A single judge sitting in the High Court did have jurisdiction to make a committal order for an alleged contempt of court in proceedings commenced in the county court but subsequently transferred to the High Court.The appellant, who had been the original Claimant appealed against a decision that a single judge sitting in the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an application by the respondent Insurer for his committal for alleged contempt of court. The Insurer had filed and served a Defence alle ...
|
The trial judge had not erred in implicitly accepting a witness' evidence as truthful despite not clearly expressing his reasoning and consequent findings.A local authority appealed against a decision that it had breached its duty of care owed to the Claimant when she had fallen crossing a grass verge outside her house due an averred hole in the car. During the trial the judge considered a number of photographs of the verge taken at least 3 years after the accident which the Claimant suggested w ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to adopt an acceleration approach as to the assessment of the claimant's back injury and damages to be awarded thereof. The claimant's expert's opinion was that there was no reason to suggest that the claimant would have suffered a similar disc prolapse in the future but for the accident. The expert opinion of the defendant's expert was that the claimant would have suffered from a similar prolapse within 2 years independently of the accid ...
|
Pedestrian Knocked Over By Speeding Motorist Under The Influence Of Alcohol Guilty Of Contributory Negligence To The Extent of 10%:-The claimant pedestrian claimed damages for personal injury and loss arising out of a road traffic accident in which he had been knocked down by a speeding motorist under the influence of alcohol in the early hours of the morning. The defendant motorist had previously pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving. The issue for Parker J to determine was the extent ...
|
A Motorist That Broke Sharply For No Good Reason 40% Responsible For Rear-End Collision That Ensued:-The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in dismissing the claimant's personal injury claim on grounds that the although the defendant had been driving too close behind the claimant's vehicle, the claimant was wholly responsible for braking for no good reason and thereby causing a rear-end collision. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the accident could have been avoided if ...
|
The applicant appealed against a DJ's decision not to allow him to withdraw an admission he had made that he was indebted to the respondent bank. At first instance the judge had ordered that unless he executed a charge over his flat, judgment would be entered against him for the admitted amount. The applicant was later informed by solicitors that he had a defence to the claim, however his application to have the unless order revoked was refused. The CA held that the DJ had considered all the pri ...
|
The word "defendants" in CRP r. 25.7(2)(e)(ii) meant the Defendants against whom an order for an interim payment was sought. Therefore when a Claimant applied for an interim payment against a number of Defendants on the basis that one or another was liable and they were all insured, it was irrelevant that there was also another Defendant who was not insured. On the facts, the Appeal was allowed as it was far from certain that the parties against whom the interim order had been made would be foun ...
|
Whilst recognising that an appellate court would only interfere in exceptional cases, the Court of Appeal held that the judge below had taken the wrong approach to the assessment of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in a case of multiple personal injuries and accordingly it was entitled to look at his judgment afresh and substitute its own figure. The Court of Appeal held that the correct approach was to consider separate figures for each injury and then assess whether the ...
|
The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent rugby club's appeal against a decision that it was liable for the personal injuries sustained by the respondent/claimant rugby player during a training session on its pitch. As to the duty of care owed, the Court of Appeal held that a rugby club owed rugby players a duty to conduct an inspection of the pitch pre-training session or match and which inspection should be carried out at a reasonable walking pace by a coach or match organiser. However, on th ...
|
By way of determination of a preliminary issue, Langstaff J rejected the Claimant pupil's claim that the Defendant local education authority (which ran her school) owed her a non-delegable duty of care. Accordingly, Langstaff J held that the school was not liable for the alleged negligence of a lifeguard not employed by the school and thus the personal injuries sustained by the Claimant in the course of a swimming lesson.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |