Morgan v William Dixon Ltd: HL 13 Nov 1911

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

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 45, 49 SLR 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.619216

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

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

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242210

Greene v Chelsea Borough Council: CA 1954

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

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1954] 2 QBD 127

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Land, Negligence

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568158

Christmas v Caledonian Club: 1952

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

Citations:

[1952] 1 KBD 141

Cited by:

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

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.568157

Steadman v Scholfield and Another: QBD 6 May 1992

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

Citations:

Gazette 06-May-1992

Statutes:

Marine Conventions Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages, Transport

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89518

Staples v West Dorset District Council: CA 5 Apr 1995

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89496

Fisher v Walker, Cooper v Walker: 16 Jun 1862

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.286980

Ruddy v Marco and others: SCS 25 Jul 2008

Citations:

[2008] ScotCS CSIH – 47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See AlsoRuddy v Monte Marco and Another SCS 7-Mar-2008
. .
CitedBarber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.271112

Morgan v Liverpool Corporation: CA 1927

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

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR, Atkin LJ, Lawrence LJ

Citations:

[1927] 2 KB 131

Statutes:

Housing Act 1925

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Landlord and Tenant, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.259929

Peskett v Portsmouth City Council: CA 25 Jun 2002

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

Judges:

Lords Justice Pill and Potter

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers Liabilities Acts 1957, Occupiers Liabilities Acts 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.217313

Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries Plc: HL 30 Jun 1998

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

Judges:

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84731

Murrell v Healy and Another: CA 5 Apr 2001

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

Judges:

Waller, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84140

McNulty v Marshalls Food Group Ltd: OHCS 7 Jan 1999

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83581

Jebson v Ministry of Defence: CA 28 Jun 2000

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

Judges:

Kennedy, Potter LJJ, Steel J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHaynes v Harwood CA 1935
The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
CitedJolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
CitedHughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
CitedBarrett v Ministry of Defence CA 3-Jan-1995
The deceased was an off-duty naval airman. The claim was based upon the alleged negligent failure of the defendant to enforce disciplinary regulations against drunkenness so as to protect the deceased against his own known proclivity for alcohol . .
CitedSacco v Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary and others CA 15-May-1998
The claimant a seventeen-year-old youth who had been arrested during a drunken brawl, kicked his way out through the door of the police van in which he was being transported and jumped out while it was moving at about twenty-five mph striking his . .

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82503

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

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

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

International, Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Jurisdiction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82801

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

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

Judges:

Thorpe, Mantell LJJ

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81137

Cachia and Others v Faluyi: CA 11 Jul 2001

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

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78816

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

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

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1999

Personal Injury, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78827

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

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

Citations:

Times 08-Jun-1998, 1999 SLT 539

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Scotland, Damages

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78751

Black v Braer Corporation and Others: OHCS 12 Oct 1998

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

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 1 12

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78432

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

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

Judges:

Hnry, Judge, Hale LJJ

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Damages

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78259

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

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

Judges:

Sullivan J

Citations:

[2002] PIQR Q46

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.567516

Brown v Nelson and others: 1971

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

Judges:

Nield J

Citations:

[1971] LGR 20

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.445619

Berry v Stone Manganese and Marine Ltd: 1972

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

Citations:

[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 182

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.440380

Edwards v National Coal Board: CA 1949

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

Judges:

Asquith LJ

Citations:

[1949] 1 KB 704

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.401956

Armstrong, Whitworth and Co Ltd v Redford: HL 1920

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

Judges:

Lord Wrenbury

Citations:

[1920] AC 757

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.346527

Anne Margaret Pickford v ICI: CA 2 Aug 1996

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

Citations:

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

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77802

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

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

Citations:

Gazette 26-Aug-1998

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77715

Brown v North British Steel Foundry Ltd: OHCS 1968

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

Judges:

Lord President Clyde

Citations:

1968 SC 51

Statutes:

Law Reform (Limitation of Actions etc) Act 1954

Cited by:

CitedJohnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
CitedAXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.260124

Mitchell v Mulholland (No. 2): CA 1972

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

Judges:

Widgery LJ

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.225260

Anderson v Davis: QBD 1993

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

Judges:

Rodger Bell QC

Citations:

[1993] PIQR Q87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200636

Taylorson v Shieldness Produce Ltd: 1994

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

Citations:

[1994] PIQR 329

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.183346

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Staten: 1972

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

Citations:

[1972] 1 WLR 569

Statutes:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.181848

Taylor v O’Connor: HL 1970

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

HL

Judges:

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

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606462

Graham v Dodds: HL 1983

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

Judges:

Lord Bridge

Citations:

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

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

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

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606461

Richardson v Pitt-Stanley: CA 11 Aug 1994

The directors of a company did not become personally liable for damages, only because they had failed to insure the company for liability for personal injuries suffered as a result of the company’s activities, even though they may be criminally liable. (Sir John Megaw dissenting)
Sir John Megaw said: ‘With great respect, I find it difficult to believe that the parliamentary draftsman would have intended to make provision that there should be no civil right or remedy by using the formula of section 1 of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, ‘shall insure’, followed by section 5 ‘shall be guilty of an offence’; as contrasted with the formula of declaring an act or omission to be unlawful and then separately providing a criminal penalty for the breach.’

Judges:

Russell and Stuart-Smith LJJ, Sir John Megaw

Citations:

Independent 06-Sep-1994, Times 11-Aug-1994, [1995] QB 123

Statutes:

Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCampbell v Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd and Forsyth, The Liquidator Thereof and Gordon SCS 3-Feb-2015
(Extra Division – Inner House) The pursuer was injured working as an apprentice for a company operated by its sole director, the second defender. Though he was an apprentice joiner, the company’s insurance excluded (in breach of the 1969 Act) injury . .
CitedCampbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Personal Injury

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.88776

Rich v Commissioner for Railways (NSW): 1959

The Board considered a claim arising from an accident occurring at a railway level crossing

Citations:

[1959] 101 CLR 135

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182850

Kirton v Augustus Ltd: 1996

Citations:

[1996] PIQR 388

Cited by:

AppliedRouse v Freeman QBD 30-Nov-2001
A party could be present in court in the person of his legal representative. Despite the new rules, the court should be reluctant to strike out a claim for the absence of a party in person, where his personal presence was irrelevant or most unlikely . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182316

Hardman v Amin: QBD 2001

Henriques J said: ‘McFarlane does not affect the law so far as it relates to the wrongful birth of disabled children.’

Judges:

Henriques J

Citations:

[2001] PNLR 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

LimitedMacFarlane and Another v Tayside Health Board HL 21-Oct-1999
Child born after vasectomy – Damages Limited
Despite a vasectomy, Mr MacFarlane fathered a child, and he and his wife sought damages for the cost of care and otherwise of the child. He appealed a rejection of his claim.
Held: The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the . .

Cited by:

CitedMeadows v Khan QBD 23-Nov-2017
Claim for the additional costs of raising the claimant’s son, A, who suffered from both haemophilia and autism. It is admitted that, but for the defendant’s negligence, A would not have been born because his mother would have discovered during her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.603072

Jones v Jones: CA 11 Nov 1999

A plaintiff in a personal injury action who did not accept a payment in, and continued, took the risk of costs inherent in such a continuance. She was entitled to costs up to the date of payment in only, and not up to a later date when different medical evidence came to be relied upon.

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.82608

Alexander and others v Midland Bank Plc: CA 2 Sep 1999

In a claim for repetitive strain injury for typists in the absence of obvious physical damage was on balance not psychosomatic. Plaintiffs could show more than passing pain and discomfort and the scheme of work imposing heavy burden was the cause.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77716

Charles v Hugh James Jones and Jenkins (A Firm): CA 22 Dec 1999

Where a personal injury claimant’s claim had been lost because of the solicitor’s negligence, the notional time for assessment of damages was the time at which a trial might properly have been expected to have been held. This did not however preclude the admission of, for example, medical evidence which only became available after that date.
Held: The recorder erred. Mr Watkins had lost a claim under the Scheme of some value and the Recorder should have proceeded to assess its value on a loss of opportunity basis. I would therefore dismiss the appeal and remit the matter for assessment of the value of the loss of the opportunity to pursue the services claim.

Citations:

Times 22-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 1278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcKinnon and another v E Survey Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation and Survey Ltd) ChD 14-Jan-2003
The claimants purchased a house relying upon a survey by the defendants. Although the defendants reported long standing movement of the property, the defendants failed to report that to be saleable, a long investigation would be required, reducing . .
CitedHibbert Pownall and Newton (A Firm) v Whitehead and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The defendant solicitors had been engaged to pursue a claim for damages for injury arising on the birth of the claimant. They had been instructed by the mother, but she then died, and the claim was compromised. The solicitors now appealed against a . .
CitedEdwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors SC 20-Nov-2019
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant solicitors had failed to secure the incremental award of compensation under the vibration white finger scheme. The central issue was whether evidence which only became available later, but which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.78983

JT v First-Tier Tribunal: CA 24 Jul 2018

The claimant had been sexually abused as a child. Her claim for criminal injuries compensation had been refused under the ‘same roof’ rule.
Held: Her appeal was allowed.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1735, [2018] WLR(D) 481, [2019] 1 WLR 1313, [2018] HRLR 20

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.620468

Bowden v Sister Bernard Mary Murray and others: OHCS 30 Jul 2004

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2004] ScotCS 194, 2004 SLT 967

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 17

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal fromBowden v Poor Sisters of Nazareth and others and similar HL 21-May-2008
The appellants said they had suffered abuse while resident at children’s homes run by the respondents. The respondents denied the allegations and said that they were also out of time. The claims were brought many years after the events.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.200186

White v Glass: CA 17 Feb 1989

The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant claimed limitation under Walkley in defence of the second action.
Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to defeat in limine a second action, notwithstanding that the defect was capable of being cured by substituting the names of representative members. The plaintiff could rely on section 33: ‘There was no action in being against the present defendants at the time when the limitation period expired or thereafter when the application under section 33 was made. . . But it seems to me that the plaintiff is now prejudiced by section 11, since he cannot bring this first properly constituted action unless he can avail himself of section 33. . . In my view, the position is now that he is prejudiced by section 11 and is entitled to rely on section 33. . . This is not a case of a mere repetition of an identical action which has been instituted during the limitation period. In the present case the action which had started during the limitation period was defective and invalid and not capable of resurrection . . The Court is therefore entitled to conclude that the provisions of section 11 prejudiced the plaintiff in relation to the present action. Accordingly I would dismiss this appeal and allow this action to proceed by reason of section 33.’

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

Times 18-Feb-1989, Transcript No 140 of 1989

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWalkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .

Cited by:

CitedBarry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
AppliedRe Workvale Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 8-Apr-1992
A limited company was correctly restored to the register from dissolution so that its insurers could face an arguable claim. Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period was ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been . .
CitedJacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action . .
CitedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185755

Malcolm v Broadhurst: QBD 1970

The principle of foreseeability of psychiatric injury is subject to the qualification that, where the psychiatric injury suffered by the plaintiff is consequential upon physical injury for which the defendant is responsible in law, the defendant will be bound to compensate the plaintiff in respect of the former even if unforeseeable. This is an application of the rule that a wrongdoer must take his victim as he finds him–sometimes called the ‘talem qualem’ rule or, more colloquially, the ‘eggshell skull’ rule. There is no difference in principle between an eggshell skull and an eggshell personality.

Judges:

Geoffrey Lane J

Citations:

[1970] 3 All ER 508

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
CitedDonachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.184751

Hiles v South Gloucestershire NHS Trust: 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3418

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFlood v The University Court of the University of Glasgow OHCS 8-Jul-2008
The pursuer, a college lecturer claimed damages for stress related injury suffered as a result of overwork. She had communicated with her managers many times about the overload. Other staff had resigned for similar reasons.
Held: The pursuer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.279110

XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd: QBD 24 Feb 2017

Application for an order under section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 that Travelers Insurance Company Ltd pay to the applicants the costs they incurred in their successful claims against Transform Medical Group (CS) Limited (in Administration) for damages for injuries sustained as a result of Transform’s supply to them of defective breast implants manufactured by the French company PIP.
Held: Travelers should bear responsibility for what she had regarded as the flawed advice given by the jointly retained solicitors, mindless of the underlying conflict of interest between Travelers, which stood to gain from the addition of uninsured claimants, and Transform, which stood to lose from it.

Judges:

Thirlwall DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 287 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromTravelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ CA 17-May-2018
The issue raised on this appeal is the liability for costs arising out of litigation concerning the supply of defective implants for use in breast surgery, which had been manufactured by PIP. The claims were made in group litigation under a Group . .
At first instanceTravelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.577509

Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. He now sought damages for his loss of earnings through detention in prison and mental hospital.
Held: Such damages could not be claimed successfully once the claimant had been convicted. Though the defendants had admitted their negligence, success for the claimant would be against the public policy maxim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio. If the case was extreme, and the order for detention was made purely for the defendant’s mental condition, and not for the criminal behaviour, the maxim might not apply, but that was not the case here.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘there is no dispute that there was a causal connection between the tort and the killing. The evidence which the judge accepted was but for the tort, Mr Gray would not have killed. But the rule of public policy invoked in this case is not based upon some primitive psychology which deems mental stress to be incapable of having a connection with subsequent criminal acts . . the case against compensating Mr Gray for his loss of liberty is based upon the inconsistency of requiring someone to be compensated for a sentence imposed because of his own personal responsibility for a criminal act.’ and ‘the maxim ex turpi causa expresses not so much a principle as a policy. Furthermore, that policy is not based upon a single justification but on a group of reasons, which vary in different situations.’
Lord Brown said: ‘The law cannot at one and the same time incarcerate someone for his criminality and compensate him civilly for the financial consequences.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2009] UKHL 33, Times 19-Jun-2009, [2009] PIQR P22, (2009) 108 BMLR 205, [2009] 4 All ER 81, [2009] 3 WLR 167, [2009] 1 AC 1339

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedClunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 5-Dec-1997
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis . .
CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Appeal fromGray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another CA 25-Jun-2008
The claimant was a victim of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. He later committed and was convicted of a manslaughter and detained under the 1983 Act. He said that the accident had caused a major personality change. The defendant relied on the defence . .
CitedRegina v Birch CACD 1989
Even where there is culpability, a hospital order with a restriction order may well be the appropriate way to deal with a dangerous and disordered person.
Mustill LJ discussed the effect of a restriction order: ‘In marked contrast with the . .
CitedRegina v Eaton CACD 1976
A hospital order with a restriction order unlimited as to time was made in respect of a woman with a psychopathic disorder where her offence was minor criminal damage. . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
CitedHolman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
CitedAskey v Golden Wine Co Ltd 1948
Denning J said: ‘It is, I think, a principle of our law that the punishment inflicted by a criminal court is personal to the offender, and that the civil courts will not entertain an action by the offender to recover an indemnity against the . .
CitedNational Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
CitedChapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
CitedBritish Columbia v Zastowny 8-Feb-2008
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Damages – Past and future wage loss – Periods of incarceration – Plaintiff seeking damages for injuries suffered as consequence of sexual assaults – Whether plaintiff entitled to . .
CitedHunter Area Health Service v Presland 21-Apr-2005
(Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) The plaintiff, who had been negligently discharged from a psychiatric hospital, was acquitted of murdering a woman six hours later on the ground of mental illness but ordered to be detained in . .
CitedJobling v Associated Dairies HL 1980
The claimant suffered an accident at work which left him with continuing disabling back pain. Before the trial of his claim he was diagnosed as suffering from a disease, in no way connected with the accident, which would in any event have wholly . .
CitedMeah v McCreamer (No 1) QBD 1985
The claimant had suffered serious brain damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence, resulting in a personality change which caused him to commit offences for which he was imprisoned. He sought damages for that imprisonment.
Held: Woolf J . .
CitedMeah v McCreamer (No 2) 1986
The court rejected an attempt to recover the damages which the plaintiff had been found liable to pay to two women whom he had subjected to criminal attacks. The damages were too remote. But the claim would also have been rejected on the public . .
CitedVellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
CitedState Rail Authority of New South Wales v Wiegold 1991
(New South Wales) The plaintiff was seriously injured in an industrial accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. At first he received payments of worker’s compensation but when these ceased he took to supplementing his income by growing and . .
CitedRahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe . .
CitedCross v Kirkby CA 18-Feb-2000
The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant . .
CitedWorrall v British Railways Board CA 29-Apr-1999
The plaintiff alleged that an injury which he has suffered as a result of his employer’s negligence had changed his personality. As a result, he had on two occasions committed sexual assaults on prostitutes, for which offences he had been sentenced . .
CitedRevill v Newbery CA 2-Nov-1995
The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. . .
At first instanceGray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another QBD 6-Jul-2007
The claimant had been injured in an accident for which the defendants were responsible. He developed a personality disorder which led to him committing manslaughter and being detained under section 37. The defendants denied being liable beyond the . .

Cited by:

CitedPrison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
CitedGnango, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2011
The prosecutor appealed against a successful appeal by the defendant against his conviction for murder. He and an opponent had engaged in a street battle using guns. His opponent had shot an innocent passer by. The court was now asked as to whether . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
CitedHounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
CitedHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.347027

McDonnell v Holwerda: QBD 27 May 2005

The doctor was alleged to have been negligent in delaying diagnosis of suspected meningococcal infection, until the point where serious damage was suffered when eth full blown infection developed.
Held: The doctor should have referred the claimant to hosiptal even before the symptoms developed to a stage beyond suspicion. There was a requirement for doctors to exercise their aggregate set of symptoms and to act even before a diagnosis was secure.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Professional Negligence

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225555

Koonjul v Thameslink Healthcare Services: 19 May 2000

Citations:

Times 19-May-2000, [2000] PIQR 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedO’Neill v DSG Retail Ltd CA 31-Jul-2002
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages after he was injured at work. He claimed he had been asked to work in breach of the Regulations.
Held: It was easy but wrong to conflate the issues of causation and forseeability. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183322

Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd: QBD 28 Mar 2003

The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. The injuries were psychiatric, being suffered when they witnessed a crash from the ground.
Held: Psychiatric injury is a recognised form of personal injury, and no statute excluded such claims, and nor was there any reason why they should be excluded from the statute. The law had changed since the earlier statute. However the normal requirements as to foreseeability and remoteness applied.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

Times 18-Apr-2003

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982 76(2), Air Navigation Act 1920

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKing v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180853

Bist v London and Southwestern Railway Co: HL 25 Apr 1907

A railway company issued and posted the following notice:-‘Enginemen and firemen must not leave the footplate of their engine when the latter is in motion.’ The engine driver of a passenger train running at a fast speed left the footplate of his engine and climbed on to the tender for the purpose of getting coal for his engine and was struck by the arch of a bridge and killed. It was contended upon his behalf that in order to increase the pressure of steam in his engine, which had fallen below the normal, and make up for lost time, a better quality of coal was required than that which was immediately available in the well of the tender. The County Court judge found in fact that there was sufficient coal in the well of the tender, and that it had not been proved either that the low pressure of steam or the loss of time upon the journey had been caused by the inferiority of the coal in the tender’s well. He held that the accident had been caused by the ‘serious and wilful misconduct’ of the engine driver, who knew of the rule.
Held that there was sufficient evidence to justify his conclusion.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, and Atkinson

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 1006, 44 SLR 1006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622283

Reed v Great Western Railway Co: HL 29 Oct 1908

The appellant’s deceased husband was an engine-driver in the respondents’ service. In March 1907, while his engine was at Landore, Swansea, he descended in order to turn a water-crane to his engine. He afterwards crossed another line of rails in order to get a book from a friend on another engine. This was a private purpose of the deceased’s, unconnected with his work. While returning to his own engine he was knocked down and killed by a waggon in course of shunting. Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of’ his employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897, section 1.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, and James of Hereford

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 700, 46 SLR 700

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621523

Morgan v Tydvil Engineering and Ship Repairing Co: HL 6 Mar 1908

A foreman engineer was sent by his employers on board of a ship lying in a wet dock to take notes of repairs that they were to execute. While on board he accidentally fell and was injured.
Held that the employers were not in actual occupation of the dock and were not ‘undertakers,’ and that therefore the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 did not apply.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Ashbourne, Macnaghten, James of Hereford, Robertson, and Atkinson

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 680, 46 SLR 680

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621501

John Watson Ltd v Brown: HL 28 Apr 1914

In consequence of a wreck in one of the shafts of a mine the miners were ordered to the surface. Those accustomed to ascend by the damaged shaft were directed to ascend by another shaft. They were detained an hour and a-half waiting until this shaft was free, the miners accustomed to use it being taken up first. While waiting they in their heated state were exposed to a downdraught of cold air. One of them caught a chill, upon which pneumonia supervened and he died. The arbiter in a claim for compensation found that his death was due to accident arising out of the employment. Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the arbiter’s finding was right.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 492, 51 SLR 492

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620713

Lloyd v Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co, Ltd: HL 6 Apr 1914

Frank Whittall was a miner and was killed by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the respondents. Thomas Lloyd was the illegitimate son of Alice Lloyd by Frank Whittall, born seven months after the latter’s death. At the arbitration Alice Lloyd gave evidence, objected to by the respondents but admitted and accepted by the arbitrator, that Whittall shortly before his death promised to marry her before the child was born. William Jones and Matilda Evans, whose evidence was similarly objected to and accepted, also testified to Whittall’s intention to marry Alice Lloyd.
Being satisfied by this evidence that Whittall had intended to marry Alice Lloyd before the birth of the child, and that at the time of Whittall’s death Thomas Lloyd was wholly dependent on his earnings, the arbitrator made an award for pounds 213 and costs.
The Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator was wrong in deciding that Thomas Lloyd was a dependant of Whittall within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, and in admitting the evidence of Alice Lloyd, William Jones, and Matilda Evans.
Held: Where a claim was made on behalf of the posthumous illegitimate child of a workman who was killed by an accident in the course of his employment, held that (a) statements made by the workman to the effect that the child was his and that he would marry the mother before the child was born are evidence of paternity and dependence; ( b) the County Court Judge cannot on a claim based on partial dependence award compensation based on total dependence.
Opinion per Lord Shaw that the fact of dependency, whether in the case of legitimate or illegitimate children, does not necessarily rest on proving a promise of support by the father.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 631, 52 SLR 631

