Tag: Personal Injury

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

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

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

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

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

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:

Cited – Groves 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 SCS – Black v The Fife Coal Co, Ltd SCS 24-Nov-1908
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Ziemniak 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 . .
Cited – Campbell 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 Approved – Cutler 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 Approved – Lonrho 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

Abbot v North British Railway Co: SCS 4 Jan 1916

A female passenger brought an action of damages for personal injury against a railway company, in which she averred that on her arrival at her destination, which was a terminus, the carriage in which she was seated was not able owing to the length of the train to be brought up opposite the platform, that she and other passengers in the carriage waited a quarter of an hour or thereby, and that as no one appeared to assist them to alight they proceeded to do so themselves, in the course of which the pursuer fell and was injured. She
averred, further, that the stationmaster was on the platform and saw the passengers alighting but gave no instructions.
He: (Diss. Lord Salvesen) that the action was irrelevant.

Citations:

[1916] SLR 244

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618256

White v W and T Avery, Ltd: SCS 4 Dec 1915

A machine-fitter, whose duty it was to go round to various places where his employers had erected or executed repairs upon weighing-machines, was engaged in inspecting railway weighing-machines. To one of the machines he proceeded to walk upon a road rendered slippery by frost after rain. While endeavouring to avoid a vehicle he slipped and fell, breaking his wrist. Held ( diss. Lord Mackenzie) that the injury was caused by accident arising out of as well as in the course of the employment.

Citations:

[1915] SLR 122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618254

Watson v North British Railway Co: SCS 6 Dec 1904

A checker was run over and killed while engaged in checking waggons on railway sidings. His widow raised an action of damages against the railway company for the loss of her husband, and obtained a verdict. This verdict was set aside on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. At the new trial the evidence was practically the same as at the first trial, and the pursuer again obtained a verdict. The defenders were granted a rule.
Held: The Court set aside the second verdict on the same ground on which they had set aside the first verdict and granted a third trial.

Citations:

[1904] SLR 42 – 165

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.610098

Heeds v Cleveland Police and Another: QBD 18 Apr 2018

Judges:

Jeremy Baker J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 810 (QB), [2018] WLR(D) 226

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609114

Farah v Abdullahi and Others: QBD 20 Apr 2018

The claimant had been injured in a road accident. The driver of the vehicle was unknown, but the insurer was known. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that it had been free to avoid the policy ab initio for non-disclosure.
Held: The order stood: ‘the principles set out in Cameron are engaged and that the claimant is prima facie entitled to proceed against the third defendant as an unnamed party. It seems to me that it would be both efficacious and consistent with the overriding objective to allow the claim to go forward in that way. The entitlement of a claimant to proceed against an unnamed driver should not depend on the section 151 liability of the insurer being incontrovertibly established. That would be to draw a somewhat arbitrary distinction between cases where the claimant’s rights rested on section 151 and cases where his rights rested on the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement / Article 75 (or some combination of the two). It would be arbitrary because both routes offer a remedy of value and both form part of an overall scheme intended to meet the UK’s obligations under the Motor Insurance Directives. Furthermore, given the time limit in section 152(2) and given also the fact that the victim of a road accident cannot know if there are matters that might lead to the avoidance of the insurance covering the vehicle which injured him, at the point of issue and/or service of the Claim Form neither he nor the court can be confident that section 151 will ultimately be engaged.’

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 738 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Road Traffic

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609110

Barry 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.

Judges:

Latham J

Citations:

Times 30-Mar-2000, [2000] PIQR Q263

Statutes:

Damages Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Wells 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:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Eagle (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: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.200640

Geest plc v Monica Lansiquot: PC 7 Oct 2002

(St. Lucia) The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries. The defendant wished to allege that she had failed to mitigate her damages by accepting medical treatment.
Held: If the plaintiff refused treatment, it was for the defendant to show that the refusal was unreasonable. A defendant wishing to make such an assertion must give proper notice of that intention either in the pleadings, or in correspondence.

Judges:

Bingham, Steyn, Hobhouse, Millett, Scott LL

Citations:

Times 16-Oct-2002, [2002] UKPC 48

Links:

PC, Bailii, PC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Selvanayagam v University of the West Indies PC 14-Feb-1983
(Trinidad and Tobago) Having claimed damages for a personal injury, the plaintiff refused a curative operation. As a diabetic he said he faced additional risks.
Held: A plaintiff who rejects medical advice to undergo treatment must discharge a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.177448

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

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

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2000

Statutes:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86470

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Ex Parte Johnson: QBD 22 Jul 1994

The test for claiming damage for nervous shock is different in Criminal Injuries Compensation Board cases. The standard required is the direct attributability of the injury. A friendship was sufficient to found a claim damages for the shock of finding a murdered friend.

