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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 122 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
AMP General Insurance Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2001] Aust Torts Reports 81; [2001] NSWCA 186
2001

Spigelman CJ
Personal Injury
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) Spigelman CJ said: "There was no duty upon the employer . . to protect the deceased from self harm".
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Ryan v Liverpool Health Authority [2001] All ER (D) 15
2001


Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers


 
Bell v Todd [2001] All ER (D) 348
2001


Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers


 
Smith v National Health Service Litigation [2001] Lloyd's Med Rep 90
2001

Andrew Smith J
Professional Negligence, Personal Injury

1 Citers


 
Hardman v Amin [2001] PNLR 11
2001
QBD
Henriques J
Personal Injury, Damages
Henriques J said: "McFarlane does not affect the law so far as it relates to the wrongful birth of disabled children."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Inman v Kenny and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 35
12 Jan 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Davis v Secretary of State for Social Security; CA 12-Jan-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 105
 
Tasci v Pekalp of London Ltd Times, 17 January 2001
17 Jan 2001
CA

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Employment
The duty of an employer properly to train his employees in the use of wood-working machinery, as set out in the Regulations, extended beyond that needed to give a comprehensive explanation in ordinary language. Particularly in the case where an employee might not have a good command of English, or where there was reason to suspect that he might exaggerate his understanding, the employer should verify the extent of understanding achieved.
Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 (1974 no 903)

 
Evans v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions Motor Insurers' Bureau [2001] EWCA Civ 32; [2001] EWCA Civ 1211
18 Jan 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic, European, Insurance

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
King v Chang [2001] EWCA Civ 88
19 Jan 2001
CA
Aldous LJ, Sir Anthony Evans
Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal and for an extension of time within which to do so
[ Bailii ]
 
Mutch v Allen [2001] EWCA Civ 76; [2001] PIQR P26; [2001] CPLR 200; [2001] CP Rep 77
22 Jan 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Longmore LJJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Defendant's appeal against part of an order made on a pretrial review. The part of the order appealed against is that by which the judge reversed an order previously made in the action on the case management conference by which the defendant was allowed to put written questions to the claimant's medical experts under the provisions of CPR Part 35.6
[ Bailii ]
 
Lee v Williams [2001] EWCA Civ 82
23 Jan 2001
CA
Dyson LJ, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, and though he checked to his left did not see the claimant, but said the cyclist must have come straight out across the entrance. He now appealed a afinding that he was 100% responsible. Held: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the claimant was found to be 40% responsibe.
Smith J discussed the factors arising because the claimant had been a cyclist on the footpath: "It seems to me that the fact that the Claimant was cycling had a bearing on this accident, firstly, because the front wheel of the bicycle, which is the first object which is liable to be hit in a collision of this sort, projects some two or three feet in front of somebody who is standing, as the Claimant was, astride the bicycle and if the bicycle is hit then, as happened here, the Claimant is liable to be knocked over and injured. So it makes him more vulnerable than a pedestrian.
Secondly, it seems to me that it had a bearing in this case because when the Claimant saw that the accident was likely to happen he tried to dismount from his bicycle by getting his other leg over the crossbar to get out of the way, but not surprisingly he was not able to do that. Standing astride his cycle he inhibited himself from getting out of the way, he also inhibited himself from moving the cycle back out of the path of the collision. Therefore in my view, although it was not the primary cause of this accident, it seems to me that the Claimant was himself at fault in two respects: in putting himself further into the road than was necessary from the point of view of ensuring that it was safe to cross, and in making himself more vulnerable in the two respects that I have described.
I think the Recorder was wrong to acquit him of all blame in this accident, nevertheless I think that the greater proportion of the blame should attach to the Defendant. After all a pedestrian or a cyclist is more vulnerable than somebody in a motorcar. If the Defendant had, as he ought to have done, anticipated that pedestrians might have been crossing here and might have been taking less care of themselves than they should have been, he would have looked sufficiently carefully, in my judgment, to see that it was safe to proceed.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cook v Thorne and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 81
23 Jan 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Elt v Orsler and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1226
29 Jan 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal from a judgment dismissing the applicant's personal injury claim against both defendants to the proceedings. Held: Refused -no real prospect of success.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Shell Tankers UK Limited v Jeromson; The Cherry Tree Machine Company Limited, Shell Tankers UK Limited v Dawson; CA 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 101; [2001] ICR 1223; [2001] PIQR P19

 
 Janicki v Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA 2-Feb-2001 - Times, 02 February 2001

 
 Jones (A Minor) v Wilkins (Wynn and Another, Third Parties); CA 6-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 15 February 2001; Times, 06 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 3024; [2001] PIQR P12; [2001] RTR 19
 
Nixon v F J Morris Contracting Ltd Times, 06 February 2001
6 Feb 2001
QBD

Personal Injury
It was possible in rare cases for multiple sclerosis to be contracted following a severe trauma to the head. Such a trauma can cause a breach of the blood brain barrier and demyelination with a consequence of multiple sclerosis. Though still not universally accepted as an explanation, the possibility of such a condition could not now be denied.

 
Donna Lougheed v Safeway Stores Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 176
7 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Cape Distribution Ltd v Aine O'Loughlin [2001] EWCA Civ 178
8 Feb 2001
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge, And Lord Justice Latham
Personal Injury, Damages
The company appealed the calculation of an award of damages to the respondent following the death of her husband, a former employee. The deceased had operated a company in Ireland as a property developer. The company alleged that the earnings were not directly dependent upon his input, but upon capital and otherwise. Held: Such assessments were notoriously dependent upon the particular facts of the case. Here the judge had correctly looked at the cost of buying in professional services to replace those of the deceased and otherwise.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 3(1) - Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Sally Rall v Ross Hume Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 14 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 146; [2001] 3 All ER 248; [2001] CPLR 239; [2001] CP Rep 58
8 Feb 2001
CA
Potter LJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
A surveillance film of a claimant was a document within the rules. The rules make no specific provision for the admission of such material for the purposes of cross examination of a claimant. A party proposing to use such material was under all the obligations which would apply to other documents as to disclosure and inspection. Application for the use of such material must be made at the first practicable opportunity. Where video evidence is available which, according to one party substantially undermines the case of the other, it should be admitted to allow cross examination on it.
Potter LJ said: "For the purposes of disclosure, a video film or recording is a document within the extended meaning contained in CPR 31.4. A defendant who proposes to use such a film to attack a claimant's case is therefore subject to all the rules as to disclosure and inspection of documents contained in CPR 31. Equally, if disclosure is made in accordance with CPR 31, whether as part of standard disclosure under CPR 31.6 or the duty of continuing disclosure under CPR 31.11, the claimant will be deemed to admit the authenticity of the film unless notice is served that the claimant wishes the document to be proved at trial. If the claimant does so, the defendant will be obliged to serve a witness statement by the person who took the film in order to prove its authenticity. If the claimant does not challenge the authenticity of the film, however, it is, in the absence of any ruling by the court to the contrary, available to the defendant for the purposes of cross-examining the claimant and/or the claimant's expert medical witnesses at court."
and "It is therefore necessary in the interests of proper case management and the avoidance of wasted court time that the matter be ventilated with the judge managing the case at the first practicable opportunity once a decision has been made by a defendant to rely on video evidence obtained."
Where the authenticity of such evidence is not challenged: "the issue was whether or not the defendant should be prevented from exercising what prima facie was his right to cross-examine the plaintiff by putting to her for her comment such parts of the video as the defendant thought appropriate for the purposes of undermining her case . . In principle, as it seems to me, the starting point on any application of this kind must be that, where video evidence is available which, according to the defendant, undermines the case of the claimant to an extent that would substantially reduce the award of damages to which she is entitled, it will usually be in the overall interests of justice to require that the defendant should be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff and her medical advisors upon it, so long as this does not amount to trial by ambush."
Civil Procedure Rules 31.4
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tracy Foster Nee Bellington v John Maguire and Irwell Construction Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 273
9 Feb 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Negligence
Cyclist riding into rear of vehicle parked across cycle lane.
[ Bailii ]
 
Collier v Crapper [2001] EWCA Civ 232
9 Feb 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The court rejected an application for leave to appeal. The defendant had turned right out of a slow moving land of traffic into the path of the plaintiff who was riding a motor cycle along the off-side of the queue of vehicles. Held. It could not be said that the judge's findings were inappropriate.
[ Bailii ]
 
Coxon v Flintshire County Council Times, 13 March 2001; Gazette, 29 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 302
13 Feb 2001
CA

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

[ Bailii ]
 
Burke v Lancashire County Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 219
13 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Torts - Other
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rossiter and Rossiter v Dr Tinsley and Dr Jago [2001] EWHC QB 14
15 Feb 2001
QBD

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Cooper v Reed and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 224
15 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Holmes v SGB Services Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 354
19 Feb 2001
CA
Henry LJ, Buxton LJ, Arden LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety

[ Bailii ]
 
Allen and Others v British Rail Engineering Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 242; 2001] ICR 942; [2001] PIQR Q10
23 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages
The claimants suffered vibration white finger working for the defendants with percussive tools over many years to 1987, but then continued in other employments which also involved vibrating tools and which caused further damage. The claimants made claims in negligence against the defendants, in which the judge found that, in the light of their knowledge in 1973, the defendants should have carried out surveys to ascertain the incidence of vibratory white finger and should have warned the claimants of the risk. She also held that by 1976 the defendants should have found alternative less damaging work for the first claimant, or should have reduced the time he spent exposed to vibration. She assessed the appropriate compensation for the whole of the first claimant's injury at £11,000 but awarded him only £4,000, deducting from the total £1,500 for the period before 1976, £1,500 for the period after 1987, and £4,000, that is half the remaining £8,000, for the period from 1976 to 1987 to take account of the damage already suffered and the fact that, on the evidence, if the defendants had complied with their duty, the claimant's exposure could have been reduced by half. The first claimant accepted the deductions for damage suffered before 1973 and after 1987, but disputed the further deduction of £4,000. Held. It was contended for the first claimant that, once it had been shown that the defendants' negligence made a material contribution to the injury suffered by the claimant, the defendants were liable for the whole of the claimant's injury except in so far as it was shown or accepted that this had been aggravated by non-negligent exposure before 1973 or after 1987 by the first claimant's new employers. The defendants argued that an employer was only liable for that part of the harm suffered by the employee which was attributable to the employer's negligence. Schiemann LJ concluded: "In our judgment the case law as it now stands establishes five propositions of which the first is concerned with liability and the others with quantifying damages. (i) The employee will establish liability if he can prove that the employer's tortious conduct made a material contribution to the employee's disability. (ii) There can be cases where the state of the evidence is such that it is just to recognise each of two separate tortfeasors as having caused the whole of the damage of which the claimant complains; for instance where a passenger is killed as the result of a head-on collision between two cars each of which was negligently driven and in one of which he was sitting. (iii) However in principle the amount of the employer's liability will be limited to the extent of the contribution which his tortious conduct made to the employee's disability. (iv) The court must do the best it can on the evidence to make the apportionment and should not be astute to deny the claimant relief on the basis that he cannot establish with demonstrable accuracy precisely what proportion of his injury is attributable to the defendant's tortious conduct. (v) The amount of evidence which should be called to enable a judge to make a just apportionment must be proportionate to the amount at stake and the uncertainties which are inherent in making any award of damages for personal injury.
The application of those propositions should lead to a just and principled result. We mention by way of coda that this approach seems to accord with the view of the authors of the American Law Institute Restatement of the Law, Torts, 2d (1965), section 433A(e): "Apportionment may also be made where a part of the harm caused would clearly have resulted from the innocent conduct of the defendant himself, and the extent of the harm has been aggravated by his tortious conduct.""
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Christopher Simmons v British Steel Plc [2001] ScotCS 43; 2002 SLT 711
23 Feb 2001
OHCS
Lord Hardie
Scotland, Personal Injury
The pursuer was injured at work. That exacerbated a pre-existing skin condition, which led in turn to depression. Held: the damage was too remote, and did not follow directly from the injury.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Newman v Whitbread Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 326
26 Feb 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought damages after falling down stairs at work. She said that the stairway did not comply with the British Standards in breach of the Regulations. The employer responded that the non-compliance was merely techical, and could not have affected the accident. The employer appealed saying that the judge had taken a point unargued in the pleadings. Held: The court applied the test in Waghorn to ask whether the defendants would have argued their case differently if the point had been pleaded. They would have done so. It was now not proper to call for a re-trial. The appeal succeeded.
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 5(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffiths and Others v British Coal Corporation and Another Times, 13 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 336
27 Feb 2001
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits
The interest payable on an award of damages for past loss of earnings for personal injury was liable to be subject to the deduction rules applying in respect of benefits paid. Such interest fell within the definition of 'compensation for earnings lost' as defined in the Act.
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 Sch 2
[ Bailii ]

 
 White v White and The Motor Insurers Bureau; HL 1-Mar-2001 - Times, 06 March 2001; Gazette, 12 April 2001; [2001] UKHL 9; [2001] 2 All ER 43; [2001] 1 WLR 481; [2001] 1 LLR 679; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1105; [2001] PIQR P20; [2001] 2 CMLR 1; [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 679; [2001] RTR 25; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 493
 
Stacey v National Leisure Catering [2001] EWCA Civ 355
6 Mar 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Farrell v Avon Health Authority; 8-Mar-2001 - [2001] All ER (D) 17
 
Delroy Clayton Wesley Thompson v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 331
8 Mar 2001
CA

Prisons, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Welsh v Mathew Clark Wholesale Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 320
9 Mar 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Langford v Hebran and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 361; [2001] PIQR Q13
15 Mar 2001
CA

Damages, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages for the loss of his chances of pursuing his career as a kick-boxer. The judge considered four different courses of varying success which his career might have taken. He accepted that, whether or not those scenarios had materialised, the claimant would have earned a base level of income from giving kickboxing classes. He then evaluated the percentage chance of each scenario being realised and applied the percentage to the earnings the claimant would have derived on the basis of that scenario. Held: Though the methodology in general was correct, the particular evaluation used by the judge was illogical. The judge should have applied an overall discount to reflect the many contingencies (including risk of injury) arising in respect of each scenario and the fact that none of them might have been realised. In calculating its own figures, the claimant's chances of achieving fame and fortune as a kick-boxer at various stages in his career were evaluated on a scale from 80% to 20% and damages for his loss of earnings awarded accordingly.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Garrett v Camden London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 395; [2001] All ER (D) 202
16 Mar 2001
CA
Simon Brown LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Employment
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: 'Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless ascribe some at least some of their problems to the strains and stresses of their work situation: be it simply overworking, the tension of difficult relationships, career prospect worries, fears or feelings of discrimination or harassment, to take some examples. Unless, however, there was a real risk of breakdown which the claimant's employers ought reasonably to have foreseen and they ought properly to have averted there can be no liability.' (Simon Brown LJ)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another; QBD 26-Mar-2001 - Times, 04 April 2001; [2001] EWHC QB 446; (2001) 65 BMLR 1

 
 Barry v Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd; CA 30-Mar-2001 - Times, 03 April 2001; Gazette, 01 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 433
 
Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited Times, 16 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 419
30 Mar 2001
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence
Where it was not the claimant's fault that proceedings had not been issued within the appropriate time limit, the judge when considering exercise of his discretion to admit the claim, should not be tempted to refuse to admit it on the basis that the claimant would have a clear claim for negligence against the solicitor who should have issued the proceedings. The judge was wrong to seek to distinguish the case and deny that the delay at issue related to periods only after the expiration of the limitation period. The judge had been wrong to conclude that the Civil Procedure rules required the claimant to have issued proceedings much earlier, since those rules could only affect the conduct of proceedings once they had been issued.
Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Bayley v Tesco Stores Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 504
2 Apr 2001
CA
Hale LJ
Personal Injury
Application for leave to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
Murrell v Healy and Another Times, 01 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 486; [2001] 4 All ER 345; [2002] RTR 2
5 Apr 2001
CA
Waller, Dyson LJJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages
Documents held by an insurance company after settling a personal injuries claim by the same claimant but as regards a later unconnected claim were admissible, since they went to an issue in the later case, namely the nature and extent of the injury from the first occasion. They were admissible even though they had been used as part of without prejudice negotiations.
[ Bailii ]
 
