Assetco v GT: A chink in SAAMCo’s armour? And a lost chance to sort out loss of a chance? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted November 19th, 2020 in accounts, auditors, damages, duty of care, loss of chance, negligence, news by sally

‘The recent decision of Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2020] EWCA Civ 1151, in which judgment was handed down at the end of August, is well worth professional liability lawyers paying attention to whether they are predominantly claimant practitioners, defendant ones or, like me, act for either side. It is a useful illustration of the application of the SAAMCo principle/doctrine (and also contains an interesting, if not entirely novel, analysis regarding loss of a chance).’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 5th November 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Free School Meals and Governmental Responsibility — Dr Kirsteen Shields – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Questions around government responsibility for food systems, churning away during the Brexit debates, long ignored, sometimes derided, are meeting stark realities in the coronavirus pandemic. This week we are back to free school meals (FSM).’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd October 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Coronavirus: Amnesty demands immediate inquiry into care home residents ‘abandoned to die’ – The Independent

‘The human rights of older people have been violated in England’s care homes because of a series of “shockingly irresponsible” government decisions in response to the coronavirus pandemic, a report has found.’

Full Story

The Independent, 4th October 2020

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Inquest into suicide of gambling addict will explore if UK state failed him – The Guardian

‘The parents of a gambling addict who killed himself have said government bodies “do not want to know what killed a perfectly happy and healthy 24-year-old” who was hooked on “products licensed by the state”.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 25th September 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

When can contractual limitation of liability clause limit third party’s tort claim? – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted September 2nd, 2020 in construction industry, contracts, duty of care, negligence, news, third parties by tracey

‘This was the question the court was asked to answer in RSK Environmental Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 26th August 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Council warns of potential breach of statutory duty in relation to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Leader of Kent County Council has warned that the local authority “cannot safely meet our statutory duty” when it comes to its capacity to care for new arrivals of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC).’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 18th August 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Can a Tribunal use the “but for” test to decide whether a claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability? – 3PB

‘The answer remains, “No”, on the authority of this recent Court of Appeal decision, which has particular relevance for cases where a disabled Claimant complains that a failure to make adjustments for them, in a timely fashion, has caused them undue stress and suffering.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Courts reluctant to strike-out negligence actions against the police – UK Police Law Blog

‘In Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2020] EWHC 837 (QB) — available on Westlaw but not yet Bailii or the ICLR, the courts have again demonstrated a reluctance to strike-out a police negligence claim. This shows the difficulty of trying to show whether the police have positively created a danger / made it worse or merely refrained from protecting someone. A claim against the police for negligence will usually arise in the first instance but not, subject to exceptions, the second.’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 4th August 2020

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

EP 121: Secondary Victim Claims update – Gideon Barth – Law Pod UK

Posted July 30th, 2020 in duty of care, hospitals, news, podcasts, psychiatric damage, third parties by sally

‘In Episode 119 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Gideon Barth about secondary victim claims, and the recent case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust.’

Full Story

Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020

Source: audioboom.com

Parents of student who killed herself launch legal action against University of Bristol – The Guardian

‘The parents of a student with severe social anxiety who took her own life on the day she was scheduled to face “the ordeal” of an important oral test have launched legal proceedings against her university, claiming she was the victim of negligence and disability discrimination.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Duty of care owed by UK ship agent to Bangladeshi worker? – UK Human Rights Blog

‘On 30 March 2018, whilst working on the demolition of an oil tanker on the beach at Chittagong, Bangladesh, Mr Mollah fell to his death.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 17th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

High court backs negligence claim of Bangladeshi ship-breaker’s widow – The Guardian

Posted July 14th, 2020 in Bangladesh, duty of care, negligence, news, ships by tracey

‘A widow whose husband fell eight storeys to his death while breaking up a supertanker in Bangladesh can pursue a negligence claim against Maran (UK), a British company involved in the ship’s sale, according to a high court ruling.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 14th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Iraq veterans urged to join group action against MoD – Litigation Futures

‘Claims on behalf of British soldiers falsely accused of brutality and abuses against Iraqi civilians have added to this week’s rush of group actions.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 25th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Matt Hancock faces legal action from daughter of Covid-19 care home victim – The Guardian

‘Matt Hancock is facing legal action from the daughter of a man who died from Covid-19 in a care home in which the health secretary is accused of a “litany of failures” and misleading the public with his claim to have “thrown a protective ring” around care homes.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 12th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Safe workplaces and the commute to work – how far does section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 go? – Six Pump Court

‘On 11 May 2020, the Government published practical Guidance[1] in a bid to encourage workplaces to be made as safe as possible for returning employees during the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the Guidance has been developed in consultation with unions and industry bodies, there still exists the very real possibility that employees do not have sufficient confidence that their workplaces are, in fact, ‘Covid-19 secure’ and consider that by returning, they have been subjected to a detriment by their employer.’

Full Story

Six Pump Court, 9th June 2020

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

Does the Buck Stop? Legal Liability for Death from Covid-19 – Garden Court Chambers

‘“If the government were an employee of mine I would have sacked them for gross negligence” – so said Anita Astley, manager of Wren Hall nursing home in Nottinghamshire, where 10 residents died from Covid-19 and 48 carers caught the virus in a three week period[1]. Ms Astley’s complaint poses in stark terms a question which has been circulating since the full and devastating extent of the consequences of the pandemic have become clear: what, if any, legal liability does the state have for deaths caused by Covid-19?’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 9th June 2020

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

COVID-19, Risk Assessments and Implementing Health and Safety Measures for a Return to Work – Thomas More Chambers

‘On 10 May 2020, the Prime Minister announced changes in the Government’s guidance on working. All employees and workers who could work from home should continue to do so, but those who could not should return to their workplace.’

Full Story

Thomas More Chambers, 8th June 2020

Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Part 5: Liability of Employers to Family Members of Employees by Jack McCracken and Sarah Hopkinson – Ropewalk Chambers

‘Cases regarding secondary exposure to risk by employees’ family members have tended to focus on whether exposure of the employee was sufficient to place the employer under an obligation to act, and whether there was sufficient industry knowledge for the employer to appreciate the “secondary exposure” risk.’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 15th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk

Training and risk assessments: a reminder from the High Court and returning to work in the Covid-19 crisis – 12 King’s Bench Walk

‘Sir Robert Francis QC (sitting as a deputy high court judge) recently handed down his judgment in Harris v Bartrums Haulage and Storage Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 900 (QB). It serves as a useful reminder of what employers must do to discharge their duty of care in terms of training and risk assessments. The key is being able to show that they are more than a “mere formality” [110]. On the facts of Harris, Sir Robert found that the First Defendant had acted negligently but dismissed the claim on causation. However, his critique of the First Defendant’s training and risk assessment process is relevant to all employers.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 26th May 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

The Coronavirus and Employers’ Liability for PPE – Part 2: Liability at Common Law by Jack McCracken and Sarah Hopkinson – Ropewalk Chambers

‘Employers owe a personal or non-delegable duty of care to their employees at common law, which extends to the provision of PPE. Neill LJ in Crouch -v- British Rail Engineering Ltd [1988] I.R.L.R. 404 said that the extent of the duty in respect of PPE would depend on:

“the risk of injury, the gravity of any injury which may result, the difficulty of providing equipment … the availability of that protective equipment … and the distance which any individual workman might have to go to fetch it, the frequency on which the [claimant] was likely to need that protective clothing or equipment and, last but not least, the experience and degree of skill to be expected of the [claimant].”’

Full Story

Ropewalk Chambers, 5th May 2020

Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk