PIBULJ
The Health and Safety Conundrum: Difficulties That Arise Between Sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - Matthew Kerruish-Jones, Farrar's Building
15/01/13. In the leading case of R v Tangerine Confectionery Ltd, Veolia ES (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 2015, the Court of Appeal heard appeals in respect of two companies which had been convicted under section 2 and/or 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 ("HSWA 1974"). It was apparent from the appeals that the deceptively concise terms of these sections gave rise to conceptual debates which had been troubling Crown Courts.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Get Marketing or Get Dying - Mike Massen, Gartons Solicitors
15/01/13. Remember the days before claims management companies, when clients were attracted by reputation and the solicitors own endeavour, when the thought of giving away up to 50% of your recoverable costs just to get the work would have been unthinkable? Well, those days are coming back and you need to get marketing or get dying. The landscape of the personal injury world is set for a seismic shift in the Spring of 2013...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/whitemay
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
When Two Worlds Collide: Tort v Consumer and Contract Law for Product Liability When the Consumer Becomes the Victim - Mary Blyth, Harris Fowler
14/01/13. Our litigation process is failing the victims of defective products as there is no bespoke product liability protocol to follow in the Civil Procedure Rules. At present, victims have to navigate their claim through a maze of personal injury, consumer and contract law for product liability cases. Now more than ever litigation is surging for victims of defective products namely medical devices and the surgical treatment usually undertaken at private clinics.
If implanted the defective medical device may be removed and the victim is likely to recover but for most victims the only option, when the treatment was paid for privately, is to pay again for the medical procedure to remove the device and this can...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/SanneBerg
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Pedestrians Beware - Fiona Ashworth, Kings Chambers
14/01/13. Fiona Ashworth takes a look at the recent approach taken in cases where the pedestrian has stepped into the road into the path of oncoming traffic and has been injured. “This Court has consistently imposed on the drivers of cars a high burden to reflect the fact that a car is potentially a dangerous weapon.” So said Lord Justice Latham in the case of Lunt v. Khelifa [2002] EWCA Civ 801. However a number of recent authorities have shown circumstances where a driver was found not to be at fault, notwithstanding that the accident could have been avoided.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/unaemlag
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
Limitation in Personal Injury Cases: Knowing When the Section 33 Exception to Limitation Will Apply - John-Paul Swoboda, 12 King’s Bench Walk
13/01/13. Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides courts with the discretionary power in personal injury cases to exclude the normal time limit of three years from the date of the accident, or from the Claimant’s date of knowledge, in which to bring a claim. Section 33 requires the court to balance the prejudice to the Claimant and Defendant against all circumstances and a checklist of factors before deciding whether to apply or exclude the three year time limit. Because of a plethora of case law, which is not mutually consistent...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/DNY59
Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...
More Articles...
- Fraud: Defeating Suspected Fraudulent Road Traffic Cases - Andrew Mckie, Clerksroom
- Small Claims: Why They Matter - Julie Carlisle, Henmans LLP
- Hot Tubbing for Expert Witnesses - Mark Solon, Bond Solon
- Widening the Scope of Duty in Clinical Negligence: the Significance of Less v. Hussain - John de Bono & Katharine Gollop, Serjeants’ Inn
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