Richard Thurber Carlson v Karen Townsend [2001] EWCA Civ 511; [2001] 3 All ER 663
10 Apr 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Mance
Personal Injury
A claimant's solicitor did not like the advice given by a medical expert whose identity had been agreed with the other side and then sought to instruct a different expert without obtaining the other side's agreement first. They sought to draw a distinction under the protocol between a jointly instructed medical aexpert and one jointly selected. Held: It was not the aim of the Pre-action protocol to deprive a claimant of the opportunity to obtain confidential pre-action advice about the viability of his claim, which he would be at liberty to discard undisclosed if he did not agree with it. There is no hint in the protocol that its authors intended the parties' solicitors to instruct the acceptable expert on a joint basis
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Boyce v Wyatt Engineering and Others; CA 1-May-2001 - Times, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 692
 
Lisa Michelle Cooper v Aubrey Clifford Hatton [2001] EWCA Civ 623
3 May 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Cockram v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 797
10 May 2001
CA

Personal Injury
Renewed application for leave to appeal against dismissal of claim for personal injuries.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Veedfald v Arhus Amtskommune; ECJ 10-May-2001 - Times, 04 June 2001; C-203/99; [2001] EUECJ C-203/99
 
Shoals v Cambridgeshire County Council [2001] EWCA Civ 709
11 May 2001
CA

Personal Injury
Renewed application for leave to appeal by defendant council against finding of liability for breach of statutory duty in failure to maintain highway.
Highways Act 1980 40
[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin and others v Clwyd Health Authority and others [2001] EWCA Civ 818
14 May 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Limitation

Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Pittkin v Watts Blake Bearne and Co Plc and others [2001] EWCA Civ 720
15 May 2001
CA
May LJ
Personal Injury
Renewed application for leave to appeal against dismissal of claim for personal injuries.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bright v Pittock [2001] EWCA Civ 755
16 May 2001
CA
Longmore J
Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; CA 17-May-2001 - Times, 15 June 2001; Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 790; [2001] 3 WLR 351; [2001] 3 All ER 126; [2002] QB 100; [2001] CLC 1460; [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 153
 
Adams v Autolec Diesel Services (Wales) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 801
18 May 2001
CA
Rix LJ
Personal Injury
Defendant's application for leave to appeal against award of damages for personal injury - whiplash in car accident.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Keyse v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, Scutts; CA 18-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 715
 
North v TNt Express (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 853
25 May 2001
CA
Schiemann, Tucker, Hale LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic
The claimant, who was drunk and a member of a group of people in a similar condition, asked the defendant, a lorry driver, for a lift. When the defendant refused, the claimant climbed onto the front bumper of the defendant's lorry, holding on by the windscreen wipers, rather than by an adjacent handle. The defendant twice asked the claimant to move and, when the claimant did not, the defendant drove off very slowly, intending to find a quiet spot away from the claimant's companions where he could persuade the claimant to get off the lorry. After the lorry had travelled about 100 metres, one of the windscreen wipers became detached, the claimant fell off and, although the defendant braked immediately, the lorry struck the claimant, causing serious internal injuries.
The trial judge had found that there had been "no pressing need" for the defendant to take such a potentially dangerous step as to drive off with the claimant standing on the front bumper of the lorry. He concluded that, in doing so, the defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care. He found that the defendant was liable to the extent of 25%, the claimant's contributory negligence being assessed at 75%. The defendant appealed. Held: The appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant.
Hale LJ said: "It is interesting that in this case, when discussing contributory negligence, the judge remarked that it was extraordinary that the claimant did not get off the lorry the moment it started to move, when it was going very slowly indeed, and as indeed one of his own witnesses had also wondered. The judge also commented that the driver, although in breach of duty, was put in a difficult situation and his was an error of judgment.
It seems to me that the judge in this case applied too rigorous a standard of care when asking himself whether what the driver had done was reasonable in all the circumstances. He referred, as I have indicated, to the fact that there was "not such a pressing need." Later on he referred to the fact that "the exigencies of the situation did not . . require" the driver to drive the lorry down the road. That is putting it too high. It seems to me that had the driver indeed done what the claimant said he had done, that is driven in such a violent and erratic way as to indicate that he was trying to dislodge the claimant from the front of the lorry, there could indeed have been a breach of the duty of care because he would have been going well beyond what could be considered a reasonable reaction to the difficult situation in which he was placed. But one has to take all the circumstances of that situation into account when deciding whether what he did do was such a reasonable reaction. These include the fact that he was put into the dilemma by the claimant himself who was behaving in an offensive and thoroughly irresponsible fashion, displaying a complete lack of regard for his own safety, let alone for the difficult position in which he had put the driver and his mate. One also has to take into account the surrounding circumstances. It is was late at night (just after the closing time for this particular establishment), there was a reasonably large group of people on the pavement, some of whom at least were friends of the claimant, some of whom had obviously been drinking, and even if the others were not actually aggressive, the claimant was. The claimant's intention may only have been to hold up the lorry for five minutes but the driver and his mate had no means of knowing that and were put in a very difficult situation. In those circumstances I would not consider it unreasonable to drive off very slowly with a view to stopping at some quieter spot away from the group to persuade the claimant to get off.
Furthermore, the judge could have taken more account of the fact that the claimant only fell off when he was engaged in an even more stupid and dangerous act of pulling at the windscreen wiper on to which he was holding. I would agree with Mr Kilcoyne on behalf of the respondent claimant that that does not necessarily rob the driving of all causative effect, but it does indicate something about the reasonableness of the driver's conduct up until that point.
For my part I would say that there was in the particular circumstances of this case, in the very difficult situation in which the driver found himself, no breach of the duty to take reasonable care. For that reason I would allow the appeal."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Todd and Others v Adams and Another Times, 20 August 2001
5 Jun 2001
QBD
Aikens J
Personal Injury, Transport
The claimants were the relatives of fishermen who had died at sea when their vessel capsized. They alleged that the ship filed to meet the statutory criteria for stability, and that the defendants were negligent and in breach of statutory duty to them. The court held that the statute and regulations provided clear remedies by way of fines and registration and certification. There was no provision for creating any civil liability toward the claimants, and the claim failed.
Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 (1975 No 333) - Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970 - Merchant Shipping Act 1995 121

