential accomodation provided by them. The appellant sustained injury when he was removing his own personal possessions from a wardrobe in premises that he occupied otherwise than as a result of his contract of employment with the defenders.
Held: The answer to thr first question was ‘No’, and ‘The appellant was not at work when the accident happened – he was removing his personal possessions from the accommodation which he occupied, but there was nothing in the evidence to establish that he was doing so as a result of an instruction given to him in the course of his employment rather than in the context of his agreement with the defenders that he should be permitted to occupy the lodge on a temporary basis. The lodge was not, at the time of the accident, a workplace for the purpose of the workplace regulations. ‘

Lord Menzies
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 3
Bailii
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Scotland

Scotland, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.540499

Vitalijs Drozdovs v Baltikums Aas: ECJ 24 Oct 2013

ECJ Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles – Directive 72/166/EEC – Article 3(1) – Directive 90/232/EEC – Article 1 – Road traffic accident – Death of the parents of the applicant, who is a minor – Right to compensation of the child – Non-material damage – Compensation – Cover by compulsory insurance

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-277/12, [2013] EUECJ C-277/12
Bailii
Directive 72/166/EEC 3(1), Directive 90/232/EEC 1
European

European, Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Insurance

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.516995

Simmons v British Steel plc: HL 29 Apr 2004

The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as incorrect. Since the pursuer suffered physical injuries the starting point is that he was a primary victim. ‘Mr Smith argued, however, that the pursuer’s psoriasis and his depressive illness sprang not from the accident itself, but from his anger at the happening of the accident. Hence he could not recover damages. I see no reason to give effect to such a distinction, even supposing that it can be realistically drawn in a given case. Regret, fear for the future, frustration at the slow pace of recovery and anger are all emotions that are likely to arise, unbidden, in the minds of those who suffer injuries in an accident such as befell the pursuer. If, alone or in combination with other factors, any of these emotions results in stress so intense that the victim develops a recognised mental illness, there is no reason in principle why he should not recover damages for that illness.’
Once liability is established, remoteness of damage is to be approached as follows: (1) a defender is not liable for a consequence of a kind which is not reasonably foreseeable; While a defender is not liable for damage that was not reasonably foreseeable, it does not follow that he is liable for all damage that was reasonably foreseeable: depending on the circumstances, the defender may not be liable for damage caused by a novus actus interveniens or unreasonable conduct on the part of the pursuer, even if it was reasonably foreseeable; Subject to (2), if the pursuer’s injury is of a kind that was foreseeable, the defender is liable, even if the damage is greater in extent than was foreseeable or it was caused in a way that could not have been foreseen; (4) The defender must take his victim as he finds him; (5) Subject to (2), where personal injury to the pursuer was reasonably foreseeable, the defender is liable for any personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric, which the pursuer suffers as a result of his wrongdoing.’

Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond
[2004] UKHL 20, Times 04-May-2004, [2004] ICR 585, 2004 GWD 14-315, [2004] PIQR P33, 2004 SLT 595
House of Lords, Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Graham v David A Hall Ltd 1996
The pursuer’s symptoms, other than some initial bruising to her back resulting from her fall, were caused not by the accident but by the defenders’ treatment of her afterwards including their refusal to acknowledge liability for it and to give her . .
Appeal from – Christopher Simmons v British Steel Plc IHCS 29-Oct-2002
The pursuer was injured in his head at work. That injury made worse a pre-existing skin condition, which in trun led to severe depression. He appealed a finding that the damage was too remote.
Held: The House was in a position itself to judge . .
Cited – Allan v Barclay IHCS 1864
Lord Kinloch said: ‘The grand rule on the subject of damages is, that none can be claimed except such as naturally and directly arise out of the wrong done; and such, therefore, as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the view of the . .
Cited – Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co HL 1919
The House considered the ability of an appellate court to reconsider the facts.
Held: The privileges enjoyed by a trial judge extend not only to questions of credibility.
Lord Shaw said that the judge enjoys ‘those advantages, sometimes . .
Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .
Cited – Reavis v Clan Line Steamers Ltd 1925
The pursuer was travelling as a passenger on a vessel which sank after colliding with another vessel while on passage from Glasgow to Dublin. It was common ground that she was entitled to damages for the personal injuries which she sustained and any . .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Steel v Glasgow Iron and Steel Co Ltd 1944
The question was whether the actions of the deceased had broken the chain of causation when he intervened in an attempt to save property. ‘This rule of the ‘reasonable and probable consequence’ is a key that opens several locks; for it not only . .
Cited – Bourhill v Young’s Executor HL 5-Aug-1942
When considering claims for damages for shock, the court only recognised the action lying where the injury by shock was sustained ‘through the medium of the eye or the ear without direct contact.’ Wright L said: ‘No doubt, it has long ago been . .
Cited – Cameron v Hamilton’s Auction Marts Ltd 1955
The court considered the extent of liability for negligent acts: ‘No Scots judge, so far as I know, has ever suggested liability for a consequence of negligence which was not natural and probable in the sense of being foreseeable, subject, of . .
Cited – McKillen v Barclay Curle and Co Ltd 1967
The Lord Ordinary had awarded the pursuer damages for tuberculosis, on the basis that in the accident he had fractured a rib and this had reactivated his pre-existing tuberculosis.
Held: The pursuer had failed to prove the causal connexion . .
Cited – Hughes 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 . .
Cited – Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw HL 1-Mar-1956
The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had . .
Cited – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .
Cited – Fraser v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland OHCS 11-Jul-2000
An employer has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid for his employees unnecessary risk of injury including psychiatric and not merely physical injury, but that duty does not extend to a duty to avoid an employee experiencing unpleasant emotions . .
Cited – McGhee v National Coal Board HL 1973
The claimant who was used to emptying pipe kilns at a brickworks was sent to empty brick kilns where the working conditions were much hotter and dustier. His employers failed, in breach of their duty, to provide him with washing facilities after his . .
Cited – Dulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
Cited – Dulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
Cited – Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Cowan v National Coal Board 1958
An employee of the defenders suffered an injury to his eye in the course of his employment. He became nervous and depressed and committed suicide about four months after the accident. His widow and children sought damages from the National Coal . .
Cited – Overseas 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 . .
Cited – Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd CA 1962
The reasoning in The Wagon Mound did not affect the rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘The test is not whether these employers could reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that . .
Cited – M’Kew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd 1969
. .
Cited – Weld-Blundell v Stephens HL 1920
A physical cause may be irrelevant as a matter of law. The law is concerned not with causation, but with responsibility. Lord Sumner said: ‘more than half of human kind are tale-bearers by nature’.
Where a legal wrong was committed without loss . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Christopher Simmons v British Steel Plc IHCS 29-Oct-2002
The pursuer was injured in his head at work. That injury made worse a pre-existing skin condition, which in trun led to severe depression. He appealed a finding that the damage was too remote.
Held: The House was in a position itself to judge . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Cited – Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd HL 27-Feb-2008
The claimant’s husband had committed suicide. She sought damages for financial loss from his former employers under the 1976 Act. He had suffered a severe and debilitating injury working for them leading to his depression and suicide. The employers . .
Cited – Spencer 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 . .
Cited – Chubb Fire Ltd v The Vicar of Spalding and Churchwardens and Church Council of The Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Spalding CA 20-Aug-2010
The appellants had supplied a dry powder extinguisher to the church. Vandals discharged the extinguisher, requiring substantial sums to be spent cleaning the dust. The church’s insurers sought to recover the costs saying that the appellant should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.196077

Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau: CA 6 Jul 2017

Qualified Costs Shift applied to claim against MIB

The parties had disputed first a claim for compensation against the respondent, and now a costs order and in particular whether the claimant was entitled to the benefit of Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against a ruling that the claim was one for the recovery of a debt succeeded. The 2003 Regulations must be considered against the background of the Directive. Though member states had a discretion as to whether costs should be paid, respect also had to be paid to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Sir James Munby P FD, McFarlane, Lewison LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 932, [2017] WLR(D) 456
Bailii, WLRD
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003, Council Directive84/5/EEC
England and Wales

Costs, Personal Injury, European

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.588991

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw: HL 1 Mar 1956

The injury of which the employee complained came from two sources, a pneumatic hammer, in respect of which the employers were not in breach of the relevant Regulations; and swing grinders, in respect of which they were in breach.
Held: It had been wrong to formulate the question in terms of which was the most probable source of the disease complained of. The employee had to prove that the dust from the grinders made a substantial contribution to his injury, but that was established by showing that the proportion of dust that came from the swing grinders was not negligible. Where a breach of a duty of care is proved or admitted, the burden still lies on the plaintiff to prove that such breach caused the injury suffered. The test is the ‘but for’ test – what would have happened but for the negligent act.
Lord Reid said: ‘It appears to me that the source of his disease was the dust from both sources, and the real question is whether the dust from the swing grinders materially contributed to the disease. What is a material contribution must be a question of degree. A contribution which comes within the exception de minimis non curat lex is not material, but I think that any contribution which does not fall within that exception must be material. I do not see how there can be something too large to come within the de minimis principle but yet too small to be material.’ and ‘[the plaintiff] must make it appear at least that on a balance of probabilities the breach of duty caused or materially contributed to his injury’.
Lord Tucker said of the duty identified in Vyner: ‘I think it is desirable that your Lordships should take this opportunity to state in plain terms that no such onus exists unless the statute or statutory regulation expressly or impliedly so provides, as in several instances it does. No distinction can be drawn between actions for common law negligence and actions for breach of statutory duty in this respect. In both the plaintiff or pursuer must prove (a) breach of duty and (b) that such breach caused the injury complained of.’

