Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Personal Injury - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 72 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Firth v George Ackroyd Junior Ltd [2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313
2000


Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers


 
Long v Tolchard and Sons Ltd Times, 05 January 2000
5 Jan 2000
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury
When a party requested a court to set aside the limitation period, he was under a high duty to disclose all relevant details. Where it turned out later that he had failed to disclose relevant aspects of his medical history, it was perfectly open to the court to revisit the original order and to re-instate the limitation period.
Limitation Act 1980 33, 11


 
 Ord v Upton; CA 7-Jan-2000 - Times, 11 January 2000; Gazette, 07 January 2000; [2000] Ch 352; [2000] 1 All ER 193; [2000] 2 WLR 755
 
Norman v Ali and Another, Norman v Aziz Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 25 February 2000
13 Jan 2000
CA

Limitation, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages following a road accident against an uninsured driver through the Motor Insurer's Bureau. The Bureau later required him to issue proceedings also against the car owner on the ground that he had permitted the driving. At first it was held the limitation period was six years for such a claim, but on appeal it was held that the words referring to a personal injury action in the Act were wide, and it was only required that the damages claimed arose in respect of personal injuries. The limitation period was three years.
Limitation Act 1980 11 - Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1988


 
 Bridgeman v Brown; CA 19-Jan-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 524
 
Margaret Patricia Briody v St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 01 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 178
21 Jan 2000
QBD
The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe
Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages
The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed Times, 01 February 2000
1 Feb 2000
CA

Personal Injury, Administrative, Planning
A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the objector, and had made its decision in the light of that evidence. Objectively unjustified fears in a local community might be taken into account, but in this case they should not.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Practice Direction (Queens Bench Division: Kilrie Children's Home Litigation); QBD 1-Feb-2000 - Times, 01 February 2000
 
Burgess v British Steel and Another Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 29 February 2000
3 Feb 2000
CA

Costs, Personal Injury
The plaintiff had failed to beat a payment in, but the judge refused the defendants their costs after the payment in because a medical report filed before the payment in had accused the claimant of malingering and he claimed to have gone on to disprove that allegation. It was held that this was insufficient to justify departure from the general rule. The malingering had not been the central issue, and that could be dealt with by apportioning the costs between the issues.