 
Darvell v Newitt [2001] EWCA Civ 958
6 Jun 2001
CA
Kay LK
Personal Injury
Application for leave to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Leete v Snow and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 902
6 Jun 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Chamberlain v South Downs Health NHS [2001] EWCA Civ 881
6 Jun 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages
Application for permission to appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kane v New Forest District Council [2002] 1 WLR 312; [2001] EWCA Civ 878; [2002] LTL 12 April 2002
13 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Dyson, Lord Justice May
Personal Injury, Negligence
A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the claimant had to demonstrate a real as opposed to a merely fanciful prospect of success. Held: The authority had foreseen the dangers when granting permission for the development, but had failed to ensure that the sight lines were improved before the development was completed. "the starting point must surely be that the defendants did create the source of danger. They it was who required this footpath to be constructed. I cannot accept that in these circumstances they were entitled to wash their hands of that danger and simply leave it to others to cure it by improving the sightlines. It is one thing to say that at the time when the defendants required the construction of this footpath they had every reason to suppose that the improvements along The White Cottage frontage would ultimately allow it to be safely opened and used: quite another to say that they were later entitled to stand idly by whilst, as they must have known, the footpath lay open to the public in a recognisably dangerous state." The appellant's case did not merely have a realistic prospect of success, she had a good case. The authority had also failed ti use its Highways Act powers to have the sight line improved.
Highways Act 1980 154(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hone v Going Places Leisure Travel Ltd and Another Times, 06 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 947
13 Jun 2001
CA
Henry LJ, Longmore LJ, Carnwath LJ
Personal Injury
The regulations could not be read to impose strict liability on a tour organiser or holiday ticket retailer for injury suffered during the holiday. The rules clearly required there to be shown some 'improper performance' of the contract before liability could be imposed, and no fault provisions of the Convention were of no assistance because of the wording.
Package Travel Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (1992 No 3288) 15(2) - Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 Art 17 Art 18Art19
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Eagling and Another v T D G Linkman Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 930
15 Jun 2001
CA

Negligence, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Cheshire County Council; CA 18-Jun-2001 - Times, 22 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 911
 
Brian Watson v First Choice Holidays and Flights Limited and Aparta Hotels Caledonia S A [2001] EWCA Civ 972
25 Jun 2001
CA
Judge, Latham LJJ
Contract, European, Personal Injury, Consumer
Two tourists were injured whilst on holiday in Spain. One recovered damages in Spain; the other sued the tour operators here, and the Spanish hotel operator resisted being joined, saying that his business being in Spain, he should not be sued here. The Regulations clearly enabled the tour operator to be sued here, and the operator in turn could seek his indemnity from the hotel operator here under the Convention. The parties could not be protected from the possibility of facing different consequences from different courts when there were several linked cases. The cases were referred to the European Court of Justice for their decision.
[ Bailii ]
 
Winwood v Adtranz-Abb Daimler-Benz Transportation (UK and Ireland) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1038
25 Jun 2001
CA
Keene LJ
Damages, Personal Injury
Renewed application for permission to appeal - refusal to make Smith v Manchester award.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cachie and Others v Faluyi [2001] EWCA Civ 998; [2001] 1 WLR 1966; [2001] CP Rep 102; [2002] 1 All ER 192; [2002] PIQR P5
27 Jun 2001
CA
Henry, Brooke LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim, though it raised a novel point under the 1976 Act. Did section 2(3) of the Act, providing: "Not more than one action shall lie for and in respect of the same subject-matter of complaint.", mean that if a writ was issued in a Fatal Accidents Act claim brought on behalf of a deceased's dependants but never served, this automatically precluded the bringing of a new action some years later?
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)
[ Bailii ]
 
Caldwell v Maguire and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1054; [2002] PIQR P6
27 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Woolf of Barnes LCJ, Judge, Tuckey LJJ
Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant jockey appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries suffered during a race. The claim was against two other jockeys.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hunt (A Minor) v National Health Service Litigation Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1065
27 Jun 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Wright and Beyer Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1069
3 Jul 2001
CA
Pill, Tuckey LJJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Cantwell v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; HL 5-Jul-2001 - Times, 16 July 2001; [2001] UKHL 36; 2001 GWD 24-879; 2001 SLT 966; 2002 SCLR 185; 2002 SC (HL) 1

 
 Phillips v Holliday and Another; CA 6-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1074

 
 Molloy v Shell UK Ltd; CA 6-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1272; [2002] PIQR P7
 
Cachia and Others v Faluyi Times, 11 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001
11 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights
The words of the section had to be construed so as to make it compatible with the human rights convention. Accordingly the term 'action' in the Act was to be interpreted to mean an action where a writ was served. Children whose mother had been killed, had the human right to claim compensation for their loss of dependency. Whilst it was legitimate to impose certain restrictions on access to the courts, the effect of the words of the statute had not been considered or intended, and the court would read the section so as to make it compatible with the Act.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

 
Disley v Levine (T/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1087; [2002] 1 WLR 785
11 Jul 2001
CA
Henry LJ
Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant sought damages from her instructor, after being injured as a passenger trainee pilot of a paraglider. He responded that she was out of time, since the regulations applied. His appeal was refused. The system of regulation did not mention or encompass paragliders. No certificate of air-worthiness or air operator's certificate was required. The objective of the flight was instruction, not passage.
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 No 480 - Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 - Civil Aviation Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Humberside Police v McQuade [2002] 1 WLR 1347; (2001) 165 JP 729; [2001] EWCA Civ 1330
12 Jul 2001
CA
Peter Gibson Lj, Law LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Torts - Other, Personal Injury, Police, Police, Crime
Defendant's appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no public element or public dimension involved in the circumstances of the arrest. Held: The appeal succeeded. McConnell was an authority binding on the court. Authority apart, it would be contrary to principle to hold that an act which would constitute a breach of the peace if committed in a public place, or on private premises where a person or persons other than the participants are affected by it, should cease to be such if committed on private premises where only the participants are involved. None of the authorities gives support for such a distinction, which could not be justified on grounds of public policy or otherwise.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Hulse and Others v Chambers and Another Times, 13 July 2001
13 Jul 2001
CA

Damages, Personal Injury, International
A claimant in England sought damages for personal injuries for an accident which had occurred in Greece. Although the law which decided liability was the law of Greece, the calculation of damages is a procedural issue, and in an English court was to be assessed according to English rules. The assessment of damages remained in principle a jury question, even though for many years the judge had undertaken the task.
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 14 (3) (b)

 
Brown and Another v Fenwick [2001] EWCA Civ 1146
16 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Webb v Barclays Bank Plc and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust; CA 16-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1141; [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 500; [2002] PIQR P8
 
Watson v Skuse [2001] EWCA Civ 1158
17 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

[ Bailii ]
 
Alsop v Sheffield City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1281
17 Jul 2001
CA

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Callery, Gregory Charles Russell v Charles Gray, Pal Pak Corrugated Ltd (No 1); CA 18-Jul-2001 - Times, 18 July 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1117; [2001] 1 WLR 2112; [2001] 2 Costs LR 163; [2001] Lloyds Rep IR 743; [2001] 3 All ER 833; [2001] PIQR P32
 
Jameson v Smith, Personal Representative of and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1264
24 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Gillett v Hygrade Foods Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1351
26 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Roshdi v Thames Trains Ltd and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1354
31 Jul 2001
CA
Hale LJ
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Callery v Gray (No 2) Times, 24 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1246; [2001] 1 WLR 2142; [2001] 2 Costs LR 205; [2002] RTR 11; [2001] 4 All ER 1; [2001] CPLR 501; [2001] Lloyd's Rep IR 765
31 Jul 2001
CA
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Brooke
Costs, Personal Injury
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be recoverable, but the court did not have sufficient information to decide what was a reasonable premium. Several elements were clearly required to be covered by a premium, such as would make the insurer's business properly viable, but the premium was challenged as to the benefit payable by way of re-imbursement of disbursements paid by the insured in the event of a failure of the claim. S29 should be read to include the insurance for costs which were not recoverable from the other party, including such disbursements.
The court defined insurance: 'Insurance is the purchase of an indemnity against the risk of loss caused by a fortuity'.
Access to Justice Act 1999 29
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Perrin v Ministry of Defence [2001] EWCA Civ 1310
31 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Negligence, Armed Forces

[ Bailii ]
 
Nazir v Akindayini [2001] EWCA Civ 1422
31 Jul 2001
CA
Judge J
Personal Injury, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Appleyard v Thanet District Council and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1382
29 Aug 2001
CA
Tuckey LJ
Costs, Personal Injury
Renewed application for permission to appeal part of an order for costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel [2001] EWHC Admin 720
31 Aug 2001
Admn
Mr Justice Hooper
Personal Injury
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded £2,000. Later again, the Panel agreed to make a payment but reduced it because of her convictions, back to the same amount. She complained that the decision was insufficiently detailed to allow analysis. She wanted proper sufficient and intelligible reasons. Held: The panel had failed to give such reasons in three respects, and the decision was quashed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Alexander Thain (Ap) v Fisher Services (Aberfeldy) Limited [2001] ScotCS 223; [2001] ScotHC 106
2 Oct 2001
SCS