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Somervell of Harrow
[1956] 1 All ER 615 HL(Sc), [1956] 2 WLR 707, [1956] AC 613, 1956 SC (HL) 26, [1956] UKHL 1
Bailii
Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industries) Regulations 1925 1
Scotland
Citing:
Criticised – Vyner v Waldenberg Brothers Ltd CA 1946
Vyner was working a circular saw when part of his thumb was cut off. The saw failed in several respects to comply with the Woodworking Machinery Regulations, and in particular the guard was not properly adjusted. The accident happened before the . .
Cited – Lee v Nursery Furnishings Ltd CA 1945
A Court should not be astute to find against either party, but should apply the ordinary standards. Lord Goddard said: ‘In the first place I think one may say this, that where you find there has been a breach of one of these safety regulations and . .
Cited – Mist v Toleman and Sons CA 1946
. .
Cited – Watts v Enfield Rolling Mills (Aluminium) Ltd CA 1952
. .
Approved – Stimpson v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd CA 1940
. .
Approved – Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries HL 1939
An action was brought for injuries caused by a breach of statutory of duty.
Held: A breach of statutory duty is regarded as ‘akin to negligence’.
Lord Atkin said that a common sense rather than a philosophical or scientific approach to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Vernon v Bosley (2) CA 29-Mar-1996
The defendant had been driving the plaintiff’s daughters, but negligently caused an accident from which they died. The plaintiff was called to the accident, and claimed to have suffered post traumatic stress. The defendant said that the effect was . .
Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority CA 1986
A prematurely-born baby was the subject of certain medical procedures, in the course of which a breach of duty occurred. to ensure that the correct amount was administered it was necessary to insert a catheter into an umbilical artery so that his . .
Cited – Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiff suffered catastrophic brain damage as a result of cardiac arrest induced by respiratory failure as a child whilst at the defendant hospital. A doctor was summoned but failed to attend, and the child suffered cardiac arrest and brain . .
Cited – Loftus-Brigham and Another v London Borough of Ealing CA 28-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to recover for damages caused to their house foundations by trees growing nearby which were the responsibility of the defendants. The defendants replied that the damages was caused in part by roots from virgina creeper and . .
Approved – Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
Applied – Nicholson v Atlas Steel Foundry and Engineering Co Ltd HL 1957
The deceased had worked in the defender’s steel foundry, inhaling there siliceous dust particles. He contracted pneumoconiosis and died. The complaints related to the defender’s failure to provide adequate ventilation to extract the dust. The . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Explained – McGhee v National Coal Board HL 1973
The claimant who was used to emptying pipe kilns at a brickworks was sent to empty brick kilns where the working conditions were much hotter and dustier. His employers failed, in breach of their duty, to provide him with washing facilities after his . .
Cited – Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
Cited – McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Co Ltd HL 1962
A steel erector had fallen seventy feet to his death from a steel lattice tower. The employers had not provided a safety harness, but the judge found that he would not have used a security belt even if provided, and that the onus was on the pursuer . .
Cited – McTear 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 – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
Cited – Environment Agency v Ellis CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimant was injured working for the appellants. The appellants now appealed the finding that they were responsible saying that other factors contributed to the injury, and in particular that he had fallen at home. The claimant said that that . .
Cited – Wootton v J Docter Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages saying that the contraceptive pill dispensed by the defendant was not the one prescribed by her doctor, and that she had become pregnant and suffered the losses claimed namely care, expenses and loss of earnings flowing . .
Cited – Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore SC 9-Mar-2011
The Court considered appeals where defendants challenged the factual basis of findings that they had contributed to the causes of the claimant’s Mesothelioma, and in particular to what extent a court can satisfactorily base conclusions of fact on . .
Cited – Shortell v BICAL Construction Ltd QBD 16-May-2008
(Liverpool District Registry) The claimant sought damages in a death caused by lung cancer where the deceased had been a smoker exposed also to asbestos in working for th edefendant.
Held: Applying the Bonnington test of causation, the issue . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180974

Haydon v Kent County Council: CA 1978

Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully taken up with sanding and gritting roads, but on the Wednesday evening one of their workmen reported the dangerous state of the particular path to them, and they took prompt action next morning, but not in time to prevent the plaintiff’s accident.
Held: The authority was liable. The duty to maintain the highway in section 44(1) included removing snow and ice and taking such protective measures as would render highways and paths safe for vehicles and pedestrians in bad weather conditions.
Lord Denning (dissenting): ”Repair’ means making good defects in the surface of the highway itself so as to make it reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood at all seasons of the year without danger caused by its physical condition. That is the combined effect of the statements of Blackburn J. in Reg. v. Inhabitants of High Halden (1859) 1 F. and F. 678; of Diplock L.J. in Burnside v. Emerson [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1490, 1497 and Cairns L.J. in Worcestershire County Council v. Newman [1975] 1 W.L.R. 901, 911. Thus deep ruts in cart roads, potholes in carriage roads, broken bridges on footpaths or bushes rooted in the surface make all the highways ‘out of repair’.’ The statutory definition does not imply that ‘maintain’ has a wider meaning than ‘repair’, and that given the legislation history the cause of action which an injured person has under the 1961 Act was limited to ‘non-repair’ of a highway, and did not include other cases. On the extent of that duty: ‘In my opinion, therefore, the duty in section 44 of the Act of 1959 ‘to maintain the highway’ is the equivalent of the duty at common law and in the Act of 1835 ‘to repair and keep in repair.’ It means that whenever there is a defect in the surface of the highway, the highway authority is under a duty to repair it. But it does not mean that the highway authority is under a duty to remove snow or ice whenever it makes the highway slippery or dangerous. I adhere, therefore, to the view I expressed in Burnside v. Emerson [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1490, 1494: ‘. . . an icy patch in winter or an occasional flooding at any time is not in itself evidence of a failure to maintain’.
Goff L.J said that the highway authority would be in breach of duty only if: ‘having regard to the nature and importance of the way, sufficient time [has] elapsed to make it prima facie unreasonable for the authority to have failed to take remedial measures. Then the authority is liable unless it is able to make out the statutory defence.’

Lord Denning MR, Goff and Shaw LJJ
[1978] QB 343, [1978] 2 All ER 97
Highways Act 1959 44(1), Highways Act 1961
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Inhabitants of High Halden 1859
highhalden1859
The court considered the liability of the parish for injury arising from a failure to repair the road. The road was ‘an old soft road formed of Weald of Kent clay, and had never been repaired with hard substances’. The evidence was that in wet . .
Cited – Burnside and Another v Emerson and Others CA 1968
The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of . .
Cited – Hereford and Worcester County Council v Newman CA 1975
The council had been found responsible by the magistrates for allowing footpaths to be ‘out of repair’. The paths were unusable for various reasons including having a hawthorn hedge growing down the middle, and having barbed wire fencing strung . .

Cited by:
Considered – Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) CA 16-Feb-1994
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The . .
Cited – Gorringe 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 . .
Cited – Jane 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 . .
Cited – Thoburn v Northumberland County Council CA 19-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged that the defendant by allowing a flood across a road not to be cleared was in breach of their statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: Though the blockage was not entirely on the Highway, the nature and extent of it was . .
Cited – Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others CA 27-Jul-2006
Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty . .
Cited – Goodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .
Cited – Ali v The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for damages after slipping on a footpath maintainable by the defendant after an accumulation of mud and debris. The claim appeared to be the first under section 130, and the highway authority . .
Cited – Pritchard v Clwyd County Council CA 16-Jun-1992
The plaintiff was injured wading through a flooded street. She claimed damages alleging a failure to maintain the storm water sewers. The defendants appealed a finding that they were responsible, and she appealed a contributory negligence . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180995

Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd: HL 1963

The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of duty by their employers which contributed to their condition after 1 October 1950. The defendants pleaded that the claims were barred by the six year limitation period under section 2 of the 1939 Act.
Held: Lord Reid made it clear that he would have wished to hold ‘that a cause of action ought not to be held to accrue until either the injured person has discovered the injury or it would be possible for him to discover it if he took such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances’. But the House unanimously held that the 1939 Act and established authority precluded it from so holding. Where a defendant sought to rely upon some damage as setting the limitation clock running, the damage referred to must be ‘real’ as distinct from minimal. The common law ought never to produce a wholly unreasonable result.
Lord Pearce said: ‘It is for a judge or jury to decide whether a man has suffered any actionable harm and in borderline cases it is a question of degree.
It is a question of fact in each case whether a man has suffered material damage by any physical changes in his body. Evidence that those changes are not felt by him and may never be felt tells in favour of the damage coming within the principle of de minimis non curat lex. On the other hand evidence that in unusual exertion or at the onslaught of disease he may suffer from his hidden impairment tells in favour of the damage being substantial.’ and ‘The cause of action accrued when it reached a stage, whether known or unknown, at which a judge could properly give damages for the harm that had been done.’
Lord Reid: ‘If this were a matter governed by the common law I would hold that a cause of action ought not to be held to accrue until either the injured person has discovered the injury or it would be possible for him to discover it if he took such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances. The common law ought never to produce a wholly unreasonable result . . But the present question depends on statute, the Limitation Act, 1939, and section 26 of that Act appears to me to make it impossible to reach the result which I have indicated.’