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620714

Webber v Wansbrough Paper Co, Ltd: HL 29 Jun 1914

When a sailor leaving a ship on which he had been employed during the day had crossed on a plank connecting the ship with a permanent iron ladder fixed on the quay and had slipped and hurt himself whilst climbing the ladder, held that the sailor had not yet left the ship, and the accident therefore arose ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’ Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane), Lords Shaw and Moulton

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 859, 52 SLR 859

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620721

Smith v Davis and Sons Ltd: HL 29 Mar 1915

Compensation had been paid by weekly payments for injuries received by a workman, and had been discontinued on the workman’s recovery and return to work. About two years later the workman, having meantime been in hospital with an illness which was not the result of the accident, claimed compensation on the ground of partial incapacity arising from the original injuries. The employers demanded that the work-man should submit to medical examination, and on the second occasion the man refused to do so. Consequently the employers, successfully, applied to the County Court for an order staying the proceedings till he should submit himself to such examination. Held (aff. Court of Appeal, 7 B.W.C.C. 138) that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, Sched. I, par. 4, which paragraph here applied, the workman was bound to submit to as many examinations as the employer might reasonably require, and that there was no suggestion that the demand was in this case unreasonable.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson and Parker

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 524, 53 SLR 524

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620679

Parker v Owners of Ship ‘Black Rock’: HL 11 May 1915

A seaman, with leave, went on shore to buy provisions, his contract of service being ‘Crew to supply their own provisions.’ On the seaman’s return he fell into the water and was drowned, somewhere in the length of the pier at the end of which his ship had been moored, but from which she had been moved to another berth.
Held that the accident did not arise ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, Parmoor, and Wrenbury

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 500, 53 SLR 500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury, Employment

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620684

Hayward v Westleigh Colliery Co Ltd: HL 8 Feb 1915

Consideration of the onus of proof that the employer has not been prejudiced in his defence by the omission to give the notice required by the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 of a claim under the Act. Reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeal, who had, on this ground, set aside the arbiter’s award.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 513, 53 SLR 513

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620673

Blair and Co Ltd v Chilton: HL 11 May 1915

Contrary to orders, a boy employed on a machine sat on the guard of the machine, and in consequence caught his foot in the machinery. Had he been standing the accident could not have happened.
Held that he was entitled to compensation.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 503, 53 SLR 503

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620683

Woods v Thomas Wilson Sons and Co Ltd: HL 1 Mar 1915

A coalheaver was struck in the abdomen by a fall of coal while coaling a ship. He died from peritonitis, and the medical evidence showed him to have been suffering from chronic appendicitis. The question arose whether his death was the result of the blow or of the disease. The arbitrator found his widow entitled to compensation on the ground that the blow was the immediate cause of death though it would not have killed a healthy man. Held ( diss. Lords Parker and Sumner and rev. decision of Court of Appeal, 6 B.W.C.C. 750), that the award proceeded on sufficient evidence.

Judges:

Earl Loreburn, Lords Atkinson, Parker, Sumner, and Parmoor

Citations:

[1915] UKHL 516, 53 SLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620680

Jackson v General Steam Fishing Co, Ltd: HL 29 Jul 1909

A watchman was employed to look after some trawlers while lying in a harbour, his duties extending from Saturday afternoon to Sunday afternoon, a period of 25 hours. He supplied his own food, which was sometimes brought him by members of his family. It was necessary for him at times to be on the quay. On Saturday night he went to an hotel a short distance from the quay, had half-a-glass of whisky and a glass of beer, and on returning to the quay proceeded to descend a fixed ladder to get on board one of the trawlers, when he slipped, fell into the water, and was drowned. He had only been absent at the hotel a short time.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that there was evidence to support a finding by an arbiter that the accident was one ‘arising out of and in the course of’ the employment; per Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, and Shaw, on the ground that the watchman had returned to, and was within, the sphere of his duty when the accident occurred; and per Lord James, on the ground that the obtaining of refreshment was necessary for the fulfilment of his duty- dissenting the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that though the watchman had arrived within the ambit of his duty, he was not on the ladder in the course of it, but in returning to it; and Lord Gorell, on the ground that the duty of watching prohibited the watchman’s being away, and while he was entitled to be on the quay, there was no proof, the onus being on the claimant, that the watchman was there in connection with his duty. Authorities reviewed.
Observations, per Lord Shaw, approving and applying Henderson v. Glasgow Corporation, July 5, 1900, 2 F. 1127, 37 S.L.R. 857, to the effect that where an arbiter is of opinion that the question whether an accident is one arising out of and in the course of the employment is purely one of fact, he is entitled so to find and to refuse to state a case.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Atkinson, Lord Gorell, and Lord Shaw of Dunfermline

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620587

Britannic Merthyr Coal Co v David: HL 13 Dec 1909

A blasting accident occurred in a coal mine, and an action was raised against the mine-owners in respect of injuries received by a miner. It was proved that statutory regulations as to the methods of blasting had been broken, certain obligatory precautions not having been taken. Under these circumstances held that the onus of proof lay upon the mine-owners to show that they had not failed in their duty of care.