Citations:

Times 11-Aug-1994, Independent 22-Jul-1994

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86476

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Ex Parte B: QBD 27 Jul 2000

The applicant claimed an award for physical and mental symptoms suffered after being the victim of a consensual buggery whilst under the age of consent. For a child of twelve or thirteen, and such act would inevitably lead to such damages. The apparent consent must be disregarded, and the act was a crime of violence.

Citations:

Gazette 27-Jul-2000, Times 01-Aug-2000

Personal Injury, Crime

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85206

Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland; similar: QBD 12 Oct 2000

The practice of withholding the reasons for a decision until the day of an appeal which had come to be adopted was unfair and bad administration. The Tribunal should give proper reasons for its decision, together with the gist of any evidence which they had taken into account in coming to that decision. Such a system had caused unnecessary expense, and caused litigation rather than prevented it.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-2000, [2001] ACD 76

Cited by:

Cited – Regina on Application of M v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Admn 31-Aug-2001
The complainant had suffered repeated acts of sexual abuse as a child including acts of penetration. She sought compensation under the scheme, but was initially refused on the basis that it was not a crime of violence, then later awarded pounds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Personal Injury, Administrative

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85208

Practice Direction (No 2) (Coal Mining Vibration White Finger Actions): QBD 5 Aug 1999

Updating the first practice direction for such actions, all proceedings not already transferred should now be moved to the Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry, and applications for transfer made as soon as possible, and new claims should be commenced in that registry. All such matters should be assigned to Mrs Justice Janet Smith for all interim applications.

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1999

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84903

Practice Direction (Queen’s Bench Division: Organophosphate Litigation): QBD 31 Dec 1998

Directions given for future conduct of all personal injury cases alleging damage caused through use of organophosphates in sheep dips. Cases to be commenced in central office Queen’s Bench Division, and existing cases transferred there, for Master Miller.

Citations:

Times 31-Dec-1998

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84906

Practice Direction (Queen’s Bench Division: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Litigation Against the Ministry of Defence: Group Action (Group 1) and (Group 2): QBD 26 Nov 1999

Directions were given for the conduct of all the cases brought together as group actions under the above references, including for the transfer of them all to Royal Courts of Justice, for the commencement of future proceedings, the marking of all documents, and the assignment of Master Rose and Justice Buckley to hear issues arising.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1999

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84907

Nunnerley and Another v Warrington Health Authority and Another: QBD 26 Nov 1999

Where negligent advice lead to the birth of a disabled child who would not otherwise have been conceived, the damages to be awarded could include the costs of educating and otherwise caring for the child beyond the age of eighteen. Such duties did not finish with the end of legal responsibility.

Citations:

Times 26-Nov-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999

Citing:

Applied – Allen v Bloomsbury Health Authority 1993
The plaintiff sought damages after a failed sterilisation. She had been apprehensive during the pregnancy that the child might be handicapped, and in the event the child suffered from temper tantrums, a speech defect and slight dyslexia.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84388

Ogden Tables: LCJ 3 May 1999

Given the reduction in levels of interest on government index-linked stocks, and the assumed rate of return for the purposes of the assumed rate of return, the committee would continue to fix the return rate rather than set a method of calculation.

Citations:

Times 03-May-1999

Citing:

Cited – Wells 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84431

Nixon v F J Morris Contracting Ltd: QBD 6 Feb 2001

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

Citations:

Times 06-Feb-2001

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84310

Mccarthy v Recticel Ltd: QBD 11 Dec 1998

Where there had been an unconscionable delay in the prosecution of an action, the defendant could show sufficient to show prejudice where an intervening change in the benefits recoupment regulations very substantially increased the amounts payable.

Citations:

Times 11-Dec-1998, Gazette 13-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997

Personal Injury

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83507

Janicki v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 2 Feb 2001

The applicant had to show that her injuries arose from the use of a ‘hand held vibrating tool.’ The tool did not itself vibrate, but its use involved resting her hands on a vibrating surface, so as to cause the tool to vibrate. She came to suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Held: The source of the vibration was not crucial to the claim, and therefore it succeeded.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 No 967, Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Benefits

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82491

Greatorex v Greatorex and Others: QBD 6 Jun 2000

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

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2000, Gazette 15-Jun-2000

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81001

Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire: QBD 3 Jul 1995

Trained rescuers have to be assumed to have a higher distress threshold because of their training and experience, and if a claim for psychiatric injury is to be made out, they must show some exceptional and particular situation to justify the claim.

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1995

Cited by:

Appeal from – Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996
The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80694

Cooper v P and O Stena Line Ltd: AdCt 8 Feb 1999

A party, defending a personal injury claim, who wished to assert that the plaintiff was malingering, must accept that this is akin to an allegation of fraud, and it must be specifically pleaded. It should not be for the Plaintiff to trawl through the expert reports, filed by the defendant, to discover such allegations.

