PIBULJ
Poole v Wright and Others: Foreseeability in Voluntary Recreational Activities - Gary Thornett, 12 King’s Bench Walk
22/09/13. In most of our cases, we are rarely troubled to question whether a duty of care exists in principle. When the question does arise, however, it is not always easy to answer, despite reported decisions from Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 onwards.
This was such a case. What duties should be owed to an adult of full capacity engaging in a potentially dangerous activity but in an entirely recreational and social setting?
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Dreef
Relief From Sanctions - Le Plus Ça Change? - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
22/09/13. As noted in previous articles, post April judges have been encouraged to take a much firmer line with applications for relief from sanctions – see for example Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd[2013[ EWHC 1242 (TCC); Thevarajah and others v Riordan and others (9/08/13).
However, Rayyan Al Iraq Co Ltd v Trans Victory Marine Inc (23/8/13) provides a useful counter-example for a party seeking relief for a relatively small error with little or no consequence. There, the claimant, through oversight, served the Particulars of Claim two days late...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/daneger
CRU, “Lost” Personal Injuries Claims and Professional Negligence - Andrew Spencer, 1 Chancery Lane
21/09/13. The DWP website has the following to say about CRU liability in professional negligence claims: 3.1 Professional negligence (See Part 1 Section 4.8) - If a claim is made in respect of professional negligence and the particulars of claim, statement of claim or letter before action does not include a claim for compensation as a result of the original accident, injury or disease, completion of form CRU1 is not required. If details of benefits paid are required, a request should be...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/courtneyk
A Topsy-Turvy World: Foreign Accidents, Jurisdiction and Australian Law - Jack Harding, 1 Chancery Lane
20/09/13. Stylianou v Toyoshima (1) Suncorp Insurance (2) (2013) EWHC 2188 (QB) is the latest in a line of cases addressing the thorny issue of the English court's jurisdiction over accidents abroad. The facts read like a conflict of laws exam question: an English Claimant was injured by a Japanese defendant whilst on Holiday in Australia. The Defendant was insured by an Australian insurer: Suncorp. The peculiar twist in the tail lies in the fact that whilst the English lawyers grappled with the tricky question of which law would apply should proceedings be commenced in England, the Claimant...
Image cc flickr.com/photos/swaymedia/83772528/
Government’s Proposed Reforms Will Create Great Injustice to Victims of Mesothelioma - Harminder Bains, Leigh Day
20/09/13. The Government released a consultation on 24 July 2013 and is to be responded to by 2 October 2013. The stated objective is to speed up claims without the need for litigation through the courts. In summary, the Government proposes 4 major changes as follows:
-
A Mesothelioma Pre-Action Protocol (‘MPAP’);
-
A Secure Mesothelioma Claims Gateway (‘SMCG’)...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/stozka
![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)