Judges:

The Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Gorell, and Shaw

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 609

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620593

Coldrick v Partridge, Jones, and Co, Ltd: HL 13 Dec 1909

Colliery-owners provided a free service of trains which the workmen used if they so desired in going to and from work. An accident occurred to a train owing to the negligence of a servant engaged in repairs on the railway, and another servant was killed while travelling in the train.
Held that the deceased workman in using the train had accepted the risk of his fellow-servant’s negligence although his own work was over for the day.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1909] UKHL 610

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620594

M’Dermott v Owners of The ‘Tintoretto’: HL 13 Dec 1910

A seaman while on a foreign voyage was totally incapacitated by accidental injury. Under the Merchant Shipping Acts his employers became liable to pay wages up to the date of discharge, hospital and surgical expenses, and his maintenance until his arrival back in England. The County Court Judge held that compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act commenced only upon the date of arrival, and that the previous payments by the employers under the Merchant Shipping Acts should not be taken into account. The award was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Held: Where employers become liable in respect of a seaman employed by them, both under the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 to pay, relieve, and maintain him while disabled abroad, and also, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, to pay compensation to him, the right to compensation commences at the expiry of the duties of maintenance, and the cost of maintenance does not fall to be taken into account.

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 728, 48 SLR 728

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Employment, Transport

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619807

Barnabas v Bersham Colliery Co: HL 9 Nov 1910

A workman suffered from a diseased condition of the arteries, and he died of an apoplectic seizure while engaged at work. There was no evidence to show that the apoplexy resulted from a strain or any other incident of labour.
Held that there was no evidence that the death had occurred from accident arising out of the employment

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 727, 48 SLR 727

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619801

Lees v Dunkerley Brothers: HL 3 Nov 1910

A workman was injured while at work owing to the negligence of two fellow-servants. The employers became liable to pay him compensation, and claimed to be indemnified by the fellow-servants, as liable to pay damages under ‘a legal liability in some person other than the employer’ to pay damage in respect of the injury. Held that the fellow-servants’ negligence constituted legal liability in terms of the Act, and that the doctrine of collaborateur did not affect the liabilities of servants inter se.

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 724

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619802

New Monckton Collieries Ltd v Keeling: HL 18 Jul 1911

A workman was killed by an accident, and his widow sought to recover compensation from his employers in respect of his death. The widow of a workman who was accidentally killed had for twenty years before his death neither received any support whatever from him nor communicated with him in any way. The County Court Judge made an award of compensation, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cosens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ.). The employers now appealed.
Held: There was no evidence on which the County Court Judge could competently find in fact that the widow was dependent either totally or partially upon the workman.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Atkinson, Shaw, and Robson.

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 664, 49 SLR 664

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619212

Butler (or Black) v Fife Coal Co, Ltd: HL 19 Dec 1911

The court considered whether a civil remedy existed for breach of statutory duty. Lord Kinnear said: ‘If the duty be established, I do not think there is any serious question as to civil liability. There is no reasonable ground for maintaining that a proceeding by way of penalty is the only remedy allowed by the statute. . We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think that it is impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability. I think this has been found both in England and Scotland in cases in which the point was directly raised, the case of Groves v. Lord Wimborne in England and Kelly v. Glebe Sugar Refining Company in Scotland.’
The Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, sec. 49, enacts-‘The following general rules shall be observed, so far as is reasonably practicable, in every mine.’
Held that although this did not impose on the mine-owner an absolute duty that the rules be observed, it placed on him, in the event of a breach of a rule, the onus of proving that he had done everything that was practicable to have the rule observed. If he failed to discharge this onus, he was liable at common law for any damage resulting therefrom, and could not derive protection from the doctrine of common employment.
Circumstances in which held that the owners of a coal mine were liable at common law and not under the Employers’ Liability Act 1880 only, for the death of a miner from carbon monoxide gas, where the presence of the miner in the mine was held to be due to breaches of general rules 4 (1) and 7, and special rule 37, by the under-manager in charge of the mine and the fireman, inasmuch as the mine-owners had not taken, such means as were open to them of making these officials competent to deal with carbon monoxide.
Lord Kinnear said: ‘We are to consider the scope and purpose of the statute and in particular for whose benefit it is intended. Now the object of the present statute is plain. It was intended to compel mine owners to make due provision for the safety of the men working in their mines, and the persons for whose benefit all these rules are to be enforced are the persons exposed to danger. But when a duty of this kind is imposed for the benefit of particular persons, there arises at common law a correlative right in those persons who may be injured by its contravention. Therefore I think it is quite impossible to hold that the penalty clause detracts in any way from the prima facie right of the persons for whose benefit the statutory enactment has been passed to enforce the civil liability.’

