‘Eight men who sued Manchester City after saying they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell more than 30 years ago have lost a High Court fight.’
BBC News, 10th January 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A man groomed by paedophile Barry Bennell while on holiday at Butlin’s has secured a five-figure settlement from the company’s previous owners.’
BBC News, 5th January 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In Hugh Kennedy against (First) The Right Reverend Paul Bonnici, (Second) The Right Reverend James Warren Cuthbert Madden and (Third) Denis Alexander [2021] ScotCS CSOH 106, the pursuer brought an action for personal injury as a consequence of alleged sexual and physical abuse which, he averred, he had suffered while he was a boarder in the mid-1970s at Fort Augustus Boarding School. The school, which was run by a Benedictine community, had closed nearly 30 years ago, the trust associated with the community’s Abbey had been wound up some ten years ago and the then trustees may have been discharged. The trustees at the material time were all dead. The pursuer averred that, nevertheless, the then trustees had held indemnity insurance in respect of his claim and he sued the two surviving trustees for the purposes of meeting his claim from the trust estate comprised of the (presumed) right of indemnity under that insurance [1]. He claimed that the third defender, Denis Alexander, a monk and teacher at the school, had been his principal abuser and that he had also been abused by two lay teachers, both now dead [2]. In July 2021, Alexander had been convicted inter alia of lewd and libidinous conduct against the pursuer [4] and sentenced to four years and five months imprisonment.’
Law & Religion UK, 14th December 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘A recent preliminary judgment by the High Court in London provides a stark reminder of the potential exposure for personal liability faced by partners in dental practices and the need for appropriate contractual protections to mitigate those risks.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th September 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘For several years in the 2000s and 2010s, the law relating to vicarious liability and non-fault liability more generally was “on the move”. However, in the last couple of years, the case law dealing with non-fault liability has been far less fruitful for claimants (e.g. Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13; SKX v Manchester City Council [2021] EWHC 782 (QB)). So the decision of Heather Williams QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in the case of Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB) provides an early sign that the tide may be turning back in favour of claimants, at least in the context of medical negligence claims.’
Ropewalk Clinical Negligence Blog, 7th September 2021
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘In Hughes v Rattan [2021] EWHC 2032 (QB), the High Court was asked to answer the following question. Was the owner of a dental practice liable for the dental negligence of a self-employed dentist engaged to work in the practice? The claim arose from NHS care provided by three different associate dentists. The preliminary issue was whether the practice owner was liable by reason of: a) a non-delegable duty of care; or b) vicarious liability. The Court answered: “yes” and “yes”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th August 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In an important case for package travel claims, the Supreme Court has clarified that a broad approach should be taken to determining the scope of the services provided under a package holiday contract. The tour operator is liable for the performance of ancillary services which are necessary to provide a holiday of the required standard.’
Devereux Chambers, 3rd August 2021
Source: www.devereuxchambers.co.uk
‘In The Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, the Court of Appeal has offered further guidance on vicarious liability following Supreme Court decisions last year in VM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 25th March 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB [2021] EWCA Civ 356, Mrs B and her husband had attended the Kingdom Hall in Barry and in 1986 Mrs B was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness. They became friendly with another couple, Mark and Mary Sewell. Mark Sewell was a ministerial servant and subsequently became an elder. On 30 April 1990, Sewell raped Mrs B in a room in his house – and that fact was undisputed. In 2014, Sewell was convicted of raping Mrs B and of indecently assaulting a girl aged under 14, CXC, and another individual and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. Mrs B sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation and, at first instance, Chamberlain J held them vicariously liable for her rape. (He also determined that it was equitable to extend the time to allow the claims to proceed, pursuant to s.33 Limitation Act 1980). He awarded Mrs B £62,000 for psychiatric injuries attributable to the rape. On appeal, the defendants disputed.’
Law & Religion UK, 24th March 2021
Source: lawandreligionuk.com
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently prescribed annual booster / refresher training for employers on Equality and Diversity in order to ensure that it is effective in eliminating harassment in the workplace.’
Pump Court Chambers, 17th February 2021
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’
Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘In a judgment handed down on 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of Nicola Davies J (as she then was) and a unanimous Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal on the ground that no vicarious liability can lie for the acts of an independent contractor: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (“Barclays”).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court recently ruled that Morrison Supermarkets was not vicariously liable for a data breach committed maliciously by a former employee who disclosed employee payroll data online (WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12). The judgment clarified that the test for vicarious liability is whether the acts committed by the employee were ‘so closely connected’ with the acts that they were authorised to carry out by their employer that such acts ‘can fairly and properly be regarded as done’ by the employee acting in the ordinary course of his or her employment.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th May 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The 126 claimants in this case were all employees of Barclays Bank who, at the start of their employment between the late 1960s and early 1980s, were required to undergo a medical examination. Examinations were carried out by Dr Bates (now deceased), a general practitioner who was not an employee of the Bank but engaged as an independent contractor to provide this service, and did so at his home. The Claimants alleged that they were sexually assaulted by Dr Bates while undergoing this examination and brought a group action against the Bank for compensation. A preliminary issue was whether Barclays could be vicariously liable for his actions.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Morrisons, the Appellant by the time this case reached the Supreme Court, are, of course, a well-known national chain of supermarkets. The Respondents in this case were approximately 9,000 employees or former employees of Morrisons.’
3PB, May 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The recent decision of DSN v Blackpool Football Club Limited [2020] EWHC 670 (QB) illustrates the need for litigating parties to consider and engage with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in trying to resolve their disputes.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th May 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘On 1 April 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 (“Barclays”) and MW Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 (“Morrison”) – the latest in the recent line of cases focussed on the nature, scope and development of the doctrine of vicarious liability.’
4 New Square, 20th April 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Defendants employed a 30 year old man “Hughes” as a kitchen porter from 15 October 1990 to 10 July 1991 at their school for girls. He was provided with accommodation on the school premises. The Defendants were not aware that Hughes had a criminal record, including offences of indecent assault on a female and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15. Had the Defendants been aware of these convictions, Hughes would not have been offered employment.’
39 Essex Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘Exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is interpreting a text’s meaning in accordance with the author’s context and discoverable meaning. Eisegesis is when a reader imposes their own subjective interpretation on a text. Both have more than a passing similarity to the common law doctrine of precedent and the techniques of statutory interpretation.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 17th April 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024