 
Kent v Griffiths and others [2000] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] 2 WLR 1158; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] QB 36; [2000] PIQR P57; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 109
3 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Woolf MR
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury, Health Professions
A doctor attended the home of a patient suffering from an asthma attack and called for an ambulance to take her immediately to hospital. The control replied "Okay doctor." After 13 minutes the ambulance had not arrived and the patient's husband made a further call. He was told that an ambulance was well on the way and should arrive in seven or eight minutes. For unexplained reasons it did not arrive until 40 minutes after the first call. The patient suffered a respiratory arrest which would have been prevented if the ambulance had arrived in a reasonable time. The patient's doctor gave evidence that if she had been told that it would take the ambulance service 40 minutes to come, she would have advised the patient's husband to drive her to hospital and would have gone with them. Held. The defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant. The ambulance service, as part of the health service, should be regarded as providing services equivalent to those provided by hospitals, and not as providing services equivalent to those rendered by the police and fire services. Accordingly, the staff of the ambulance service owed a similar duty of care to that owed by doctors and nurses operating in the health service.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] ScotCS 36
9 Feb 2000
IHCS
Lord Coulsfield and Lord Cowie and Lord President
Scotland, Personal Injury
The petitioner appealed a refusal of his claim for compensation. He was a serving police officer injured whilst arresting an offender. He had retired on medical grounds and received pensions, which the Board found deductible from any award reducing his claim below the minimum. The relative scheme sought to award damages on a basis comparable to common law. Held: Paragraph 20 provided that compensation was to be reduced by any pension received but paragraph 19 said reductions were not to be made for the receipt of money paid because the claimant had purchased that benefit. Parry was not comparable because there was the board was not in the position of a tortfeasor. An alteration in the Scheme intended to limit compensation to avoid providing the Applicant with an income higher than that which he would otherwise have enjoyed, should not be interpreted to mean that throughout the period after the date of his normal retirement he should benefit to the tune of one half of his ill-health pension. The effect of section 10 is that no deduction fell to be made in respect of the petitioner's pension for the period after his normal retirement date. This result was inequitable.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 19 20 - Administration of Justice Act 1982 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Beth Linda Matthews (an Infant By Her Mother and Next Friend Janice England Formerly Matthews) v East Suffolk Health Authority [2000] EWCA Civ 58
25 Feb 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Dermot Gerard Richard Walsh v Andre Martin Misseldine [2000] EWCA Civ 61; [2000] All ER (D) 261
29 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Stuart-Smith LJ
Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages for injuries from 1989. His claim was pursued effectively, but a four-year delay ensued after 1994. He then sought to enlarge his claim greatly by introducing a lot of new issues of which the defendant's insurers had no notice when they calculated the value of the claim in the early 1990s for the purposes of a payment into court CPR 3.1(2)(a) and 3.1(3)(a) give the court power to extend time for compliance with a rule subject to conditions. The court declined to strike out his claim despite the considerable delay on condition that the claimant was limited to prosecuting his claim on the basis of his case as it stood before the long period of delay commenced. "Although CPR 3.1(a) expressly preserves the courts' inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse, this is a residual long-stop jurisdiction. The main tools the courts have now been given to exterminate unnecessary delays are to be found in the rules and practice directions and in the orders they may make from time to time."
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) 3.1(3)(a)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stark v Post Office Times, 29 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 64; [2000] PIQR 105; [2000] ICR 1013
2 Mar 2000
CA
Waller LJ
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was injured when a brake on his bicycle broke, was entitled to damages. There is no rule to prevent a member state imposing duties over and above those required under European law. The bicycle was not 'in an efficient working order and in good repair'.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) - European Directive 89/655
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd Times, 30 March 2000; [2000] PIQR Q263
22 Mar 2000
QBD
Latham J
Personal Injury, Damages
After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff's delay.
Damages Act 1996
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Heil, Rees and Another, Schofield, Ramsay, Kent, Warren, Annable, Connolly v Rankin and Anr, Mabco (102) Ltd, Saunders and Taylor Ltd, Rivers, Griffith and Ors, Northern General Hospital Nhs Trust, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority, Tasker Times, 24 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] 2 WLR 1173; [2000] EWCA Civ 84; [2000] 3 All ER 138
23 Mar 2000
CA

Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages
The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The court would do so. Awards above £10,000 should be raised on a sliding scale to a one third proportion in the most severe cases. No change in principle was involved. It was proper for the Court of Appeal to respond to such a report provided it confined its answer to provision of tariffs. The old awards had become out of line with what society as a whole would consider reasonable.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Royston Frederick Williams v BOC Gases Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 95; [2000] ICR 1181
29 Mar 2000
CA
Brooke LJ, Thorpe LJ
Employment, Personal Injury, Damages
The plaintiff claimed damages from his employer in respect of injuries suffered during the course of his employment. The defendant paid the claimant a sum to which he had no contractual entitlement, saying that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages that he might be awarded against the defendant. The money came from the defendant's own fund. Held: "In my judgment, the judge was over-influenced by the decision of this court in McCamley which should be treated, until it receives the consideration of the House of Lords, as a case turning on its own particular facts: in other words, for what members of that court, deciding the issue as a jury question, thought was just, reasonable and in accordance with public policy on the facts of that case." and "The "benevolence" exception is limited in terms to gifts arising from the benevolence of third parties, and does not cover benevolent gifts made by the wrongdoer himself, for which allowance ought prima facie to be made against any compensation he might have to pay. Neither of the justifications for the benevolence exception apply to the tortfeasor. Deductibility will encourage him to make benevolent payments in future to injured employees, rather than the reverse. And it certainly cannot be said that in making the gift, his intention was to benefit the plaintiff rather than to relieve himself of liability pro tanto: he would have been happy to achieve both purposes at once. A fortiori in a case in which he said in terms, at the time he made the gift, that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages he might have to pay."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Luke Warren v Northern General Hospital Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 100
4 Apr 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith, Mummery, Tukey LJJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The court was asked "whether the court should alter the discount rate, set by the House of Lords in Wells v Wells [1999] 1 AC 345 (judgment delivered on 16 July 1998), at 3%, and if so to what new rate. A further question also arises whether the impact of taxation on the fund is such that, even if the general rate is not altered, it should be in this case. The facts"
[ Bailii ]
 