Lord Reid, Lord Evershed MR, Lord Pearce
[1963] AC 758, [1963] 1 All ER 341
Limitation Act 1939 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd CA 1962
The court gave guidance on when an injury passes from being de minimis to being sufficiently significant to found a cause of action: ‘there is from the beginning some injury occurring from day to day, as each of the minute particles which enter the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hatton v Messrs Chafes (A Firm) CA 13-Mar-2003
The defendant firm appealed against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s claim for professional negligence, asserting that the judge should have considered the limitation issue in the light of Khan v Falvey.
Held: By the time that the . .
Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003
In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
Cited – The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others CA 13-Dec-2004
The Society appealed dismissal for limitation of its claim against the defendant firm of accountants arising from alleged fraud in approval of a solicitor’s accounts.
Held: The liability did not arise until the Society decided to make . .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – A 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 . .
Mentioned – Law Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
Cited – Horton 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 . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
axaReSCS201
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 . .
Cited – Dryden and Others v Johnson Matthey Plc SC 21-Mar-2018
Sensitisation to salt can be personal injury
The claimants, had developed platinum salt sensitisation due to the defendant employer’s breach of health and safety regulations and common law duty, claimed a cause of action for personal injury. Platinum salt sensitisation is, in itself, an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179759

Peters v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority and Another: CA 3 Mar 2009

The Authority was not entitled to have deducted from the sums payable toward the claimant’s social care, an award of damages made against the authority from its own negligence in the care of his mother, leading to his disability. The phrase ‘An award of damages for a personal injury’ in paragraph 44(2)(a) was clear, unambiguous and unqualified, and should not be construed as referring only to some heads of an award of damages for personal injury.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Dyson
[2009] EWCA Civ 145, [2009] 3 WLR 737, [2009] LS Law Medical 229, (2009) 12 CCL Rep 299, [2009] PIQR Q1
Bailii, Times
Income Support (General) Regulations 1967 (SI 1987 No 1967)
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Benefits

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.311771

Spencer 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 mobility. He said that he would not have suffered the further injury but for the original one.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. ‘The apportionment of blame speaks clearly against a finding either that Mr Spencer acted recklessly or that it was unfair to treat the chain of causation as surviving his fall. Like the amputation, the fall was, on the judge’s findings, an unexpected but real consequence of the original accident, albeit one to which Mr Spencer’s own misjudgement contributed.’
Applying the test in McKew, the question was whether the claimants was unreasonable. However ”unreasonable’ is a protean adjective. Its nuances run from irrationality to simple incaution or unwisdom. It is helpful to locate its correct position on the scale of meanings by recalling that its purpose in this context is to determine the point at which the law regards a consequence as too remote.’ and
‘Fairness, baldly stated, might be thought to take things little further than reasonableness. But what it does is acknowledge that a succession of consequences which in fact and in logic is infinite will be halted by the law when it becomes unfair to let it continue. In relation to tortious liability for personal injury, this point is reached when (though not only when) the claimant suffers a further injury which, while it would not have happened without the initial injury, has been in substance brought about by the claimant and not the tortfeasor.’

Sedley, Longmore, Aikens LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1404, [2010] PIQR P8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McKew v Holland and Hannan and Cubitts HL 26-Nov-1969
The appellant had been injured in the course of his employment for which the respondents were liable. Sometimes his left leg would gave way beneath him. He was descending a steep staircase without a handrail when the leg collapsed and he tried to . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Cited – McKew v Holland and Hannan and Cubitts HL 26-Nov-1969
The appellant had been injured in the course of his employment for which the respondents were liable. Sometimes his left leg would gave way beneath him. He was descending a steep staircase without a handrail when the leg collapsed and he tried to . .
Cited – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Cited – Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Area Health Authority CA 1-Jul-1984
A sterilisation operation had been performed negligently and failed and the claimant was born.
Held: The birth of a child with congenital abnormalities was a foreseeable consequence of the surgeon’s careless failure to clip a fallopian tube . .

Cited by:
Cited – Chubb Fire Ltd v The Vicar of Spalding and Churchwardens and Church Council of The Church of St Mary and St Nicholas, Spalding CA 20-Aug-2010
The appellants had supplied a dry powder extinguisher to the church. Vandals discharged the extinguisher, requiring substantial sums to be spent cleaning the dust. The church’s insurers sought to recover the costs saying that the appellant should . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.392513

Love v Halfords Ltd: QBD 8 Apr 2014

The claimant had purchased a new bicycle from the defendants who also maintained it. Several months later, the steerer tube broke causing an accident and severe injury. The cycle had been finally assembled by the defendant after importation, but that element was already put together.
Held: The claim failed. The expert evidence had been difficult, but the accident happened when the tube failed after being weakened by a previous, unknown, incident in which it was assumed to have been bent and straightened. The claimant worked in an engineering environment in which such repairs would have been possible. His denial of such a repair was not accepted.

Sir Colin Mackay
[2014] EWHC 1057
Bailii
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Sale of Goods Act 1979
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Cited – Ide v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .
Cited – McGlinchey v General Motors UK SCS 4-Dec-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Consumer, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.523597

Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another: SC 17 Apr 2013

The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 Scheme.
Held: The appeal was allowed, restoring the decision of the FTT that the claim was correctly rejected. The Court of Appeal had been unable to show sufficient reason for disturbing the decision of the First Tier Tribunal.
The Scheme’s terms did not allow an award to be made in these circumstances. The term crime of violence’ required two elements. First had a criminal offence been committed, and second, given the nature of the act, was it properly characterised as violent. That second question had to cover a wide range of possibilities, and a fact finding exercise may be appropriate. Here, however, it had not been shown that the suicide’s actions would all within section 20 of the 1861 Act. The FTT was entitled to conclude that it has not been shown that the suicide intended to cause harm or was reckless as to whether harm of whatever degree might be caused by his actions. The development of a consistent approach to the application of the expression ‘crime of violence’, within the statutory scheme, was a task primarily for the tribunals, not the appellate courts.

Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath JJSC, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
UKSC 2011/0123, [2013] UKSC 19, [2013] 2 WLR 1012, [2013] 2 All ER 625, [2013] WLR(D) 142, [2013] 2 AC 48
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary, WLRD
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 6 8, Offences against the Person Act 1861
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Jones v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had been driving his lorry. A man jumped in front of a second lorry in an apparent attempt to commit suicide. In a failed attempt to avoid the suicide, the second lorry crashed into the claimant causing catastrophic injuries. The . .
Cited – Regina v Mowatt CACD 20-Jun-1967
The defendant was attacked by his victim, and he hit his victim in the face. He was charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm with an alternative of unlawful wounding also open to the jury. The judge gave no direction on the . .
Cited – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex parte Clowes 1977
A police sergeant was injured by an explosion when he was investigating the suicide of a man who had broken off the end of a gas stand pipe in his house. The Board rejecting his application, saying that it had not been ‘a crime of violence’.
Cited – In re Grayan Building Services Ltd CA 1995
The degree to which an appellate court will be willing to substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal will vary with the nature of the question. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘The concept of limited liability and the sophistication of our corporate law . .
Cited – Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
Cited – Brutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 3-Feb-2014
The claimant had been riding his cycle. A dog, known to be aggressive, chased him, he swerved ino the path of a car and was severely injured. His claim was rejected by the appellant saying that no crime of violence had been involved. CICA now . .
Cited – MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another SC 22-Feb-2017
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
Cited – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Crime

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.472625

Gregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance: CA 9 Feb 2010

The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had been as to the level of damages where he had been less successful, and had reduced the award accordingly.
Held: The action was resisted to the end on the basis that the claim was fraudulent. That defence failed. The starting point was that the claimant should receive his costs. The claimant had succeeded on each head of his claim. The judge had been wrong to conclude that the second defendant had in effect succeeded on quantum. The correct way for a defendant to protect himself against an exaggerated claim was to make a payment in. It had chosen not to do so, and the appeal succeeded, with an appropriate upward adjustment being made.

Ward LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 165
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 44.35
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Painting v University of Oxford CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had sought damages for personal injuries, namely injury to her back. Though she was found to have exaggerated her claim, she still recovered more than had been paid in. The defendant appealed a costs order based solely on the size of . .
Cited – Widlake v BAA Ltd CA 23-Nov-2009
The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to . .
Cited – Hall and others v Stone CA 18-Dec-2007
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .
Cited – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others TCC 31-Oct-2008
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.402943

Kmiecic v Isaacs: QBD 12 Mar 2010

The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had taken control over the works and made herself responsible, pointing to differences in the regulations.
Held: Swift J said: ‘The 2005 Regulations apply, in the case of a non-employer, to ‘work by a person under his control, to the extent of his control’. The 1996 Regulations impose a duty on a non-employer who ‘controls the way in which the construction work is carried out by a person at work’ to comply with the Regulations ‘insofar as they relate to matters which are within his control’ . . the defendant did not assume control over the claimant, in the sense of being able to direct how he carried out his work. She was entitled to – and did – impose limits on (and thereby control) his access to her property, by refusing him entry to the house for the purpose of gaining access to the roof. She did that in her capacity as an occupier, not as a person controlling the way in which he carried out his work.’ The defendant did not owe the duty claimed, his employer did.

Swift J
[2010] EWHC 381 (QB)
Bailii
Work at Height Regulations 2005, Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jennings v The Forestry Commission CA 23-May-2008
The claimant was a self employed contractor. He suffered serious injuries when while working for the defendant, his vehicle overturned. The defendant appealed against the finding of liability. The Land Rover went out of control on a steeply sloping . .
Cited – Mccook v Lobo and others CA 19-Nov-2002
The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed.
Held: He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.402624

Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd: CA 11 Dec 2008

The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim for personal injury in the form of tenosynovitis from keyboard use. The judge had found the defendants not negligent. The claimant typed, but not intensively, and made a fairly small number of keystrokes a day.
Held: The claimant’s daily routine was such that it was in practice interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as would reduce her workload on the display screen equipment. Though the defendants were in breach, that breach had no causative effect. The appeal succeeded but only in part and as to the time after her return to work when the company had advice to minimise keyboard use.