Scotland, Personal Injury, Damages
The pursuer sought damages from an injury suffered duping the course of his employment. He particularly asserted that though he had not been part of a company pension, he had now lost the financial ability to make his own contributions to his personal pension. The defenders said this was a duplicate claim, and that there were insufficient averments to allow them to prepare an answer. The court held that the claim was not unarguable and should be allowed to proceed.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Marks and Spencer plc v Palmer [2001] EWCA 1528
9 Oct 2001
CA
Waller and Schiemann LJJ
Health and Safety, Personal Injury
A shopper carrying some heavy bags tripped and fell over a weather strip, which was proud of the floor at an exit door to the extent of some 8 to 9.5 mm high. The recorder had said that, once he was satisfied that the claimant came into contact with it and fell, it followed "as night follows day" that the traffic route was not suitable for the purpose for which it was used. Held: The appeal was allowed. Regulations 12(1) and (2) should be read together, and suitability required to be examined from a health and safety viewpoint, and the floor was suitable or did not fall "within the concept of constituting a risk to health and safety as used in this regulation.
Schiemann LJ pointed out that context was everything, that the case concerned a shop exit which would be used by many people with varying degrees of physical mobility, but that slight rises in surface levels occurred everywhere.
Waller LJ said that "the court should therefore consider whether the floor had been constructed in such a way as to expose any person to a risk to his health and safety and should have regard to the extent of any risk and its likely consequences as well as to the nature of any persons exposed to it, before standing back and asking itself "by reference to such factors as they existed before this accident took place, and not with any benefit of hindsight, was this floor suitable?".
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 SI No. 3004
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Marks and Spencer Plc v Palmer [2001] EWCA Civ 1528
9 Oct 2001
CA
Schiemann, Waller LJJ
Personal Injury
The claimant had tripped against a weather strip which protruded by less than 1 cm above the surface of doorway of the staff exit from one of the defendant's stores. It was a permanent fixture and, as such, was part of the construction of the floor. It had never previously given rise to any accidents or complaints. At first instance, the recorder had found that the simple fact that Mrs Palmer had tripped over the weather strip showed that the floor was unsuitable and in breach of regulation 12(1). Held: The Court considered whether a floor in which a weather strip had been inserted was of such construction as to breach Regulation 12(1), and gave guidance as to approach to be taken by a court to the question of suitability under Regulation 12(1).
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maund v Julia Arredamenti Spa and Linearsed Snc [2001] ScotCS 228
9 Oct 2001
SCS
TG Coutts QC
Scotland, Personal Injury
The claimant suffered injury when a chair bought from the defendants collapsed.
[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997; [2001] 4 All ER 641; [2001] EWCA Civ 1478
10 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Rimer
Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second day after posting, and therefore the day after expiry of the extension of time. In this case they had in fact received the notice on that last day. Did the deeming provision override the facts? Held: The provision should be read to allow for contrary evidence. The appeal was allowed. CPR 6.9 cannot be invoked to dispense with service "when what would be done is in substance that which CPR 7.6(3) forbids."
May LJ described Practice Directions as "subordinate to the rules" and as "at best a weak aid to the interpretation of the rules themselves."
CPR Part 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
White (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of David Charles White Deceased) v Esab Group (UK) Ltd [2001] EWHC QB 453
11 Oct 2001
QBD
Nelson J
Personal Injury, Damages

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Johnson v South Yorkshire Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1525
12 Oct 2001
CA
Pill LJ
Personal Injury
Application for leave to appeal - refused.
[ Bailii ]
 
Stegers v Donne Mileham and Haddock [2001] EWCA Civ 1587
23 Oct 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
Application for leave to appeal out of time.
[ Bailii ]
 
McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited [2001] ScotCS 239
23 Oct 2001
SCS
Lord McCluskey
Scotland, Negligence, Personal Injury
The pursuer sought damages from the defenders after her husband had died, she said, after suffering injury smoking their cigarettes.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Gillian Olive Willett v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1604
24 Oct 2001
CA
Brooke LJ, David Steel
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
McManus v Mannings Marine Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1668
29 Oct 2001
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Pearson and others v Ahmed (Male) [2001] EWCA Civ 1626
30 Oct 2001
CA
Brooke LJ
Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
Application for discovery of additional documents for appeal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hall v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1717
1 Nov 2001
CA
Simon Brown, Schiemann, Buxton LJJ
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 MP (a Child) v Mid-Kent Healthcare Trust; CA 5-Nov-2001 - Times, 19 November 2001; Gazette, 14 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1703; [2002] CPLR 27; (2002) 65 BMLR 43; [2002] Lloyd's Rep Med 33; [2002] 3 All ER 688; [2002] 1 WLR 210
 
Lancashire County Council and Another v Jane Deborah Burke [2001] EWCA Civ 1679
7 Nov 2001
CA

Personal Injury
Claim for damages - teacher injured when standing by a pile of chairs which collapsed onto her aggravating a pre-existing knee condition.
[ Bailii ]
 
Steven Robert Evans v Pontypridd Roofing Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1657; [2002] PIQR Q5
9 Nov 2001
CA
Judge Prosser, May LJ
Personal Injury, Damages
The claimant sought as part of his damages the cost of the care provided by family members. Counsel for the defendant raised issues about tax, national insurance and travel and other costs which a professional carer would have to bear, which led the court to reject any precise method of approach. The court should avoid a strait-jacket, such as might happen if it was said that the a proper recompense for services provided gratuitously by a family carer had to be assessed in a particular way or ways. Circumstances vary enormously. If a caring relative has given up employment to care for the claimant gratuitously, it might be appropriate to assess the proper recompense for the services provided by reference to the carer’s lost earnings. If the carer has not given up gainful employment the task remains to assess proper recompense for the services provided.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bahia v S P Tyres (Uk) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1784
9 Nov 2001
CA
Latham LJ
Personal Injury, Health and Safety
Application for a permission to appeal .
[ Bailii ]
 
