Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 243
|
|
- Horatio Foster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 243 Court of Appeal provides clue to resolving incoherent asbestos common law 9 March 2018 Name: Nick Pargeter Partner BLM T +44 (0) E Nick.pargeter@blmlaw.com Name: Malcolm Keen Associate BLM T +44 (0) E Malcolm.keen@blmlaw.com 1
2 Summary The dichotomy in the two approaches to breach of duty for asbestos exposure has existed since Williams in The two extremes are: (i) (ii) Jeromson and Maguire say that because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, exposure must be reduced to the lowest level practicable. The logical consequence of this is seen in Hawkes: breach of duty for unmeasurable, moderate/more than minimal exposure from making electric blankets in Williams says that the best guidance on whether an employer will be in breach of duty is whether exposure exceeds the level in official guidance. The Court of Appeal in Bussey found that Williams does not mean that the guidance level in TDN 13 (1970) is a bright line below which there is no liability for exposure. The Court of Appeal in Bussey found that the Defendant knew or ought to have known that the Claimant was being regularly exposed to small, unmeasurable levels of asbestos. The Court of Appeal found that there were ready means available to reduce the risk. The Defendant did not reduce the risk. Following Jeromson/Maguire, surely this was sufficient for the Court of Appeal to find the Defendant in Bussey in breach of duty? But the Court of Appeal did not do so. The Court of Appeal still considered it necessary for evidence of knowledge to be examined. The conclusion from this must be that whilst Jeromson and Maguire have not been explicitly criticised, the approach they set out has not been endorsed. The Williams approach in respect of TDN13 as a bright line of liability prior to 1974 has been rejected. The explicit test the Court of Appeal has now set out is the traditional one: what did the Defendant know (or ought to have known); and what did it do. So whilst the Court of Appeal has not chosen one of the two approaches in the dichotomy, it has placed reasonable knowledge back at the centre of the test. Reasonable knowledge will still be shown by evidence including official guidance and industry practice at the time. Background The deceased worked for the defendant plumbing company between 1965 and He came into contact with asbestos from tasks such as cutting through asbestos cement pipes (for about one hour every two-three weeks) and using asbestos rope to seal joints. The experts estimated that the deceased was exposed to asbestos at a level close to (but not exceeding) the levels in 1970 Technical Data Note 13 (TDN13). The claimant died of mesothelioma in January
3 First instance The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the Court of Appeal in Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] (concerning exposure in 1974) had held that a claimant cannot succeed in a period before 1970 (as here) where asbestos exposure was below the levels in TDN13 (i.e. average concentration of 2 fibre/ml over a four hour sampling period). The Claimant appealed, arguing that it was reasonably foreseeable between 1965 and 1968 that the level of asbestos exposure here could cause mesothelioma, and TDN13 was not the touchstone for breach of duty before The Claimant also submitted that relevant authorities had not been cited to the Court. Court of Appeal s findings (i) The employer s duty in an area of developing knowledge is to take positive thought for the safety of his workers in light of what he knows or ought to know; he must keep reasonably abreast of developing knowledge; with improvements in knowledge, a risk once regarded as an inescapable feature of an industry (the consequences of which the employer is not liable for) may become a risk against which the employer should take care. (ii) Jackson LJ was clear that the test to determine foreseeability in mesothelioma cases in Williams was correct. In Williams, the Court of Appeal was right to state that there could only be breach of duty if it would have been reasonably foreseeable to the University Defendant in 1974 that exposure to asbestos at a level just above 0.1 fibre/ml for hours gave rise to an unacceptable risk of asbestos-related injury. (iii) The Court of Appeal in Williams held that TDN13 was the best guide to what were acceptable and unacceptable levels of asbestos exposure in Jackson LJ was clear that Williams was correctly decided. But this did not mean that TDN13 was the only yardstick to determine foreseeability. The correct approach is to look at the information which a reasonable employer in the defendant s position at the time should possess, and then determine what risks the employer should have foreseen. Applying the Williams principle to Bussey, Jackson LJ explained that the foreseeability test was: During 1965 to 1968, ought the Defendant to have foreseen that the Deceased s work with asbestos exposed him to an unacceptable risk of asbestos-related injury? (iv) Underhill and Moylan LJJ disagreed with Jackson LJ in respect of the use of unacceptable risk when assessing foreseeability. (v) Underhill LJ explained the two stage nature of the approach to foreseeability (as set out by Jackson LJ at (iii) above) here: 1. Should the Defendant between 1965 and 1968 have been aware that the claimant s exposure to asbestos gave rise to a significant (i.e. real not fanciful) risk of asbestos-related injury? 3