[2008] EWCA Civ 1374
Bailii
Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Judgment – Goodwin v Bennetts UK Ltd (Costs) CA 11-Dec-2008
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.278664

White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others: HL 3 Dec 1998

No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone

The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs’ claims as employees. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. A rescuer, not himself exposed to physical risk by being involved in a rescue was a secondary victim, and as such not entitled to claim. Primary victims are ‘victims who are imperilled or reasonably believe themselves to be imperilled by the defendant’s negligence’.
Lord Steyn said: ‘the law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is a patchwork quilt of distinctions which are difficult to justify. The first is to wipe out recovery in tort for pure psychiatric injury. The case for such a course has been argued by Professor Stapleton. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. Only Parliament could take such a step. The second solution is to abolish all the special limiting rules applicable to psychiatric harm. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. They would allow claims for pure psychiatric damage by mere bystanders: see (1997) 113 LQR 410, 415. Precedent rules out this course and, in any event, there are cogent policy considerations against such a bold innovation. In my view the only sensible general strategy for the courts is to say thus far and no further. The only prudent course is to treat the pragmatic categories as reflected in in authoritative decisions such as the Alcock case and Page v. Smith as settled for the time being, but by and large to leave any expansion or development in this corner of the law to Parliament. In reality there are no refined analytical tools which will enable the courts to draw lines by way of compromise solution in a way that is coherent and morally defensible. It must be left to Parliament to undertake the task of radical law reform.’

Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Gazette 13-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 1, [1999] 2 AC 455, [1998] UKHL 45, [1999] ICR 216, [1998] 3 WLR 1509, [1999] IRLR 110, (1999) 45 BMLR 1
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996
The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police HL 28-Nov-1991
The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends, 96 in all, died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. The defendant police service had not . .
Regretted – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .
Cited – Hambrook v Stokes Brothers CA 1925
The defendant’s employee left a lorry at the top of a steep narrow street unattended, with the engine running and without having taken proper steps to secure it. The lorry ran violently down the hill. The plaintiff’s wife had been walking up the . .
Cited – King v Phillips CA 1952
Denning LJ said: ‘there can be no doubt since Bourhill v. Young that the test of liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock.’ A person ‘who suffers shock on being told of an accident to a loved one cannot recover damages from the . .
Cited – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd CA 10-Sep-1993
The court will not extend a duty of care to mere bystanders of horrific events. Nor is any duty of care owed to a rescuer lacking ordinary courage. Whether a person is to be regarded as a rescuer will be a question of fact to be decided on the . .
Cited – Overseas 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 . .
Cited – Chadwick v British Railways Board 1967
Mr Chadwick tried to bring relief and comfort to the victims of the Lewisham train disaster in December 1967. His widow claimed in nervous shock, saying that it had eventually led to his own death.
Held: Where an accident is of a particular . .
Cited – Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd 1952
The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. Lord Morton of Henryton: ‘it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who . .
Cited – Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey 1970
The court considered how progress is made in developing the law of liability for damages for psychiatric injury, saying ‘The field is one in which the common law is still in course of development. Courts must therefore act in company and not alone. . .
Cited – Malcolm v Broadhurst QBD 1970
The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant . .
Cited – Brice v Brown 1984
The plaintiff, a lady with a hysterical personality disorder since childhood, had a minor taxi accident and then developed a major psychiatric illness – bizarre behaviour, suicide attempts, pleading with people to cut her head off – in response to a . .
Criticised – Page v Smith HL 12-May-1995
The plaintiff was driving his car when the defendant turned into his path. Both cars suffered considerable damage but the drivers escaped physical injury. The Plaintiff had a pre-existing chronic fatigue syndrome, which manifested itself from time . .
Mentioned – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Hinz v Berry CA 1970
Then plaintiff saw her husband killed and her children injured by a runaway motor car. At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. The question was whether, having regard to the fact that she had suffered sorrow and grief it would not be to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Keen v Tayside Contracts OHCS 26-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for post traumatic stress disorder. He was a road worker instructed to attend by the defendant immediately after a terrible accident.
Held: It was a classic case of nervous shock. He was not a rescuer, and nor had . .
Cited – Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground.
Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute . .
Cited – Salter v UB Frozen Chilled Foods OHCS 25-Jul-2003
The pursuer was involved in an accident at work, where his co-worker died. He suffered only psychiatric injury.
Held: Being directly involved, the pursuer was a primary victim, and accordingly not subject to the limits on claiming for . .
Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002
In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the ‘battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use’, namely: ‘. . the ‘purpose’ test (Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd); the ‘assumption . .
Considered – Campbell v North Lanarkshire Council and Scottish Power Plc SCS 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Calvert 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, . .
Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Police, Damages, Negligence

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.158976

Woodland 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.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was dismissed (Laws LJ dissenting). Tominson LJ said: ‘I do not consider that it is open to us to find that there was here, on the basis of the pleaded facts, a relevant non-delegable duty of care which will lead to liability in the authority in the event of negligence being found on the part of the Second or Third Defendants or of the swimming teacher . . As I have already observed, so to hold would go beyond anything which has been held as a matter of decision by the Australian courts, and I do not believe that anything has been placed before us which would justify such an extension of our existing law. I do not believe that we can find in the pleaded facts alone any material on the basis of which we could conclude that the imposition of the duty would be fair, just and reasonable.’
Laws LJ (dissenting) said: ‘the question here is not whether an existing duty can be delegated, nor whether to allow so radical a departure from the paradigm duty of care as is found in the rule of vicarious liability. It is whether in the circumstances we should acknowledge ‘a duty not merely to take care, but a duty to provide that care is taken’.’
He concluded that ‘control is too blunt a criterion to constitute an apt qualification of the general principle giving rise to the non-delegable duty of a school or hospital, which I have broadly described as an acceptance of responsibility to take care of the institution’s clientele, being a group of persons who are particularly vulnerable or dependent. The true test reflects the factors which suggest that control is important, but has more nuance. I would express it thus. A school or hospital owes a non-delegable duty to see that care is taken for the safety of a child or patient who (a) is generally in its care, and (b) is receiving a service which is part of the institution’s mainstream function of education or tending to the sick.’
Kitchin LJ said: ‘ the characterisation of the special relationship which has been found to justify the imposition of a non-delegable duty of care in the cases to which I have referred also assists in defining the limits of that duty. The essential elements of that special relationship are that the hospital or school has undertaken the care, supervision and control of a vulnerable person.’ and ‘ the general rule which recognises that the duty to take reasonable care may be discharged by entrusting the performance of a task to an apparently competent independent contractor is an important feature of the law of negligence; and any departure from the general rule must be justified on policy grounds.’

Laws, Tomlinson, Kitchin LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mitchil v Alestree 1726
In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and . .
Appeal from – Woodland 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 . .
Cited – The Pass of Ballater 1942
The court considered whether a duty of care was non-delegable. Langton J said: ‘while in general a person who employs a contractor is not liable for the acts of the contractor, yet where instruments or materials which are in themselves dangerous are . .
Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Cited – Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942
The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
Cited – Cassidy v Ministry of Health CA 1951
The court considered the liability in negligence of the respondent for the negligence of doctors employed by it.
Held: The Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service.
Denning LJ . .
Cited – Commonwealth v Introvigne 1982
(High Court of Australia) A pupil was injured when he swung, whilst skylarking unsupervised, from a halyard attached to a flagpole in the school quadrangle. The halyard was in turn connected to a pulley which was part of a truck attached to the top . .
Cited – Kondis v State Transport Authority 16-Oct-1984
(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to . .
Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England HL 14-Jul-1988
The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
Cited – AM v Reverend Joseph Hendron and others OHCS 13-Sep-2005
Serious abuse was said to have been inflicted by monks of the De La Salle order on those in their charge at an approved school in Scotland. The former pupil claimant contended that the SED owed him a non-delegable duty which entitled him to . .
Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937
The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
Cited – Roe v Minister of Health CA 8-Apr-1954
The plaintiffs sought damages after being severely paralysed after what should have been minor spinal anaesthetic procedures. The nupercaine had been contaminated by seepage. A part time anaesthetist, not employed directly by the hospital had been . .
Cited – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004
The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Robertson v Nottingham Health Authority CA 1987
Brooke LJ held that ‘the only rule that this court has to apply in the present case is that if a patient is injured by reason of a negligent breakdown in the systems for communicating material information to the clinicians responsible for her care, . .