Judges:

The Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lord Ashbourne, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1912] AC 149, [1911] UKHL 228, 1912 SC (HL) 33, 49 SLR 228, [1912] AC 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887 49

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedGroves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898
The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
At SCSBlack v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
. .

Cited by:

CitedZiemniak v ETPM Deep Sea Ltd CA 7-May-2003
A seaman was injured taking part in a safety drill aboard ship. The defendant had been found not to be negligent, but the claimant alleged breach of statutory duty under the Regulations.
Held: Groves v Wimborne clearly established that . .
CitedCampbell v Gordon SC 6-Jul-2016
The employee was injured at work, but in a way excluded from the employers insurance cover. He now sought to make the sole company director liable, hoping in term to take action against the director’s insurance brokers for negligence, the director . .
Dictum ApprovedCutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Dictum ApprovedLonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619220

Ball v William Hunt and Sons, Ltd: HL 13 May 1912

A workman who, in consequence of an accident, lost the sight of an eye without suffering any personal disfigurement and without losing his power to get work, fifteen years later met with another accident to the same eye, which necessitated its removal. In consequence of the disfigurement thereby produced he found himself unable to get employment.

Held that incapacity for work in the sense of Schedule I (1) ( b), (3), is not limited to physical incapacity, but includes also the absence of a market for the workman’s labour, due to some defect personal to himself caused by the injury he has received which renders his labour unsaleable, and that the workman was accordingly entitled to compensation.

Judges:

the Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, and Shaw

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 711

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619241

Taylor v London and North-Western Railway Co: HL 19 Feb 1912

The appellant in this case was in the employment of the respondents, and as the result of an accident received injuries which entitled him to compensation, the amount of which was settled in an agreement in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 (6 Edw. VII, cap. 58). On an application by the respondents to the County Court Judge to review the agreement, evidence being forthcoming that the appellant had completely recovered, the latter granted an order terminating the agreement. This appeal was brought on the grounds that the County Court Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in terminating the agreement, or alternatively that the agreement was an attempt to contract out of the Act, and therefore void.
The Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., Fletcher-Moulton, and Farwell, L.JJ.) affirmed.
Held:
A registered agreement between employer and employed, under which the employed accepts a certain weekly payment in discharge of the employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906 ‘until ended, diminished, increased, or redeemed’ by an order of the arbiter, is legal. Technically such an agreement cannot be terminated by the arbiter, though he may end permanently, and not merely temporarily, the payments.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1912] UKHL 1020, 49 SLR 1020

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619232

Owners of SS ‘Raphael’ v Brandy: HL 1 Jun 1911

A stoker was injured by accident while in the appellants’ employment. At the same time he was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve and in receipt of an annual retainer of pounds 6. In consequence of the accident he was discharged from that service and lost the retainer. In assessing the amount of compensation the County Court Judge took into account the amount of the stoker’s retainer paid to him by the Royal Naval Reserve. This finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeal ( Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Fletcher Moulton, L.J., diss. Farwell, L.J.). The employers appealed.
Held: In assessing the amount of the weekly compensation payable by the appellants, the amount of the stoker’s earnings from the Royal Naval Reserve must be taken into account, and that section 9 of the Act only operated to prevent liability upon the Crown in respect of persons in its naval or military service.

Judges:

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

Citations:

[1911] UKHL 625, 49 SLR 625

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619204

A and B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and Another: CA 3 Jul 2018

Appeal from rejection of challenge to CICA rule insofar as it concerns applicants for compensation who have unspent criminal convictions which resulted in a custodial sentence or community order.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1534

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618933

Shaw (Glasgow), Ltd v Macfarlane: SCS 18 Dec 1915

An ironmoulder’s helper while engaged at work in a stooping position using a hammer between his legs and in close proximity to two boxes of molten metal was struck by an intoxicated stranger, and in consequence of
the blow lost his balance and falling between the boxes sustained injuries by bruising and burning. Held that it was competent for the arbitrator to find that the workman was injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Citations:

[1915] SLR 236

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618253