4 2. If the answer to 1. above is that the Defendant should have been aware that the Deceased s exposure gave rise to such a risk, did the Defendant take proper precautions to reduce or eliminate the risk. In respect of the first stage, Underhill LJ stated that the answer would depend on how quickly the knowledge, first published in 1965, that low exposures could cause mesothelioma was disseminated among reasonable and prudent employers. Underhill LJ stated that there was no reason to suppose the Defendant measured the Deceased s asbestos exposure, and so could not have known whether it was above or below any maximum safe limit. It was unsound to address this issue by comparing backguestimations of the Deceased s exposure against TDN13. (vi) The Defendant in Bussey called no evidence about what information it possessed about asbestos-related illness in The expert engineers agreed that in 1965, following publication of an article by Newhouse and Thompson which received national press coverage, it became common knowledge that exposure to relatively small quantities of asbestos dust, particularly crocidolite, was associated with mesothelioma. The Defendant knew the Deceased was regularly exposed to small quantities of asbestos. There were two simple means of reducing Mr Bussey's exposure to asbestos... requir[ing] him to do the cutting and caulking outside, alternatively to wear a respirator. In Jeromson v. Shell Tankers [2001], Hale LJ observed that only if an employer could be reassured that none of its employees would be sufficiently exposed to asbestos be at risk could it safely ignore the exposure. Jackson LJ considered that the Defendant here could not be so reassured. TDN13 set out the exposure levels which, after May 1970, would trigger a prosecution by the Factory Inspectorate. These levels were a relevant consideration but were not determinative. If the judge at first instance had not felt constrained by TDN13 he would have looked at the issues of foreseeability and breach more broadly. The Defendant called no factual evidence about what it knew in the late 1960s. The Court of Appeal did not have sufficient evidence before it to decide liability. The Court of Appeal allowed the Claimant s appeal, set aside the judgment in favour of the Defendant and remitted the issue of liability back to the trial judge (bearing in mind the Court of Appeal s guidance). Implications 1. Containing Jeromson An important element in Bussey was Smith LJ s view in Jeromson that:... where an employer cannot know the extent of any particular employee's exposure over the period of his employment, knows or ought to know that exposure is variable, and knows or ought to know the potential maximum as well as the potential minimum, a reasonable and prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers, would have to take 4
5 thought for the risks involved in the potential maximum exposure. Only if he could be reassured that none of these employees would be sufficiently exposed to be at risk could he safely ignore it. The potential effect of Jeromson, if uncontained, is almost limitless. In Hawkes v. Warmex Ltd [2018], in respect of exposure between 1946 and 1952 (estimated at not more than 10 fibre/ml), considering Jeromson, Maguire and Williams the Judge would have found (had the fire blankets in issue been found to contain asbestos) that the Defendant would have been in breach of duty. The Judge stated that: As the employer cannot measure the dangerous dust, the only response to more than minimal dust must be to reduce it as far as practicable. Warmex Ltd had no measures in place and if the inner lining was made of asbestos, they should have taken precautions or taken advice based on the evidence of Mrs Hawkes of the amount of dust, as what she describes is more than minimal. These failures would have been a breach of both the Factories Act and the common law. Jeromson was considered in Maguire v. Harland & Wolff [2005]. Maguire concerned secondary exposure between 1961 and 1965 via a spouse s work clothes. Longmore LJ stated in Maguire that: the employer will be in breach of duty if he fails to reduce his employee's exposure to the greatest extent possible, reading possible as meaning practicable,.... A dichotomy of approaches between Jeromson/Maguire vs. Williams has developed since Arguably this can be traced back to the Supreme Court s decision in Baker v. Quantum Clothing Group, that the foreseeability of harm at the time of exposure should be determined by reference to official guidance at the time showing threshold limit values (TLVs). The employer should be entitled to follow official guidance; official guidance is the best guide to an employer s date of knowledge; if exposure was below the level in the TLV at the time of exposure, the average employer should not be in breach of duty. Bussey is the Court of Appeal s attempt to reconcile these two lines of authorities. It was inevitable that at some point this reconciliation would have to take place. In Bussey, the Court of Appeal has not criticised the previous Court of Appeal decisions in Jeromson, Maguire or Williams. It must be remembered that Williams has in essence been approved; the decision still stands, albeit on its own facts, and with a reining-in of TDN13. The task for defendants is thus to constrain Jeromson and Maguire. This can be done by showing the reality of knowledge and practice in the 1960s of what employers actually knew, and what they really did in the 1960s and 1970s. The bounds of Jeromson and Maguire can be shown by the Health and Safety regime that actually existed at the time. Bussey suggests that neither TDN 13 nor the Jeromson and Maguire standard to reduce all exposure to the greatest extent practicable are bright lines. What an employer reasonably ought to have known must be taken into account. 5
