‘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.’
Law Pod UK, 28th July 2020
Source: audioboom.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 14th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 25th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 12th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Six Pump Court, 9th June 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘“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?’
Garden Court Chambers, 9th June 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Thomas More Chambers, 8th June 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘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.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 15th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘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.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 26th May 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘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].”’
Ropewalk Chambers, 5th May 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘If there have been systemic flaws over PPE, ministers could be in breach of the European convention on human rights.’
The Guardian, 25th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Daphne Romney QC and Schona Jolly QC consider the recent High Court judgment in Rihan v Ernst & Young Global Ltd & others [2020] EWHC 901 (QB), which provides an interesting new angle for employment, international and commercial lawyers whose clients are not entitled to the statutory whistleblowing protection embedded within the Employment Rights Act 1996. Whilst the reach of the new duty of care is likely to be limited to very specific situations, it imposes a new duty of care on employers to protect against economic loss, in the form of loss of future employment opportunity, by providing an ethically safe work environment, free from professional misconduct (or indeed criminal conduct) in a professional setting.’
Cloisters, 21st April 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘This note is intended to assist local authorities when considering their Care Act 2014 duties following the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“The Act”) coming into force on 3 March 2020[1]. The Secretary of state issued Guidance on 01 April 2020. The Act contains provision for “easements” of Care Act 2014 duties during the emergency.’
4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 7th April 2020
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
‘Siân Davies, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, discusses the Care Act easements, provided for under the Coronavirus Act 2020. She examines the guidance for local authorities on when it is appropriate to use the Care Act easements, emphasises the information that should be given to those being assessed and debates what changes to safeguarding policies may occur during the relaxation period. She also analyses the relationship between the Care Act easements guidance and the Hospital Discharge Service Requirements.’
39 Essex Chambers, 7th April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘There is no doubt that the Government owes a moral duty to provide those on the frontline fighting this virus with the tools they need to work safely. Beyond the undeniable moral duty, does the Government owe them a legal duty as well?’
Nexus Chambers, 10th April 2020
Source: www.nexuschambers.com
‘The Care Act ‘easements’ were brought into force on 31 March 2020. Per the statutory guidance, local authorities may take a decision to apply the new and much higher threshold for receiving care. That threshold states that a person is not entitled to receive care and support from a local authority as a matter of right unless it is necessary to prevent a breach of the person’s human rights – most likely to be Articles 2, 3 or 8 of the European Convention. Arianne Kelly looks at the first case on the subject.’
Coronavirus: Guidance for Lawyers and Businesses, 14th April 2020
‘On 24 March 2020, the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill 2020 was introduced into the House of Commons, for its first reading, by Caroline Lucas MP. The Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords on 21 October 2019, by Baroness Jenny Jones, on behalf of Lord John Bird (who is best known as the founder of Big Issue). Whilst the Bill is not supported by the Government, it has garnered cross party support, and the Bill’s co-sponsors are drawn from all of the major UK political parties.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2023