Special educational provision. Where it is necessary for a local education authority to make and maintain a statement of a child’s special educational needs, its obligation under section 324(3)(b) of the Education Act 1996 to specify the special educational provision to be made for the purpose of meeting those needs shall be satisfied where it specifies the provision that is “reasonably required” to meet those needs. It is pre-eminently a matter for the expert judgment of the Special Educationa ...
|
First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. However, Claimant fai ...
|
The High Court of Australia affirmed the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor it has employed. The independent contractor was a mechanic engaged by D, a service company responsible for the maintenance of a fridge in a convenience store. The door of the fridge had come loose, causing injury to C.
|
First Defendant in breach of The Construction (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1996 No.6 with Claimant guilty of 30% contributory negligence. Second Defendant also liable on basis that he failed as an occupier to take reasonable steps to ensure First Defendant was a competent independent contractor. In particular he had not checked the insurance position of Mr Rooney. He had also failed to establish the defence under Section 2(4) of Occupiers Liability Act 1957. However, Claimant fai ...
|
In care proceedings the father sought an order preventing disclosure of the child’s existence to his family the application would be dismissed the court holding it would be contrary to the child’s rights to deprive her of the opportunity that the paternal family could look after her.
|
For the purposes of s10 Criminal Damage Act 1971, badgers did not constitute property. Nor were badgers property at common law. Therefore a person who destroyed badger traps could not rely upon s.5 of the Act, or the common law defence of protection of property.
|
The court declined to make a final ruling on whether certain lead cases would be selected for trial from those of 45 claimants, although it favoured that route, and directed that a further case management conference should be held when the claimants had clarified issues in respect of after the event insurance and their attitude to the lead case approach.
|
An appeal was dismissed against a hearing officer’s refusal to declare invalid a registration of the trade mark MOO JUICE for milk beverages. The hearing officer had found that at the material date the expression MOO JUICE was not in common parlance in the UK as a synonym for milk. Evidence of the meaning of the expression in American English usage in the United States did not weaken the conclusion that, on a localised assessment, the quirkiness of the designation was sufficient to individuali ...
|
The CA re-stated that there is no jurisdiction for a court to impose conditions on a s.91(14) order.
|
In allowing the appeal of a mother with learning difficulties against the refusal of a residence order the court held that the justices had failed to address the true issue, namely whether there were cogent reasons existing which dictated that the child could not live with the mother.
|
| 1 |