6 2. Working directly with asbestos Whilst the Court of Appeal has shattered the equation that: Exposure below TDN13 = No liability, and Defendants cannot rely on TDN13 as a simple indicator of knowledge and thus breach, Bussey does exhort a proper inquiry into what the employer s knowledge actually was (and should have been). So the potential negative effect for defendants of the reduction in status of TDN13 can be countered to some extent by seeking to show what the employer knew, and could have known at the time. And TDN13 will be part of this enquiry. It can also be noted that Booklet 8, Toxic Substances in Factory Atmospheres/Dust and Fumes in Factory Atmospheres, with a TLV likely equivalent to 30 fibre/ml, was not mentioned in Bussey. Successfully defended cases which have relied on the Williams/Baker v. Quantum approach have tended involve claimants who have not directly worked with asbestos. For example, in McGregor v. Genco [2014], the claimant was a sales assistant in a Department Store; in Woodward v. Secretary of State [2015] the claimant was a canteen worker; and Prescott v. University of St Andrews [2016] concerned a library. Exposure in Williams (which remains uncriticised in terms of the test and the result) was just above 0.1 fibre/ml (compared to just below 2 fibre/ml in Bussey); The practical conclusion to be drawn here is not to defend claims for exposure after say 1968 where the claimant was working directly with asbestos. 3. Cloth caps for construction workers and the 1965 fallacy In Bussey, Jackson LJ suggests that all plumbers working with asbestos should have worn a respirator in the late 1960s. At this time construction workers wore cloth caps and formal risk assessments were non-existent. The Court of Appeal appears to have been shown no evidence 6
7 that that any plumber in the UK in the late 1960s working with asbestos in the way that Mr Busssey did, would have worn a respirator. The other element which Bussey not only repeats but also allows Defendants evidential leeway to attack is the 1965 fallacy :- From the mid-1960s there was knowledge that exposure to relatively small quantities of asbestos dust, in particular crocidolite, was associated with a risk of developing mesothelioma. It is generally agreed that this became common knowledge in 1965 following publication of an article by Newhouse and Thompson which received national press coverage." We would question a number of parts of this view. How many people, including owners of plumbing businesses, in the mid and late 1960s were familiar with the word crocidolite? How many employers would have read the British Journal of Industrial Medicine in which Newhouse and Thompson s paper was published? Even the Sunday Times, with a circulation of million in 1966, in which Newhouse & Thompson was reported, was clearly read by a minority of the population (not to mention how that readership could be broken down by occupation/class). What proportion of businesses would have received a Sunday newspaper? What evidence is there of any other publications or broadcast media reporting on the risks of low dose asbestos exposure in 1965? Is it reasonable to say that an employers knowledge should be determined by an article in a newspaper he had never read? It cannot be correct to say that all employers in England & Wales knew or ought to have known that small quantities of asbestos posed a grave risk to health in Some people knew that perhaps large, national industries and their scientific departments but plumbers and heating engineers even the largest one in Norwich? And following Baker v. Quantum, should there not be an implementation period for safety precautions although clearly a much shorter one than the two years applicable to noise-induced hearing loss. Conclusion The Court of Appeal in Bussey found that Williams does not mean that the guidance level in TDN 13 (1970) is a bright line below which there is no liability for exposure. The Court of Appeal in Bussey found that the Defendant knew or ought to have known that the Claimant was being regularly exposed to small, unmeasurable levels of asbestos. There were ready means available to reduce the risk. The Defendant did not reduce the risk. Had the Court of Appeal followed Jeromson/Maguire, this would surely have been sufficient to find the Defendant in Bussey in breach of duty. But the Court of Appeal did not do so. The Court of Appeal still considered it necessary for evidence of knowledge to be examined. 7
8 Thus whilst Jeromson and Maguire have not been explicitly criticised, the approach they set out has not been endorsed. So the Court of Appeal has given us a clue to decide liability. But it has not chosen either of the two more straightforward approaches. A practical conclusion to be drawn here is not to defend claims for exposure after say 1968 where the claimant was working directly with asbestos. A positive interpretation for defendants would be that the rationale of Jeromson/Maguire has not been endorsed. So the Court of Appeal has given us a clue to how this incoherent legal situation might be resolved. 8
TOO LOW TO KNOW? Theo Huckle and Christopher Johnson explore asbestos exposure guidance limits and the foreseeability of injury
PI Focus June 2017 TOO LOW TO KNOW? Theo Huckle and Christopher Johnson explore asbestos exposure guidance limits and the foreseeability of injury A defendant may only be liable in negligence if the kind
More informationSTOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS
July 2013 STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS STOP PRESS Important information for disease claims. Click here to view changes which will apply from 31 July 2013. Note to self H&S matters Brumder
More informationCase No: B3/2015/0832 & 1137 & 1168 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM LIVERPOOL CIVIL AND FAMILY COURT 3YK54788.
