Driver not Negligent in Failing to Reach Hard Shoulder Tugendhat J. determined as a preliminary issue that a Claimant who had broken down on a motorway and been unable to reach the hard shoulder was not contributorily negligent. The Claimant had been driving in the middle lane and the collision occurred in the inside lane; it was clear from this that he had been trying to get to the hard shoulder. It would have been difficult for him to change lanes due to the heavy traffic, it was impossible t ...
|
A dermatologist was not liable for the death of a patient who had been referred for facial lesions and had subsequently dies as a result of a mole on the back of his neck metastasing to other parts of his body. Although the dermatologist had examined the neck and saw the mole its appearance was benign.
|
D was the main contractor for the design and construction of Wembley sports stadium. C was appointed as a sub contractor and its sub contract required applications for payment to be made following an inspection by D of the work completed. If the amount due was not agreed C could issue an application following which D could issue a payment certificate for the amount that it considered to be due. During the course of the works C submitted an application for payment which was rejected by D which ...
|
The Law Society sought to recover compensation paid out to defrauded members of the public from innocent partners of the law firms who were discharged bankrupts. Although the actions against the bankrupts were struck out the actions against their insurers, the Assigned Risks Pool were permitted to continue under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930. The underlying cause of action had not been destroyed as a result of the bankrupts’ discharge from bankruptcy. For the purposes of e ...
|
Anglo American’s captive insurer sought a declaration that it was entitled to indemnification by some reinsurers of various layers of the reinsurances (excess of US$50 million up to US$ 1 billion) for the period 30 June 2004 to 30 June 2005 arising out of an accident at a copper mining and processing facility in Northern Chile where the motor which drove the mill failed as a result of a design defect. The policy was “All Risks” with an exclusion for damage or business interruption caused by a de ...
|
The CA gave guidance on split hearings in Children Act Proceedings including the necessity for expressly considering at what stage the threshold criteria under s.31 (2) will be considered. In a case where the threshold criteria are alleged to be satisfied on the basis of future risk rather than past harm the LA must provide clear written analysis of the facts alleged to give rise to that future risk in relation to each child. Clarity in directions and in the titles of documents was also urged.
|
This case concerned the interpretation of payment terms of a sub-contract in light of ss.109 to 113 of the HGCRA 1996, with which they were intended to be consistent. C was D’s concrete works package sub-contractor for the construction of the New Wembley National Stadium. A dispute arose over the valuation of the sub-contract works. C issued a claim in the TCC for further payment under the subcontract of over £17m; D alleged that C’s works were incomplete and defective. In the meantime, D re ...
|
Proof of a debt in bankruptcy, either before or after discharge of the bankrupt, was adequate to establish for the purposes of a claim against the bankrupt’s insurers under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930.
|
Reinsurers declined to pay insurers who had provided cover under an aviation hull and liability policy. Insurers obtained judgment against reinsurers in Korea. In proceedings to enforce that judgment in this jurisdiction, reinsurers alleged that their liability had been compromised prior to the Korean judgment and that it had accordingly been obtained by fraud. In response to an application for summary judgment on this point reinsurers relied only on their statement of case in which they alleged ...
|
Breach Of Confidence: Judge was Entitled to Prefer Evidence of One Expert over Cause of Cancer: The trial judge found that the Claimant’s carcinoma of the bladder was caused by exposure to carcinogens in the course of his employment at the Defendant’s dye plant. He preferred the Claimant’s expert who suggested that employment with the Defendant was the major contributing cause of the cancer to the Defendant’s expert who suggested that it was smoking tobacco. The Court of Appeal held that publish ...
|
| 1 |