Cited by:
At CA – Woodland 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, Negligence

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.451842

Ammah v Kuehne Nagal Logistics Ltd: CA 22 Jan 2009

The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages. He had been injured removing a pamphlet from a high shelf, having stood on an upturned plastic box. A riser had been provided, and the employer’s manual told employees not to stand on such boxes. He had been given no training on induction.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘the respondent complied with its duty of care to ensure a safe system of work in relation to access to the upper shelves. Not only was suitable equipment available, but employees were instructed to use that equipment and not to stand on boxes for the purpose. The risk associated with standing on a box had been identified but had been adequately guarded against by the instruction given. Employees may occasionally have stood on boxes, but it was not a common practice and it was not condoned. In standing on a box, the appellant took a risk for which only he, and not his employer, was to blame. There is no basis for holding the respondent liable for the injury he sustained. ‘

Ward LJ, Richards LJ, Aikens LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 11
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas HL 1953
It is the duty of the employer to consider the situation, devise a suitable system and instruct his employees what they must do and to provide appropriate equipment. In leaving it to individual workmen to take precautions against an obvious danger, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.280132

Secretary of State for Defence v Lance Corporal (Now Corporal) Duncan and Another: CA 12 Oct 2009

The servicemen had challenged the awards made to them for injuries suffered in service. The SSD now appealed.
Held: The awards had been increased when it became clear that the SD had failed to take account of some elements of the injuries suffered, and the injuries had been reclassified by the Tribunal, with its medical experts, as complex. The SSD complained that the injuries had been assessed at the date of the hearing, and that injuries arising during the course of treatment should not be included.
Held: It was agreed that further injury arising from medical negligence would not be claimable, the chain of causation being broken. However it was not proper to identify separately the first and subsequent injuries, and ‘Frequently, there are risks that quite independent illness or injury may result from carrying out perfectly proper medical treatment. If the risk materialises, however likely or unlikely that may be, then in my judgment, the consequential injury is referable to the original injury in service and there is no break in the chain of causation. ‘ and ‘injuries which are consequential upon medical treatment should be compensated under this Scheme where they flow from risks which are inherent in carrying out that treatment. However, the immediate consequences of the treatment itself, such as pain and the physical intrusion which necessarily follows any surgery and is an intrinsic in the cure, will not merit any additional award. ‘

Keene LJ, Carnwath LJ, Elias LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1043, [2010] AACR 5
Bailii
The Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Armed Forces, Personal Injury

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.375985

Welsh v Stokes and Another: CA 27 Jul 2007

The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Held: The appeal failed on either account. The judge had directed himself properly in his consideration of the weight to be accorded to the hearsay evidence, and had had regard to each of the factors in section 4(2) of the 1995 Act. As regards knowledge under section 2(b) under the 1971 Act: ‘I do not see why a keeper’s knowledge that a horse has the characteristic of normally behaving in a certain way in particular circumstances cannot be established by showing that the keeper knows that horses as a species normally behave in that way in those circumstances . . It is a general characteristic of horses to bolt in the particular circumstances of the facts of Mirvahedy, or to rear in the particular circumstances of the present case. It makes no sense to require a keeper, if aware of that general characteristic, to have some additional and more particular knowledge.’

Dyson, Thomas, Richards LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 796, [2008] 1 All ER 921, [2008] 1 WLR 1224, [2007] PIQR P27, (2007) 151 SJLB 1020, [2007] PIQR P27
Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2(2), Civil Evidence Act 1995 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The ‘Ferdinand Retzlaff’ 1971
The plaintiff shipowners claimed damages for detention following a collision with the defendants’ ship. There was an issue as to how long the ship repairs would have taken if they had been done at Bremen. The defendants adduced evidence on this . .
Cited – The ‘Kilmun’ 1988
Although the giving of evidence by way of statements under the Civil Evidence Act 1968 was convenient, ‘it is obvious that it is not a satisfactory way of resolving disputed issues of fact’. . .
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Cited – Mirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
Cited – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .

Cited by:
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Animals

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.258427

Mirvahedy v Henley and another: HL 20 Mar 2003

The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular circumstances’, these being some sort of fright or other external stimulus. Section 2 places all animals into one of two categories by their species. Animals either belong to a dangerous species, or they do not. A keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by his animal dependant upon the category. A dangerous species must meet two requirements, a) that it is not commonly domesticated here and b) that fully grown animals ‘normally have such characteristics that they are likely, unless restrained, to cause severe damage or that any damage they may cause is likely to be severe’.
Lord Nicholls: ‘Take a large and heavy domestic animal such as a mature cow. There is a real risk that if a cow happens to stumble and fall onto someone, any damage suffered will be severe. This would satisfy requirement (a). . . But a cow’s dangerousness in this regard may not fall within requirement (b). This dangerousness is due to a characteristic normally found in all cows at all times. The dangerousness results from their very size and weight. It is not due to a characteristic not normally found in cows ‘except at particular times or in particular circumstances.”

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Nicholls
Times 24-Mar-2003, [2003] UKHL 16, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 2 AC 491, [2003] RTR 26, [2003] PIQR P25, [2003] NPC 38, [2003] 2 WLR 882, [2003] 2 All ER 401
House of Lords, Bailii
Animals Act 1971 2 6(2) 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
Cited – Breeden v Lampard CA 21-Mar-1985
A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too . .
Cited – Cummings v Grainger CA 1977
An untrained Alsatian dog was turned loose in a scrap-yard to deter intruders. The dog seriously injured the plaintiff who had entered the yard.
Held: The requirements of section 2(2) were satisfied but the defendant was entitled to rely upon . .

Cited by:
Cited – Clark v Bowlt CA 26-Jun-2006
A claim was made for personal injury suffered riding a horse.
Held: The court doubted whether a propensity occasionally to move otherwise than as directed can be described as a characteristic of a horse, for the purposes of s. 2(2)(b), but, if . .
Cited – Welsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Cited – Freeman v Higher Park Farm CA 30-Oct-2008
The claimant fell from a horse hired to her by the defendant. She claimed for her injuries, and appealed rejection of her claim in strict liability under the 1971 Act. The horse was known to be lively and occasionally to buck, but the claimant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Road Traffic, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179981

Woodland v Stopford and Others: CA 16 Mar 2011

The claimant appealed against a decision allowing a defendant to withdraw an admission of liability. As a child she had got into difficulties during a class swimming lesson, and had ceased to breathe leaving her with catastrophic hypoxic brain injury. There had been confusion about the involvement of the Swimming Teachers’ Association. The claimant said that there had been no new evidence to justify the court allowing the withdrawal.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge had impeccably applied the law, and carefully exercised his discretion. He was entitled to the conclusion he had reached, and the court could not disturb it.

Ward, Arden, Moore-Bick LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 266, [2011] Med LR 237
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 14.1A(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sowerby v Charlton CA 21-Dec-2005
Before proceedings, in without prejudice discussions, the defendant made certain admissions. They were withdrawn before proceedings commenced. The claimant said that they could not be withdrawn.
Held: Until proceedings began the Civil . .
Cited – Stoke on Trent City Council v Walley CA 31-Jul-2006
Does the court have jurisdiction to enter judgment for a claimant in reliance on an admission made by a defendant before the commencement of the action, which the defendant has subsequently withdrawn. . .
Cited – American Reliable Insurance Company and others v Willis Ltd ComC 24-Oct-2008
The court considered an application by a party to be allowed to withdraw an admission made before commencement of proceedings. The defendant sought to withdraw admissions in their original defence which had been made because it was thought not to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Dar v Vonsak and Another QBD 17-Dec-2012
The second defendant insurers appealed against a refusal by the court to allow it to withdraw an admission of liability in respect of a road traffic accident. The insurer said that the fact that it now saw the accident as fraudulent was an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Negligence, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.430608

Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 23 Jan 2009

The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim, saying that consent to the action should have been obtained.
Held: The Commissioner’s appeal failed. The section is not directed primarily at protecting the police. Interpreting the section as a jurisdictional bar rather than a procedural one would complicate further limit the applicable limitation periods. An application for consent would have to be made on notice. ‘Section 329 stipulates only that a claimant who sues someone for assaulting him in trying to prevent a crime or to apprehend him for committing it will have to show merits sufficient to defeat the special statutory defence if his action is to be allowed to proceed. It makes it legitimate to visit in costs an application which is made later than it should have been, but it does not either explicitly or implicitly involve the drastic step of nullifying proceedings, however sound, which have been initiated without first clearing this hurdle.’

Sedley LJ, Keene LJ, Smith LJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 18, Times 23-Feb-2009, [2009] CP Rep 21, [2009] 1 WLR 1859
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 2003 329
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rendall v Blair 1890
Where a statute requires leave to commence proceedings to be granted, a failure to obtain such consent does not automatically render the proceedings a nullity.
Bowen LJ said: ‘this section is not framed in the way in which sections are framed . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Cited – In re Saunders (A Bankrupt) ChD 1997
Very emphatic language was required in a statute before want of leave should, without more, result in proceedings being treated as a nullity. Leave could in appropriate circumstances be granted after the event notwithstanding the proceedings had . .
Appeal from – Adorian v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 19-May-2008
Claim for damages for assault during arrest. It became necessary for the claimant to issue proceedings very quickly after the decision in Hoare, and he failed to obtain consent under the 2003 Act before issuing his claim.
Held: The requirement . .
Cited – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Cited – Winch v Jones CA 1986
The court asked as to the criteria which should be applied when considering an application by a mental patient for leave to bring proceedings under section 139: ‘section 139 protects the defendant unless and until the applicant obtains leave. This . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Park v Cho and Others ChD 24-Jan-2014
The parties disputed the chairmanship of a charity. The claimant succeeded, but a third party later intervened saying that permission had not first been obtained from the Charity Commission as required. The defendant now appealed against the lifting . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.280131

Widlake v BAA Ltd: CA 23 Nov 2009

The claimant had succeeded in her action for personal injuries, but now appealed against the awarding of costs to the defendant. The dispute had been substantialy as to the nature and effect of her injuries. She had not disclosed earlier injury to her back, and had exaggerated the injury.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Ward LJ said ‘there may be no need to determine who has been the ‘winner’ of a particular ‘issue’. All the court needs to do is establish whether it was unreasonable for the claimant to pursue her allegation that she had suffered such pain (a) that it justified her case that her pre-existing condition was accelerated by 5 years and (b) that it was of the severity she described in support of her claim for general damages for pain and suffering. If it was unreasonable then that was conduct which the court had to take into account . . The way in which regard is to be had to that conduct is principally to enquire into its causative effect: to what extent did her lies and gross exaggeration cause the incurring or wasting of costs?’ and ‘an order for costs against the claimant is less justified where, as here, the defendant failed to alleviate its predicament by making a proper Part 36 offer and so lost the opportunity provided by the rules of recovering those costs from the claimant. The claimant’s dishonesty must be penalised. The claimant’s failure to negotiate a claim which was clearly capable of being settled must also be recognised. When I balance those factors, and attempt to do justice to both parties and to be fair to them, I conclude that the right order in this case is that there be no order for costs.’