Rawlinson v Cooper [2001] EWCA Civ 1757
9 Nov 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust and Another Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 10 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1721; [2003] 3 All ER 932
16 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale and Mr Justice David Steel
Damages, Personal Injury, Torts - Other
The claimant had sued her former employer for post-traumatic stress resulting from alleged harassment at her place of work. The claimant appealed against an order refusing damages. The court had held that outside the 1997 Act which was not in force at the time, there was no tort of harassment. The question was the extent of the tort of causing intentional distress. The law provided an alternative. The claimant must pursue either criminal or civil proceedings but not both. The law had recognised extensions of the term 'molest' as between family members. Held: Before the Act there was a right only for an injunction, and not for damages for acts which themselves fell short of a tort. Whilst the 1861 Act remained in force, and where the public authorities refused to prosecute, a private claimant had to choose between the alternatives of a private prosecution, or an action for damages. For a claim for damages to succeed there must be physical or psychiatric damage, and an intention to create such harm. Although the tort is commonly labelled "intentional infliction of harm", it was not necessary to prove actual (subjective) intention to injure; it was sufficient to prove that the conduct was "calculated" to do so in the sense of being deliberate conduct which was likely in the nature of things to cause injury .
Hale LJ analysed the tort in Downton: "For the tort to be committed, as with any other action on the case, there has to be actual damage. The damage is physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness. The defendant must have intended to violate the claimant's interest in his freedom from such harm. The conduct complained of has to be such that that degree of harm is sufficiently likely to result that the defendant cannot be heard to say that he did not 'mean' it to do so. He is taken to have meant it to do so by the combination of the likelihood of such harm being suffered as the result of his behaviour and his deliberately engaging in that behaviour."
Offences against the Person Act 1861 45 - Protection from Harassment Act 1997
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Maddocks v Clifton and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 1837
19 Nov 2001
CA
Thorpe, Keene LJJ
Personal Injury
Application for extension of time to appeal against judgment finding liability to the claimant.
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 2
[ Bailii ]
 
Mirvahedy v Henley and Henley Times, 11 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1749
21 Nov 2001
CA
The President Of The Family Division, Lady Justice Hale, And, Lord Justice Keene
Animals, Personal Injury
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, but rather, given their lack of abnormality, whether the reaction was one which was characteristic of what might be expected of a normal member of that species in those circumstances. If it was the latter, then the owner was strictly liable.
Animals Act 1971 2(2)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Toole v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1783
22 Nov 2001
CA
Latham LJ
Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hewison v Meridian Shipping Services Pte Ltd, Coflexip Stena Offshore Ltd, Flex Installer Offshore Ltd; QBD 30-Nov-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 450
 
Magnay v Corbishley [2001] EWCA Civ 1949
4 Dec 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Damages

[ Bailii ]
 
Kellett v Southampton and South West Hampshite Health Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1823
5 Dec 2001
CA
Buxton LJ
Health Professions, Personal Injury
Application for permission to appeal from a judgment of Lightman J given in judicial review proceedings.
[ Bailii ]
 
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others, Dyson and Another v Leeds City Counci [2002] ICR 412; [2002] IRLR 129; [2002] PIQR P27; Times, 13 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1881; [2002] 1 WLR 1052
11 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Latham, And, Lord Justice Kay
Personal Injury
Where a claimant suffered mesothelioma, contracted whilst working with asbestos, but the disease may have been contracted from inhalation at different times, and with different employers, his claim must fail since it was not possible to identify which employer was in fact responsible so as to allow the court to apportion liability. The disease arose after a single cell was affected. 90% of mesothelioma was contracted following exposure to asbestos. The law should not be distorted to assist in a hard case. Section 2(2) of the 1957 Act related to 'occupancy', not 'activity' liability. The court drew a clear distinction between the occupancy duties and the activity duties of an occupier. The 1957 Act was concerned only to replace the old common law rules relating to the occupancy duties of an occupier. Where the complaint arose from dust created by contractor's activities, the occupier owed no common law duties of occupancy to the claimant.
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 2(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Goode v Martin; CA 13-Dec-2001 - Times, 24 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1899; [2001] 3 All ER 562; [2002] 1 WLR 1828
 
Courtney v Murphy [2001] EWCA Civ 2059
14 Dec 2001
CA

Road Traffic, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
The Home Office v Mary Jane Wainwright, Alan Joseph Wainwright Times, 04 January 2002; Gazette, 27 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2081; [2002] QB 1334
20 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton
Prisons, Torts - Other, Human Rights, Personal Injury
The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the prison officers had a right to conduct the search. The actions had occurred before the Human Rights Act came into force. There had been considerable uncertainty as to whether the Human Rights Act 1998 can apply retrospectively in situations where the conduct complained of occurred before the Act came into force. Case law had not decided whether s3 could operate retrospectively, but it did not. There appeared no intention of the prison officers to cause harm or distress, and no Wilkinson v Downton action was available to the claimant. Any consent was only to a search conducted properly. Claims other than for battery were dismissed. There is no tort of invasion of privacy, but only separate torts protecting body and property. The germ of a tort of breach of privacy all lay in the law of confidence. No element of confidence was involved here
Human Rights Act 1998 3 22(4) - Prison Act 1952 47 - Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388) 86(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sayers and Others v Smith Kline Beecham plc and Others; X, Y, Z and Others v Schering Health Care Ltd and Others; Afrika and Others v Cape plc Times, 15 January 2002; Gazette, 06 March 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2017
21 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
The case concerned the management of substantial multi-party actions, and in particular the form of costs orders. The claimants sought a payment of the 'common costs' element to be made payable as the appropriate relative common issues were resolved. Held: The purpose of the new rules was to clarify the sharing of the burden of costs, not to prescribe what orders should be made and when. As to discontinuing claimants, the current form of order should continue. The advantages of amending such orders to crystallise the costs of a discontinuing party were outweighed by the potential injustice.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 19 Section III
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Afrika and others v Cape Plc and others; X Y Z and Others v Schering health Care Ltd; Sayers and Others v Merck, Smithkline Beecham plc MMR/MR vaccine litigation [2001] EWCA Civ 2027
21 Dec 2001
CA

Consumer, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries after immunisation with the MMR vaccine.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites

1 Citers

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