In this case, the Court of Appeal held section 185(4) of the 1996 Housing Act to be incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, “to the extent that it requires a dependent child of a British citizen, if both are habitually resident in the United Kingdom, to be disregarded when determining whether the British citizen has a priority need for accommodation, when the child is subject to immigration control”.
|
Applicable Law. This case considered whether Iowa law (or US law) should apply to a reinsurance contract or whether it should be English law. This question had to be determined because there was a very significant difference between the substantive Iowa law and English law in relation to what constitutes “damages on account of … Property Damage”. Where an insurance contract provides for an express choice of English governing law then that should be self-evident.
|
S.75(1) Representation of the People Act 1983 is compatible with Art.10 ECHR but there is not an absolute bar in unauthorised third party election expenses in relation to s.75(1)(a) and (b). It follows that the judge misdirected the jury when he told them that D "was not allowed to promote a candidate by incurring any election expenses".
|
Considerations for Judge in whether to recuse himself. Where the claimants had intended to call a witness who was in fact well known to the judge, but had accordingly decided not to call him but to call other witnesses instead, the judge considering whether to recuse himself had to decide whether he should do so because of the risk that new facts might emerge during the course of the trial that would place that witness's role in a new light and lead the judge to conclude that he would then have ...
|
Where a school had in place a system to ensure that containers were stored away safely at the end of the day, but that system had not been followed with the result that a cleaner had fallen over a container suffering personal injury, the school was held liable under Reg.12(3) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
|
Administration of Justice. It was held that an inquest had not been full and fair and a new inquest was therefore ordered to investigate why a schizophrenic who was at risk of self harm had been able to leave the A&E department of a hospital before being seen by a doctor. Where a person died as a result of what was arguably medical negligence in an NHS hospital, the system in operation in England, including both the possibility of civil process and the inquest, met the requirements of Art.2 of t ...
|
Driver’s duty of care to pedestrians. Where an orderly group of adult and child pedestrians had crossed to the middle of a road, it was held that an approaching motorist was not under a duty to stop to let the pedestrians finish crossing the road.
|
Negligent medical advice – Breach of Duty. In a claim by a patient for negligent medical advice, the important question was whether there had been a relevant breach of duty by the general practitioner; not simply whether there had been any fault by the general practitioner.
|
Where a doctor had failed to advise that the consequences of an injection might cause discomfort during imminent surgery he should not be liable for the unforeseeable development of a vaccine strain disease caused by the operation.
|
Limitation: Where a claim was not statute barred at the time of the winding up of a company, the limitation period ceased to run and a claim could be brought after the relevant periods in sections 14A and B of the Limitation Act 1980. That the proceedings were a preliminary step to a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 made no difference.
|
| 1 |