Wardlaw v Fife Health Board [2000] ScotCS 91
4 Apr 2000
SCS
Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Personal Injury

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Van Oudenhoven v Griffin Inns Ltd; CA 4-Apr-2000 - Times, 10 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 102; [2000] All ER (D) 463
 
Holtby v Brigham and Cowan (Hull) Ltd Times, 12 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 111; [2000] 3 All ER 421
6 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke
Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Damages
A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wisely v John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey v Surrey County Council; HL 6-Apr-2000 - Times, 07 April 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 24; [2000] 1 WLR 820

 
 Regina v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Walker; HL 6-Apr-2000 - Times, 07 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 22; [2000] 2 All ER 917
 
Neil Knapman v Keith Charman [2000] EWCA Civ 115
6 Apr 2000
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Killick and Nugent and others (Sued on her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Lloyd's Syndicates Listed In the Schedule to the Writ of Summons) [2000] EWCA Civ 122
11 Apr 2000
CA
Wvans, Thorpe, Laws LJJ
Personal Injury, Insurance
Claim under Personal Injury Accident policy after death of the policyholder company's employee and others in an air crash
[ Bailii ]

 
 Swain v Denso Marston Ltd; CA 12-Apr-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 3021; [2000] ICR 1079
 
Nugent, Killick, Executors of Harding, Dec v Michael Goss Aviation Limited and others [2000] EWCA Civ 130
14 Apr 2000
CA
Auld, Pill LJJ, Dyson J
Transport, Personal Injury
Appeal from strike out of elements of claim.
[ Bailii ]
 
Smee v Byron Brian Adye [2000] EWCA Civ 146
19 Apr 2000
CA
Stuart-Smith, Robert Walker, Laws LJJ
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Elvicta Wood Engineering Ltd and James Neal Services Ltd v Huxley [2000] EWCA Civ 139
19 Apr 2000
CA

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Daniels v Walker; CA 3-May-2000 - Times, 17 May 2000; Gazette, 31 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 508; [2000] PIQR 193; [2000] CPLR 462; [2000] 1 WLR 1382
 
Casey v Morane Limited Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 10 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 147
5 May 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
An employee suffered injuries at work for which he was adjudged 15% responsible and the company 85%. Because of the accident he was demoted and suffered loss of earnings. He claimed that loss of earnings in his action for damages. The court found that the company should pay the damages. The company was itself predominantly responsible for the damage caused, and these losses flowed directly from the accident.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Dingley v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police; HL 11-May-2000 - [2000] UKHL 14; 2000 SC (HL) 77
 
Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services Times, 19 May 2000; [2000] PIQR 123
19 May 2000