Citations:

Times 08-Feb-1999

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 18 r 8(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79482

Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd: QBD 11 Apr 2018

The defendant company appealed against an award for personal injuries, saying that the judgment had been obtained through fundamental dishonesty.
Held: The appeal failed.

Judges:

Yip J DBE

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 812 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608677

Goldscheider v The Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation: QBD 28 Mar 2018

Claim for damages for personal injury, loss and damage sustained during the course of employment at the defendant’s Royal Opera House as a musician.
Held: The claim succeeded.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 687 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606878

Bussey v 00654701 Ltd: CA 22 Feb 2018

Appeal by the widow of a man who died from mesothelioma against the dismissal of her fatal accident claim, particularly as to whether, given the relatively low level of exposure to asbestos and the state of knowledge in the late 1960s, the defendant was under a duty to take protective measures.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. The judge had wrongly concluded that the CA had made Technical Data Note 13 as a universal test of foreseeability in mesothelioma cases. It was not.

Judges:

Jackson, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 243, [2018] WLR(D) 120

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605781

Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council: CA 26 Feb 2018

Application of the qualified one-way costs shifting (‘QOCS’) regime in CPR 44.13 to 44.17 in respect of an unsuccessful claim by the Appellant for damages for personal injury.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 270, [2018] WLR(D) 118

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605624

Wink v Croatio Osiguranje Dd: QBD 3 May 2013

The meaning of ‘damage . . sustained within the jurisdiction’ in the jurisdiction ‘gateway’ under Ground 9(a) of paragraph 3.1(9) of CPR PD 6B ‘Claims in Tort’.

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1118 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Jurisdiction, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.601872

The English Electric Company Ltd v Alstom UK: QBD 10 Jul 2017

The clamant had been found liable for malignant mesothelioma incurred by a former employee. It now sought a contribution or indemnity from another former employer.

Judges:

Waksman QC HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1748 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Company

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.589919

London Organising Committee of The Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) v Sinfield: QBD 22 Jan 2018

The defendant had applied for the claimant’s claim against it to be sruck out under the 2015 Act, alleging a dishonest claim for expenses. It now appealed from rejection of that claim.
Held: THe appeaL succeeded: ‘The starting point is s 57(3). As I have explained, it follows from this provision that something more is required than the mere loss of damages to which the claimant is entitled to establish substantial injustice. Parliament has provided that the default position is that a fundamentally dishonest claimant should lose his damages in their entirety, even though ex hypothesi, by s 57(1), he is properly entitled to some damages. It would render superfluous s 57(3) if the mere loss of genuine damages could constitute substantial injustice. The judge made no findings capable of supporting a conclusion that if the whole claim was dismissed it would result in substantial injustice to Mr Sinfield Furthermore, the judge was wrong to characterise the gardening claim as peripheral. As I have explained, as originally presented, it was a very substantial part of the claim.’
‘Given the infinite variety of circumstances which might arise, I prefer not to try and be prescriptive as to what sort of facts might satisfy the test of substantial injustice. However, it seems to me plain that substantial injustice must mean more than the mere fact that the claimant will lose his damages for those heads of claim that are not tainted with dishonesty. That must be so because of s 57(3). Parliament plainly intended that sub-section to be punitive and to operate as a deterrent. It was enacted so that claimants who are tempted to dishonestly exaggerate their claims know that if they do, and they are discovered, the default position is that they will lose their entire damages. It seems to me that it would effectively neuter the effect of s 57(3) if dishonest claimants were able to retain their ‘honest’ damages by pleading substantial injustice on the basis of the loss of those damages per se. What will generally be required is some substantial injustice arising as a consequence of the loss of those damages’

Judges:

Jukian Knowles J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 51 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 57

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Damages

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603727

Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie: SC 19 Dec 2017

The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated in Canada, and denied that the English court had jurisdiction. Each party appealed against a judgment allowing service under the contract and 1976 Act claim, but disallowing it under the 1934 Act claim and for her own personal injuries.
Held: The Hotel company’s appeal succeeded. The negligence was governed by the law of Egypt, and the 1976 Act applied only to a tort not governed by English law. The Rome II Regulation dealt with applicable law, not jurisdiction, and could not support her claims.
The claimant had failed to bring her claims within the jurisdictional gateways which would allow service, and had not established that a viable claim existed. The Hotel had proved not to be owned by the appellant company, and any claim in contract against it must fail. On the one hand she pleaded that the contract was ‘made within the jurisdiction’ and on the other that the damage was ‘sustained within the jurisdiction’.
In determining an issue about jurisdiction, the traditional test has been whether the claimant had ‘the better of the argument’ on the facts going to jurisdiction. The Court restated that test: ‘ the claimant must supply a plausible evidential basis for the application of a relevant jurisdictional gateway; (ii) that if there is an issue of fact about it, or some other reason for doubting whether it applies, the court must take a view on the material available if it can reliably do so; but (iii) the nature of the issue and the limitations of the material available at the interlocutory stage may be such that no reliable assessment can be made, in which case there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 80, [2018] 1 WLR 192, [2018] 2 All ER 91, UKSC 2016/0045, UKSC 2015/0175