Ward, Smith, Wilson LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1256
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Molloy v Shell UK Ltd CA 6-Jul-2001
Liability had been conceded by the defendant in the personal injury claim, but the defendant now appealed against the order that it should recover only 75% of its costs incurred after the date of a Part 36 payment made by it. The claimant claimed . .
Cited – Painting v University of Oxford CA 3-Feb-2005
The claimant had sought damages for personal injuries, namely injury to her back. Though she was found to have exaggerated her claim, she still recovered more than had been paid in. The defendant appealed a costs order based solely on the size of . .
Cited – Jackson v Ministry of Defence CA 12-Jan-2006
andpound;150,000 was paid into court but the claimant recovered andpound;155,000 and the judge ordered the defendant to pay 75% of the claimant’s costs. The defendant appealed. The judge had decided that when the claimant gave his evidence there was . .
Cited – Shah v Ul-Haq and Others CA 9-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s action saying that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in an earlier associated claim.
Held: The Rule gave no power to strike out a claim on such a . .
Cited – Straker v Tudor Rose (A Firm) CA 25-Apr-2007
The defendants had made a Part 36 offer before the commencement of the proceedings and soon after the commencement had paid pounds 9,000 into court under Part 36. The judge awarded over pounds 11,000 and pounds 2,000 of accrued interest. Despite . .
Cited – Hall and others v Stone CA 18-Dec-2007
The claimants appealed against a reduction in their costs awards after succeeding in their claims arising from road traffic incidents. The judge had awarded them only 60% of their costs and they appealed submitting that there was no reason why they . .

Cited by:
Cited – Gregson v Hussein, CIS Insurance CA 9-Feb-2010
The claimant appealed against the level of costs awarded to him in succeeding in his claim for damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident. The court had found that though the claimant had succeeded, the substantial dispute had . .
Binding – Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd CA 7-Oct-2010
The claimant was said to have fraudulently exaggerated the damages associated with a valid personal injury claim. The defendant argued that the claim should be struck out entirely as a punishment.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The Court . .
Cited – Fairclough 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.

Costs, Personal Injury

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.381297

Willock and Others v Corus UK Ltd: CA 17 May 2013

The employee appealed against a finding that the employers were not liable for a breach of the 1998 Regulations leading to his injuries at work. As a crane driver at a steel works, he had incurred back pain due to what he said was a bad posture in the crane cab.
Held: It was not clear that the judge addressed the critical issue upon regulation 17(2), as now seen. The claimants’ appeal was allowed because of the causation error

Lord Hughes of Ombersley, David Richards J, Sir Alan Ward
[2013] EWCA Civ 519
Bailii
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 1792)
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.509314

Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd: SC 18 Mar 2015

The claimant’s husband had been lost from the defendant’s ship at sea. The defendant had contracted to pay compensation unless the loss was by suicide. They so determined. The court was now asked whether that was a permissible conclusion in the circumstances: ‘This case raises two inter-linked questions of principle, one general and one particular. The particular issue is the proper approach of a contractual fact-finder who is considering whether a person may have committed suicide. Does the fact-finder have to bear in mind the need for cogent evidence before forming the opinion that a person has committed suicide? The general issue is what it means to say that the decision of a contractual fact-finder must be a reasonable one.’
Held: (Neuberger and Wilson LL dissenting) The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The report of the investigation team did not give Mr Sullivan the evidential basis for forming the positive opinion that Mr Braganza had committed suicide.
The defendant had used a report prepared with one question in mind (how to improve systems) to answer a different one: ‘ the investigation team’s report and conclusion could not be regarded as sufficiently cogent evidence to justify Mr Sullivan, and hence BP, in forming the positive opinion that he had committed suicide. No-one suggests that his decision was ‘arbitrary, capricious or perverse’, but in my view it was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, having been formed without taking relevant matters into account.’
Lord Hodge said: ‘The personal relationship which employment involves may justify a more intense scrutiny of the employer’s decision-making process than would be appropriate in some commercial contracts.’
Lord Neuberger said: ‘in this case it is illogical to suggest that, because Mr Sullivan’s opinion, unlike the decision of the team, would result in Mrs Braganza not receiving the death-in-service benefit, he should have been more reluctant than the team to conclude that Mr Braganza had committed suicide. The only relevance that the non-receipt of the benefit could have had to Mr Sullivan’s opinion would be that, because the benefit would be lost if Mr Braganza committed suicide, it could be said to render it less likely that he would have done so. However, that applies equally to the team’s decision.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 17, UKSC 2013/0099, [2015] WLR(D) 158, [2015] Pens LR 431, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 240, [2015] ICR 449, [2015] 1 WLR 1661, [2015] 4 All ER 639, [2015] IRLR 487
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – CVG Siderurgicia del Orinoco SA v London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited ‘The Vainqueur Jose’ 1979
The plaintiff sought to claim under the rules of the P and I club of which it was a member. After defining the risks in respect of which members were to be indemnified, the rules made the following proviso in Rule 8(k): ‘A member shall at the . .
Appeal from – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Others CA 22-Mar-2013
The claimant widow sued in negligence after the disappearance overboard of her husband from the respondent’s ship. The court had found insufficient evidence to establish the cause of death, either as to negligence as suggested by the claimant, or as . .
At Commercial Court – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Another ComC 30-May-2012
The claimant said that her husband, serving as an officer on the defendant’s ship was lost overboard as a result of the defendant’s negligence.
Held: The claim under the 1976 Act failed, but the court awarded the contractual sum claimed.
Cited – Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd (No 2) CA 1993
Where parties enter into a contract which confers a discretion on one of them, the discretion must be exercised honestly and in good faith, and not ‘arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably’. The owner had acted unreasonably in that there was no . .
Cited – Ludgate Insurance Company Limited v Citibank NA CA 26-Jan-1998
Brooke LJ said that the circumstances in which the court will interfere with the exercise by a party to a contract of a contractual discretion given to it by another party are extremely limited. The courts will not intervene where the discretion is . .
Cited – Gan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Jul-2001
A reinsurance contract which contained a clause which provided that no settlement or compromise of a claim could be made or liability admitted by the insured without the prior approval of the reinsurers. The court considered how the discretion to . .
Cited – Paragon Finance plc v Nash etc CA 15-Oct-2001
The court was asked to consider whether there was any implied term limiting the power of a mortgagee to set interest rates under a variable rate mortgage.
Held: A loan arrangement which allowed a lender to vary the implied rate of interest, . .
Cited – Socimer International Bank Ltd v Standard Bank London Ltd CA 22-Feb-2008
Rix LJ considered the restraints operating a party to a contract in exercising any discretion gien under it, preferring the use of the term ‘irrationality’ to ‘unreasonableness’: ‘It is plain from these authorities that a decision-maker’s discretion . .
Cited – Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
Cited – Hayes v Willoughby SC 20-Mar-2013
The claimant and appellant had been employer and employee who had fallen out, with a settlement in 2005. The appellant then began an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against Mr Hayes, complaining to public bodies with allegations of tax . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc v Telefonica O2 UK Ltd SC 9-Jul-2014
The parties disputed the termination charges which BT was entitled to charge to mobile network operators for putting calls from the latter’s networks through to BT fixed lines with associated 08 numbers. BT had introduced new tariff charges.
Cited – Regina v West London Coroner ex parte Gray CA 1988
Before a coroner’s jury could reach a verdict of unlawful killing, it had to be satisfied ‘that the act or omission of a single person must amount to unlawful conduct which was a substantial cause of death’, although Rule 42 of the Coroners Rules . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) HL 11-Jun-2008
Balance of probabilities remains standard of proof
There had been cross allegations of abuse within the family, and concerns by the authorities for the children. The judge had been unable to decide whether the child had been shown to be ‘likely to suffer significant harm’ as a consequence. Having . .
Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Cited – Commerzbank Ag v Keen CA 17-Nov-2006
The bank had sought summary dismissal of a claim for non-payment of bonuses to the claimant a former employee, and now appealed refusal of its request for summary dismissal, saying that the claim had no prospect of success. The claimant said that . .
Cited – Clark v Nomura International plc 2000
clark_nomura2000
Mr Clark was dismissed on three months’ notice and, although he was paid his basic salary for that period and was still in employment at the date for payment of the annual bonus, he was not paid a bonus. He had earned substantial profits for the . .
Cited – Cantor Fitzgerald International v Horkulak CA 14-Oct-2004
The employee claimed under a bonus clause which ‘contained in a contract of employment in a high earning and competitive activity in which the payment of discretionary bonuses is part of the remuneration structure of employers.’
Held: The . .
Cited – In re D; Doherty, Re (Northern Ireland); Life Sentence Review Commissioners v D HL 11-Jun-2008
The Sentence Review Commissioners had decided not to order the release of the prisoner, who was serving a life sentence. He had been released on licence from a life sentence and then committed further serious sexual offences against under-age girls . .

Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.544349

Wilson v Haden (T/A Clyne Farm Centre): QBD 15 Feb 2013

The claimant sought damages after being injured on an adventure sports weekend hosted by the defendant.
Held: The defendants had failed to follow their own safety procedures associated with this particular feature. The landing area cushioning had suffered compaction and did not meet the appropriate standards. However it had not been shown: ‘whether, on a balance of probabilities, the injury would have been less severe or would have been avoided if adequate impact attenuating material had been in place. In those circumstances, I find that the claimant has failed to establish the necessary causative link between his injury and the defendant’s breach of his duty to provide adequate impact attenuation. ‘

Swift J
[2013] EWHC 229 (QB)
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Drake v Harbour CA 31-Jan-2008
The plaintiff engaged the defendants to re-wire her house. She was away, and the defendants in sole charge of the house when it suffered a major fire originating in a room used by the defendants. The defendants appealed a finding of liability saying . .
Cited – Vaile v London Borough of Havering CA 11-Mar-2011
The claimant teacher sought damages after being assaulted at school by a child with special needs. The pupil had been identified as having an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) but the claimant was not aware of that and had not been advised as to the . .
Cited – Clough v First Choice Holidays and Flights Ltd CA 25-Jan-2006
The appellant broke his neck slipping from a wall in a swimming pool in Lanzarote. The wall was not coated with fully non-slip paint. At first instance the failure to use such paint was held negligent for the purpose of the contract between them and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.470999

Davies v Taylor: HL 1974

The plaintiff’s husband was killed in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. They were childless. She had deserted him five weeks before his death and thereafter, he learned about her adultery with a fellow employee. He tried to effect reconciliation with her but she refused. Shortly before his death, he had instructed his solicitor to institute divorce proceedings. The plaintiff claimed as widow and administratrix of the husband’s estate.
Held: Her claim for dependency failed because the court of first instance found that she had not proved that reconciliation with her husband was more probable than not. While the plaintiff could arguably make a claim for loss of chance, she had not shown any significant chance or probability of reconciliation with her husband before his death. To obtain anything under a head of substantial losses of future chance, the plaintiff must establish that that chance: ‘was substantial. If it was, it must be evaluated. If it was a mere possibility, it must be ignored. Many different words could be and have been used to indicate the dividing line. I can think of none better than ‘substantial’, on the one hand, or ‘speculative’ on the other. It must be left to the good sense of the tribunal to decide on broad lines, without regard to legal niceties, but on a consideration of all the facts in proper perspective.’
Lord Reid said: ‘When the question is whether a certain thing is or is not true – whether a certain event did or did not happen – then the court must decide one way or the other. There is no question of chance or probability. Either it did or it did not happen. But the standard of civil proof is a balance of probabilities. If the evidence shows a balance in favour of it having happened then it is proved that it did in fact happen.
But here we are not and could not be seeking a decision either that the wife would or that she would not have returned to her husband. You can prove that a past event happened, but you cannot prove that a future event will happen and I do not think that the law is so foolish as to suppose that you can. All that you can do is to evaluate the chance. Sometimes it is virtually 100 per cent; sometimes virtually nil. But often it is somewhere in between. And if it is somewhere in between I do not see much difference between a probability of 51 per cent. and a probability of 49 per cent . . If the balance of probability were the proper test what is to happen in the two cases which I have supposed of a 60 per cent. and a 40 per cent. probability. The 40 per cent. case will get nothing but what about the 60 per cent. case. Is it to get a full award on the basis that it has been proved that the wife would have returned to her husband? That would be the logical result. I can see no ground at all for saying that the 40 per cent. case fails altogether but the 60 per cent. case gets 100 per cent. But it would be almost absurd to say that the 40 per cent. case gets nothing while the 60 per cent. case award is scaled down to that proportion of what the award would have been if the spouses had been living together. That would be applying two different rules to the two cases. So I reject the balance of probability test in this case.’
Lord Cross of Chelsea said that ‘The word ‘likely’ which occurs in the last two of the three passages from the judgment which I have quoted above, may be used in different senses. Sometimes it may be used to mean ‘more likely than not’ at other times to mean ‘quite likely’ or ‘not improbably’ though less likely than not.’

Lord Reid, Lord Cross of Chelsea
[1974] AC 207
Fatal Accidents Act 1959
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Davies v Taylor (No 2) HL 2-Jan-1974
The plaintiff argued that no costs had been incurred by the successful defendant, as he was insured, and the insurance company was bound to pay his costs.
Held: ‘In this case the solicitors, no doubt first instructed by the insurance company, . .

Cited by:
See Also – Davies v Taylor (No 2) HL 2-Jan-1974
The plaintiff argued that no costs had been incurred by the successful defendant, as he was insured, and the insurance company was bound to pay his costs.
Held: ‘In this case the solicitors, no doubt first instructed by the insurance company, . .
Cited – Dixon 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 . .
Cited – Gregg v Scott HL 27-Jan-2005
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . .
Cited – Brown v Ministry of Defence CA 10-May-2006
Claim for injury suffered whilst training in Army. The claimant was committed to a career in the Army, and had anticipated promotion. She complained that her loss of pension rights had been calculated at a rate to reflect an average length career. . .
Cited – Collett v Smith and Another QBD 11-Aug-2008
The claimant had been an eighteen year old playing football for Manchester United reserves when he was injured by a foul tackle which ended his football career. The defendant admitted liability, but denied that he would have gone on to be a premier . .
Applied – Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
Cited – Joyce v Bowman Law Ltd ChD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant asserted negligence by the defendant licensed conveyancers in not warning him of the effect of an option in the contract. He had been advised that it would allow him to choose to buy additional land, but it was in fact a put option. The . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd CA 19-Aug-2011
The defendant had broken through into a neighbour’s flying freehold room, closed it off, and then included it in its own premises for let. It now appealed against the quantum of damages awarded. The judge had found the actions deliberate and with a . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.219084

Ministry 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 under the 1980 Act. They said that they had only acquired the knowledge to found an action in 2007 on the issue of a scientific report from New Zealand, but they had issued the action before then.
Held: The servicemen’s appeals were dismissed (Lord Phillips, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissenting). The court should answer two questions. It should first identify just what knowledge was to be present to satisfy the test, and then what state of mind, assessed subjectively or objectively would amount to knowledge of it. Since a claimant must state that he believes that his assertions are true, it must be a legal impossibility to deny knowledge of the facts at that time. The inquiry required by section 14(1) was also retrospective. Once an expert had been consulted and his advice received, a claimant’s belief’s properly were characterised as ‘knowledge’ for the section. Once that knowledge arose there could be no open ended extension of the time within which an action must be brought. Evidential difficulties faced by a claimant were not to be counted as lack of knowledge.
The dissenting judges drew clear distinctions between knowledge and belief. A claimant’s subjective belief was not a sensible basis for deciding whether the claim is time-barred.

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson
[2012] UKSC 9, [2012] 2 WLR 643, UKSC 2010/0247, [2012] 3 All ER 673, [2013] 1 AC 78, 125 BMLR 69, [2012] PIQR P13, [2012] WLR(D) 79, (2012) 125 BMLR 69, [2012] Med LR 306
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Limitation Act 1980 11(4) 14(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Das v Ganju CA 31-Mar-1999
Where a personal injury action had been delayed for five years by bad advice from solicitors and counsel, the court’s discretion should be exercised to allow the plaintiff to proceed with her claim, not herself being responsible for the delay.
Cited – A’Court v Cross 28-Nov-1825
Defendant being arrested on a debt more than six years old, said, ‘I know that I owe the money, but the bill I gave is on a threepenny receipt stamp, and I will never pay it.’ Held, not such an acknowledgment as would revive the debt agdinst a plea . .
Cited – Smith v Central Asbestos Co Ltd; Central Asbestos Co Ltd v Dodd HL 1973
The House considered at what point an injured person was to be deemed to have become aware of his injury so as to start the limitation period.
Held: A majority rejected the proposition that knowledge of ‘material facts’ for section 1(3) . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Davis v Ministry of Defence CA 26-Jul-1985
May LJ said: ‘Knowledge’ is an ordinary English word with a clear meaning to which one must give full effect; ‘reasonable belief’ or ‘suspicion’ is not enough. The relevant question merits repetition – ‘when did the appellant first know that his . .
Cited – Halford v Brookes CA 1991
The plaintiff, the mother and administratrix of the estate of a 16 year old girl, alleged that her daughter had been murdered by one or both of the Defendants. The claim was for damages for battery. Rougier J at first instance had decided that: . .
Cited – Nash v Eli Lilly and Co CA 1993
The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or . .
Cited – Broadley v Guy Clapham and Co CA 9-Sep-1993
The limitation period starts when a reasonable person would have sought medical help. Section 14(1)(b) requires that ‘one should look at the way the plaintiff puts his case, distil what he is complaining about and ask whether he had in broad terms . .
Cited – Whitfield v North Durham Health Authority CA 1995
In 1987, and before the claim was issued in 1992 the claimant had issued a claim which had never been served. She sought to extend the limitation period arguing that she had not acquired the requisite knowledge until later,
Held: She had had . .
Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
Cited – Sniezek v Bundy (Letchworth) Limited CA 7-Jul-2000
The claimant appealed against a finding that having once already issued a claim, a second claim was out of time, not accepting that she had had the knowledge effective to commence the limitation period.
Held: Judge LJ had ‘difficulty in . .
Cited – Amin, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Oct-2003
Prisoner’s death – need for full public enquiry
The deceased had been a young Asian prisoner. He was placed in a cell overnight with a prisoner known to be racist, extremely violent and mentally unstable. He was killed. The family sought an inquiry into the death.
Held: There had been a . .

Cited by:
Cited – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 5-Dec-2016
The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.452130

Re Corby Group Litigation: TCC 29 Jul 2009

The claimants sought damages saying that the demolition by the defendants of former steel works had allowed the escape of poisons which had been transmitted to the claimants’ mothers and then to the claimants as birth defects.
Held: The works had not been carried out safely and in accordance with then current best practices, resulting in the release of the contaminants and the injury to the claimants.

Akenhead J
[2009] EWHC 1944 (TCC), [2010] Env LR D2, [2009] NPC 100
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.365631

Haley v London Electricity Board: HL 28 Jul 1964

Electricity undertakers owed a duty of care to blind persons as a class when they excavated a trench along a pavement in a London suburb because blind people foreseeably walk along pavements.