Personal Injury

1 Citers


 
Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another Times, 13 June 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 171; [2000] BLR 287
23 May 2000
CA
Mantell LJ
Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor's duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site's main contractor.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bittles v Harland and Wolffe Plc and a W Hamilton and Co Ltd [2000] NIEHC 13; [2000] NIQB 13
24 May 2000
NIHC
Girvan J
Northern Ireland, Personal Injury
"In a case such as the present where the plaintiff has been exposed to and has inhaled asbestos dust as a result of the defendant's negligence and has in consequence developed pleural plaques, the development of the pleural plaques even if asymptomatic represents bodily damage and a personal injury which when combined with the defendant's breach of a duty of care brings about the establishment of a cause of action against the defendant. It is trite law that for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence he must establish a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage. Once the plaintiff has suffered the physical bodily damage represented by the pleural plaques his cause of action has accrued and the plaintiff's claim will relate to all the physical consequences and risks which flow from the negligence. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages both for the pleural plaques and for the risks of developing more dangerous medical conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. "
"In a case such as the present where the plaintiff has been exposed to and has inhaled asbestos dust as a result of the defendant's negligence and has in consequence developed pleural plaques, the development of the pleural plaques even if asymptomatic represents bodily damage and a personal injury which when combined with the defendant's breach of a duty of care brings about the establishment of a cause of action against the defendant. It is trite law that for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence he must establish a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage. Once the plaintiff has suffered the physical bodily damage represented by the pleural plaques his cause of action has accrued and the plaintiff's claim will relate to all the physical consequences and risks which flow from the negligence. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages both for the pleural plaques and for the risks of developing more dangerous medical conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council; HL 24-May-2000 - Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1082; [2000] UKHL 31; [2000] 3 All ER 409

 
 Robertson Or Macey-Lillie v Lanarkshire Health Board &C; OHCS 26-May-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; [2000] ScotCS 136
 
Mather v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 141
30 May 2000
SCS
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Personal Injury, Negligence
The pursuer sought damages for injury to her mental health, alleging it was sustained as a consequence of the fault of the defenders et separatim the fault of an employee of the defenders.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Greatorex v Greatorex and Others Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000
6 Jun 2000
QBD

Negligence, Personal Injury
Policy considerations meant that a person who injured themselves, could not be liable in negligence to third parties who suffered psychiatric injury having seen the incident. A fireman came to the rescue, by co-incidence, of his own son. As a rescuer, he was not owed a duty of care, and his relationship as father could not change that. To allow actions by relations in such circumstances would in general tend to encourage undesirable litigation, and encourage family strife.

 
Jamie Young and Isaiah Beck and Jean Beck v Fraser Symington Mcdowall [2000] ScotCS 154
9 Jun 2000
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Personal Injury
The pursuer suffered head injuries in a road accident. The parties disagreed as to the extent of disablement resulting and therefore the damages. He had sought training in engineering, but had again been injured, and it was felt to be unsafe for him to return. Held: The evidence was not entirely satisfactory, but he had suffered some memory and other losses: 'the pursuer's memory loss constitutes a severe disability that renders the pursuer virtually unemployable.'
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Heil v Rankin Times, 20 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 187; [2001] QB 272; [2001] PIQR Q3
13 Jun 2000
CA
Otton LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without being excessive. There is no general or universal logical basis for rules in these situations. The possibility of hypothetical future injury should not be given any excess weight in assessing future losses of earnings.
Otton LJ observed that in Jobling, Lord Keith "was clear that the rule that he formulated, of ignoring the occurrence of a second tort when awarding damages against a first tortfeasor, could not be justified on any identifiable juristic basis, but rather was a just and practical solution to avoid the barrier to full compensation that would arise if the normal rules were applied to their full extent".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Goodes v East Sussex County Council; HL 16-Jun-2000 - Times, 16 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 34; [2000] 3 All ER 603; [2000] 1 WLR 1356
 
Ballantine v Newalls Insulation Co Ltd Times, 22 June 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
22 Jun 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits
The purpose of the rules was to provide statutory compensation for the pneumoconiosis suffered in this injury. Where therefore that person received damages for the same injury, the benefits received were to be deducted from the damages before payment.
Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979