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 2017 May 09 am Video, SC 2017 May 09 pm Video, SC 2017 Jul 20 am Video, SC 2017 Jul 20 pm Video

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Regulation (EC) 84/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Mentioned – Malik v Narodni Banka Ceskoslovenska 1946
(Orse Malik v National Bank of Czechoslovakia) The evidential standard for establishing that one of the jurisdictional gateways applied was the civil burden of proof. . .
Cited – Vitkovice Horni a Hutni Tezirstvo v Korner HL 1951
The ordinary principles of international comity were invaded when courts permitted service out of jurisdiction and that the courts should therefore approach with circumspection any application for leave to serve a foreigner out of the jurisdiction. . .
At CA – Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated CA 3-Jul-2015
The claimant commenced an action here after suffering injury whilst in Egypt on an excursion organised under the control of the defendant. The defendant denied jurisdiction as regards the damage suffered.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was . .
Cited – Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation CA 1955
The plaintiff traded from London, and telexed an offer to purchase cathodes to a company in Holland, who signified their acceptance by return, again by telex. Entores later wanted to sue the defendant, the parent company of the Dutch party. It was . .
Cited – Seaconsar Far East Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran HL 15-Oct-1993
A plaintiff must show that there is a ‘serious issue for trial’ to support and justify an application for overseas service. The standard of proof in respect of the cause of action relied on is whether, on the evidence, there was a serious question . .
Cited – Egon Oldendorff v Libera Corporation 1996
Conflict of laws – ‘It is sufficient to say that the party relying upon art. 3 must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the parties have chosen a particular law as the governing or applicable law. ‘ . .
Cited – Canada Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg and others (2) CA 29-Oct-1997
The court looked at questions relating to domicile and jurisdiction; standard of proof, date to be determined and duties before service.
Held: The court is endeavouring to find an imprecise concept which reflects that the plaintiff must . .
Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL 12-Oct-2000
The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
Cited – Bols Distilleries VB (T/A As Bols Royal Distilleries) and Another v Superior Yacht Services Ltd PC 11-Oct-2006
(Gilbraltar) The parties disputed the management contract for a racing yacht, and also the juridiction of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to hear the case. Bols said that under regulation 2(1) Gibraltar had no jurisdiction.
Held: The English . .
Cited – British Arab Commercial Bank Plc v Bank of Communications and Another ComC 17-Feb-2011
Blair J said: ‘It is not in dispute that, . . it must be a ‘real choice’ which the parties had a clear intention to make. A tacit choice must only be found where it is reasonably clear that it is a genuine choice by the parties (See Clarke J’s . .
Cited – Adams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .
At first Instance – Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated QBD 19-Feb-2014
The claimant and her husband had been in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The tour was booked in London. The defendant denied jurisdiction. . .
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag CA 25-Jun-2012
The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
Held: ‘There . .
Cited – Dunlop v Higgins HL 24-Feb-1848
Contracts made by post are complete when and where the letter of acceptance is posted.
Lord Cottenham LC said that the explanation for the contract arising was that there was a usage of trade to accept a postal offer by post. The Post Office . .
Cited – Wong Mee Administratrix of The Estate of Ho Shui Yee, Deceased v Kwan Kin Travel Services Ltd, China Travel Services Co (Zhong Shan) And, Pak Tang Lake Travel Services Co (Doumen County) Co PC 6-Nov-1995
The appellant’s daughter died in an accident whilst on holiday in China from Hong Kong on a trip booked with the respondent.
Held: Lord Slynn said: ‘ . . the issue is thus whether . . [the package tour operator] undertook no more than that . .
Cited – Chandler v Cape Plc CA 25-Apr-2012
. .
Cited – AK Investment CJSC v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd and Others PC 10-Mar-2011
Developing Law – Summary Procedures Very Limited
(Isle of Man) (‘Altimo’) The parties were all based in Kyrgyzstan, but the claimant sought a remedy in the Isle of Man which would be unavailable in Kyrgyzstan.
Held: Lord Collins said: ‘The general rule is that it is not normally appropriate . .
Cited – Moran v First Choice Holidays QBD 2005
. .
Cited – Parker v Tui UK Ltd CA 27-Nov-2009
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .
See Also – Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc QBD 1-Oct-2019
Application to substitute defendant. . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.601508