Reid, Morton of Henryton, Evershed, Hodson, Guest LL
[1964] 3 All ER 185, [1964] 3 WLR 479, [1965] AC 778, [1964] UKHL 3
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Negligence, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181272

Zyn, Regina (on The Application of) v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council: Admn 12 Jun 2014

The court was asked whether capital derived from a personal injury settlement which is managed by a deputy appointed by the Court of Protection must be disregarded by a local authority when deciding whether the injured person can be required to contribute to the cost of care services which he or she receives.
Held: It was to be disregarded.

Leggatt J
[2014] EWHC 1918 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 255
Bailii, WLRD
National Health Services and Community Care Act 1990 47, National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 21

Personal Injury, Benefits, Local Government

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.526516

Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others: HL 2 Jul 2008

The deceased worked for the defendants on an oil rig. He was injured by a door closer he was attempting to repair. The defendants denied that the mechanism was equipment within the Regulations.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The door closer was apparatus for use at work, though provided by a different company. The Regulations went beyond the scope of the Directive and did not limit liability to employers only, but did not specify the provider. The answer to the difficulty of finding an employer strictly liable for defects in equipment over which he had no control must be found in regulation 3(2), which delimits the area of the employer’s responsibility, rather than by giving an artificial and relativist meaning to the definition of work equipment in regulation 2(1).
Lord Rodger said: ‘when selecting any item of work equipment, under Regulation 4(2) the platform operator would indeed have to consider whether a major repair could be carried out without imperilling the safety of the platform and everyone on it. Indeed, that is just common sense – not only for oil platforms but for any factory or workplace where major repairs to equipment may have to be carried out. In my view, the word ‘repairing’ in Regulation 2(1) should therefore be given its ‘ordinary’ meaning. In terms of that ordinary meaning, on his averments, the pursuer was engaged in ‘repairing’, and so ‘using’, the door, or door closer, when the arm of the closer sprang out and injured him. ‘

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 46, Times 03-Jul-2008, [2008] ICR 863, [2009] 1 All ER 269, 2008 Rep LR 106, 2008 SLT 675, [2008] PIQR P22, (2008) 158 NLJ 1004, 2008 SCLR 484, (2008) 105(27) LSG 17, (2008) 152(27) SJLB 30
Bailii, HL
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) 3, Council Directive 89/655/EEC
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – PRP Architects v Reid CA 28-Jul-2006
A lift was held to be work equipment within the Regulations. . .
Cited – Breslin v Britoil plc 1992
The regulation makes no distinction between the fabric of the installation and the equipment. The duty applied equally to both, and the liability which it creates is strict: . .
Not approved – Hammond v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and others CA 11-Jun-2004
The claimant mechanic was employed by the Commissioner of Police. He was working on the wheel of a police dog van when the shearing of a wheel bolt caused him to suffer injury. The question was whether the van was ‘work equipment’ within the meaning . .
Cited – James Edward Beck v United Closures and Plastics Plc SCS 22-Jun-2001
Two heavy doors in which the pursuer trapped his hand were not within the definition of workplace, which contemplated open spaces, but did constitute work equipment in terms of the 1998 Regulations. . .
Cited – Duncanson v South Ayrshire Council 1999
A steel storage cabinet was held to be work equipment. . .
Cited – Mackie v Dundee City Council 2001
A dining hall table being moved by a caretaker was held to be work equipment. . .
Cited – Robb v Salamis (M and I) Ltd HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimant was injured working for the defendants on a semi-submersible platform. He fell from a ladder which was not secured properly. He alleged a breach of the Regulations. The defendant denied any breach and asserted that the claimant had . .
Cited – Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd HL 1974
. .
Cited – Knowles v Liverpool City Council HL 15-Oct-1993
A flagstone being laid by a council employee was held to be ‘equipment provided by his employer for the purposes of the employer’s business’ under the 1969 Act. An employer is liable for the defective equipment he provides. What is equipment will . .
Cited – Candace Donaldson v Hays Distribution Services Limited C B Hillier Parker Management Services Limited and C B Hillier Parker Limited National Britannia Health and Safety Limited OHCS 14-Jun-2005
A visitor who was crushed between a lorry and a loading bay while collecting her purchases at a shopping centre did not have a strict liability claim under the 1992 Regulations against the lorry driver’s employers or the controllers of the bay. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Smith 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.

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.270658

Barber v Somerset County Council: HL 1 Apr 2004

A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his sickness absences, and given him support. It did not do so. It was liable.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said that it is only when the contractual position between the parties is explored fully along with the relevant statutory framework that it would be possible to give appropriate content to the duty of reasonable care upon which an employee claiming damages for negligent infliction of psychiatric injury at work would seek to rely.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
[2004] UKHL 13, Times 05-Apr-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1089, (2004) 77 BMLR 21, [2004] 2 All ER 385, [2004] ELR 199, [2004] ICR 457, [2004] IRLR 475, [2004] PIQR P3
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stokes v Guest Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd QBD 1968
An employee had been exposed at work over a long period to mineral oil which, on a daily basis, had saturated his clothing and come into contact with his skin. As a result of this he developed cancer of the scrotum from which he eventually died. The . .
Appeal from – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .
Cited – Clarke v Edinburgh and District Tramways Co HL 1919
The House considered the ability of an appellate court to reconsider the facts.
Held: The privileges enjoyed by a trial judge extend not only to questions of credibility.
Lord Shaw said that the judge enjoys ‘those advantages, sometimes . .
Cited – Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd CA 21-Jul-1961
An employee with dermatitis returned to work when it was known both to him and his employers that continuing to work would carry a small risk of it recurring or being exacerbated.
Held: The Court allowed the employer’s appeal against the trial . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Cited – Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority CA 1991
A junior doctor sought an injunction against the defendant health authority from being required to work excessive hours despite the terms of his contract. He had become ill as a result of inadequate sleep and sought damages in that respect. Implied . .
Cited – McDonald or Cross and Another v Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Another SCS 5-Dec-2000
A promising 39-year old executive, was employed in a job in which (because of geographical factors) close day-to-day supervision of his work was impossible. He became ill with depressive illness and killed himself. After the employee had been off . .
Cited – Ross v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Ltd HL 1964
Where one party brings no evidence to challenge that of the other, that other is entitled to the most favourable interpretation of his evidence. Where a party has led no evidence upon a particular matter, the most favourable inferences may properly . .
Cited – White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
Cited – Banks v Ablex Ltd CA 24-Feb-2005
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
Cited – Hone v Six Continents Retail Ltd CA 29-Jun-2005
The employer appealed a finding that it was liable in damages for negligence to the claimant, and employee who suffered psychiatric injury cause by stress at work. He said he had been left to work very excessive hours, between 89 and 92 hours a . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Robertson (Ap) v The Scottish Ministers SCS 22-Nov-2007
The claimant sought damages saying that she had been bullied and harassed at her work as a prison officer. . .
Cited – Dickins v O2 Plc CA 16-Oct-2008
The employer appealed against a finding that it was responsible for the personal injury of the claimant in the form of psychiatric injury resulting from stress suffered working for them. She had told her employers that she was at the end of her . .
Cited – Beattie v Ulster Television Plc QBNI 21-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Pratt v the Scottish Ministers OHCS 4-May-2005
. .
Cited – MG v North Devon NHS Primary Care Trust QBD 28-Apr-2006
Claim for damages – work induced stress and depression – health visitor. . .
Cited – Fryers v Belfast Health and Social Care Trust QBNI 1-Dec-2008
. .
Cited – Campbell v The University of Edinburgh OHCS 4-May-2004
. .
Cited – West Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority v King EAT 29-Jun-2004
EAT Contract of Employment – Damages for breach of contract – Construction of agreement relating to sick pay and quantum of damage. . .
Cited – Ringland v South Eastern Education and Library Board QBNI 16-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – McRitchie v The Scottish Ministers ScSf 21-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – McCotter v McNally and Another (John J McNally and Co Solicitors) QBNI 24-Sep-2004
Solicitor’s claim for work related stress. . .
Cited – Shaw v London Borough of Redbridge QBD 16-Feb-2005
. .
Cited – Harding v The Pub Estate Company Ltd CA 6-May-2005
Damages for stress at work – public house manager. . .
Cited – Vahidi v Fairstead House School Trust Ltd CA 9-Jun-2005
Claim for damages for stress at work by assistant headmaster. . .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – Pakenham-Walsh v Connell Residential and Another CA 21-Feb-2006
Appeal against a judgment dismissing a claim for damages for personal injuries the appellant against her employers and a manager employed by the first respondents. The appellant alleged that she had suffered psychiatric injury in the course of her . .
Cited – Home Office v Butchart CA 15-Mar-2006
The claimant prisoner said theat the prison had been negligent in that knowing of his own psychiatric vulnerability, he had been placed in a cell with another priosner who committed suicide, the shock of which caused the claimant further damage. . .
Cited – Sayers v Cambridgeshire County Council QBD 31-Jul-2006
Social worker’s claim for work related stress. . .
Cited – Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust QBD 21-Dec-2006
The claimant’s daughter had died after walking out of a mental health ward and being knocked down. She sought damages alleging negligence and in infringement of her daughter’s right to life.
Held: Negligence amounting to a breach of the right . .
Cited – Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd v Daw CA 7-Feb-2007
The company appealed against an award of damages to the defendant for personal injury in the form of stress induced mental illness.
Held: The reference to counselling services in Hatton did not make such services a panacea by which employers . .
Cited – Ruddy v Marco and others SCS 25-Jul-2008
. .
Cited – Boylin v The Christie NHS Foundation QBD 17-Oct-2014
The claimant a senior employee manager complained of harassment and common law negligence causing her injury.
Held: The claim failed. Behaviour of the level required to found a claim under the 1997 Act was established, but only on one occaion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Employment

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.195053