 
 Thomas v Kwik Save Stores Ltd; CA 27-Jun-2000 - Times, 27 June 2000

 
 Jebson v Ministry of Defence; CA 28-Jun-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 198; [2000] 1 WLR 2055

 
 Sniezek v Bundy (Letchworth) Limited; CA 7-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 212; [2000] PIQR P213
 
Codd v Thomsons Tour Operators Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 5566
7 Jul 2000
CA

Personal Injury
Appeal against rejection of claim for personal injury - child's finger caught in door of hotel lift.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fraser v The State Hospitals Board for Scotland Times, 12 September 2000; [2000] ScotCS 191; 2001 SLT 1051
11 Jul 2000
OHCS
Lord Carloway
Personal Injury, Scotland, Health and Safety
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 short of such injury. Complication has been caused in this area of law because of its involvement with a related issue of a distinction between those suffering primary and secondary injuries, for example as witnesses of an event.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Limited [2001] 1 LLR 95; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 95; 2001 SCLR 393; [2000] ScotCS 195
12 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord President, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Reed
Scotland, Personal Injury, Transport
The pursuer and reclaimer sought damages as reparation for "loss, injury and damage" which he claims to have suffered as the result of his involvement in an incident on 22 December 1993. At the relevant time the pursuer was a passenger on board a helicopter chartered by the defenders.
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Lawrence v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Times, 25 July 2000
25 Jul 2000
CA

Damages, Personal Injury
Current changes in interest rates did not justify a departure from the guidelines set down of two per cent on damages for general pain and suffering and loss of amenity. There is no essential or necessary reason why the rate for such a claim should be the same as was to be used when calculating future losses. The two awards of interest are fundamentally. One is an actuarial assessment of future losses, and the other is a discretionary award.


 
 Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council; CA 26-Jul-2000 - Times, 03 October 2000; Gazette, 28 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 228; [2000] IRLR 703; (2001) 3 LGLR 14; [2000] Fam Law 883; [2001] 1 FCR 455; [2001] 1 FLR 280
 
Ahmed v Glasgow City Council [2000] ScotSC 20
26 Jul 2000
ScSf
Sheriff Principal E.F. Bowen
Scotland, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

 
 Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Ex Parte B; QBD 27-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 27 July 2000; Times, 01 August 2000
 
Sandry v Jones Times, 03 August 2000
3 Aug 2000
CA

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
In personal injury cases involving substantial damages claims, it was inappropriate for a district judge to seek assess the level of damages to be awarded. Cases involving a degree of complexity should be referred to a circuit judge. Even though in this case the award had been made by the district judge by consent of both parties, legal advisers should take care to protect their client's interests.

 
Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Embling Times, 15 August 2000
15 Aug 2000
QBD

Personal Injury
The distinction made in the tariff of injuries in the Act, between 'full recovery' and 'continuing disability' referred not to the general condition of the claimant, but rather to the state of the limb in question. The real distinction was between the words 'full' and 'continuing'. A remaining observable loss of function indicated continuing disability.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995


 
 Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland; similar; QBD 12-Oct-2000 - Times, 12 October 2000; [2001] ACD 76
 
Regina on Application of T v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] EWHC Admin 404
19 Oct 2000
Admn

Damages, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Codd v Thompson Tour Operations Ltd; CA 20-Oct-2000 - Times, 20 October 2000
 
King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd Times, 25 October 2000
25 Oct 2000
IHCS

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport
The definition 'any other bodily harm' contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

 
Flack v Hudson [2000] EWCA Civ 360; [2001] PIQR P22; [2001] 2 WLR 982; [2001] QB 698
6 Nov 2000
CA
Otton, Keene, LJJ, Maurice Kay J
Personal Injury

Fatal Accidents Act 1976
[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v National Health Service Litigation Authority [2000] EWHC 564 (QB); [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 90
14 Nov 2000
QBD
Andrew Smith J
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Ludlow v National Power Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 289
17 Nov 2000
CA
Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Wall J
Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Margaret Ribee v Michael Norrie Times, 22 November 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 275; [2001] L & TR 23
22 Nov 2000
CA

Torts - Other, Land, Personal Injury
An owner of a property let to tenants was liable to a neighbour injured after a fire in the property, where the fire arose in circumstances which the owner had power, through the making of rules to prevent. The damage arose from a tenant smoking in a communal area. The test was whether the owner had the right to debar such behaviour. Since he did, he must be treated as the occupier of the land for this purpose and was therefore liable to the neighbour.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
George Weir and Another v East of Scotland Water Authority [2000] ScotCS 292; 2001 SLT 1205
23 Nov 2000
SCS
Lord McCluskey
Scotland, Personal Injury, Utilities
The claimants sought damages for personal injury saying that the defendant had supplied unwholesome water. Held: Although the water authority was under a statutory duty to supply wholesome water, it was not a duty that was owed to a defined limited class of the public. The duty was accordingly enforceable in various ways, but not by a private right of action.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Bank of Ireland Home Mortgages Ltd v Bell and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 426
4 Dec 2000
CA
Beldam LJ, Otton J, Judge LG
Personal Injury, Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
McDonald or Cross and Another v Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Another [2000] ScotCS 307; [2001] IRLR 336
5 Dec 2000
SCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Personal Injury
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 work with depression, his line manager travelled to see him and spent almost the whole day discussing his work and his future with him. He reduced his responsibilities and continued to maintain contact with him by telephone. Unfortunately the depression continued. Held: The employer was not liable for the tragedy which ensued because ". . .the evidence does not establish that objectively the job was the problem. For all the defenders knew, they were dealing with an employee who, for reasons that were not clear, had become unable to cope with the job that he had previously managed successfully."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
King v RCO Support Services Limited and Yorkshire Traction Company Limited Times, 07 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 314
8 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Henry And Lord Justice Kay
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
The appellant was employed by the first respondents as a steam cleaning operative. The first respondent had contracted to supply cleaning services to the second respondent at one of the second respondent's yards, where buses were cleaned. The appellant's place of employment was at that yard. The yard was iced and despite attempts to grit the ice, he slipped and was injured. His claim had been dismissed because he had not been engaged in operations at the time. Held: The task of moving the grit was itself a handling process. Appeal allowed.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(a) - Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12(3)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina - v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte August; Similar; CA 18-Dec-2000 - Times, 04 January 2001; [2001] QB 774; [2000] EWCA Civ 331
 
Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 02 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 2116; [2001] QB 1134; [2001] PIQR 16
19 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant's rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxer's medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimant's injuries would not have been so severe. "It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B’s physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, A’s conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for B’s safety." and "Had the board simply given advice to all involved in professional boxing as to appropriate medical precautions, it would be strongly arguable that there was insufficient proximity between the board and individual boxers to give rise to a duty of care. The board, however, went far beyond this. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 06 February 2001; Gazette, 22 February 2001; (2001) RTR 469; [2000] EWCA Civ 359
 
Wylie on Behalf of SMP Motor Policies at Lloyds v Wake [2000] EWCA Civ 349
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Laws, And Lord Justice Rix
Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury
The claimant sought to recover damages following a road accident. The driver's insurance was defective. The driver claimed under section 151, but proceedings were issued without formal notice of the issue of proceedings having been given to MIB. The claim proceeded for some time before objection was made. Held: There was a clear distinction between notice of a claim, and a notice of proceedings. The notice need not be in any particular form, but must be an unconditional clear notice of the intention to commence formal proceedings. No sufficient notice had been given. The claimant alleged an estoppel against the defendant. The section is not a statutory defence, it is a condition precedent to liability, and accordingly no estoppel could arise.
Road Traffic Act 1988 152(1)(a)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd Times, 20 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 348
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright
Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European
The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act? Held: The statute must be interpreted "in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: "though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. "
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1) - Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.