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 72 Case No: B3/2015/0832 & 1137 & 1168 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM LIVERPOOL CIVIL AND FAMILY COURT 3YK54788 Royal Courts of Justice
More informationBefore : David Pittaway Q.C. (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 3183 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Case No: HQ12X05171 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: Wednesday 8 th October 2014
More information10 October 2014 Edition 67 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE
10 October 2014 Edition 67 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome PAGE 3 QOCS protection lost in fraudulent case Mesothelioma reforms delayed as Grayling loses judicial review,
More informationTechnical claims brief. Monthly update May 2011
Technical claims brief Monthly update May 2011 Contents Technical claims brief Monthly update May 2011 News 1 Association of Personal Injury Lawyers initiates judicial review of discount rate 1 Ministry
More informationDistillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson. [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal)
Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal) The place of a tort (the locus delicti) is the place of the act (or omission)
More informationLegal Briefing. Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2017]
Legal Briefing Lungowe & Others v Vedanta Resources Plc & Konkola Copper Mines [2017] Friday 13th October: An auspicious day for Zambian claimants On Friday 13 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down
More informationBERMUDA MERCHANT SHIPPING AND FISHING VESSELS (HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK) (ASBESTOS) REGULATIONS 2019 BR 26 / 2019
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA BR 26 / 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Citation Interpretation Meaning of worker Application PART 1 GENERAL PART 2 DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS
More informationBefore: MASTER HAWORTH Between: STEPHEN FAHY (Executor of the Estate of Maureen Young, Claimant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SENIOR COURT COSTS OFFICE Case No: PHW 1103817 Cliffords Inn Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1DQ Date: 01/03/2012 Before: MASTER HAWORTH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationThe Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 47(2) HSWA 1974: Breach of a duty imposed by Health and Safety Regulations shall so far as it causes damage, to be actionable except insofar as the Regulations
More informationBullying, Harassment, Occupational Stress
Bullying, Harassment, Occupational Stress Stress Network Conference, Rednal, November 15 th 2008 1 Three main areas relevant to bullying at work in law 1. Employment Tribunal Cases Cases where there is
More informationASBESTOS LITIGATION ALERT
A. PARTIES FILE RESPONSES TO AMICI BRIEFS IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT COMPONENT PARTS DISPUTE O Neil, et al., v. Crane Co., et al.,, No. S177401, petition filed (Calif. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2009) In a dispute
More information(b) The test is that for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.
Late amendments and amendments after the expiry of the limitation period Whether a party obtains permission to amend can make or break a case. Litigants seeking to amend very late and/or after the expiry
More informationPERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. 2. Who can
More informationRobert O Leary Call
Robert O Leary Call 1990 "An employment liability expert, who has experience of complex matters of significant value. He has handled group action litigations, industrial disease claims and cases relating
More informationPERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
More information"HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS" DOMICILE, JURISDICTION, AND ANCHOR DEFENDANTS
BRIEFING "HOME IS WHERE THE HEART IS" DOMICILE, JURISDICTION, AND ANCHOR DEFENDANTS SEPTEMBER 2017 WHAT WILL THE ENGLISH COURTS APPROACH BE TO DETERMINING WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS DOMICILED IN THE JURISDICTION?
More informationHealth and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016
2016/15 Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 Jerry Mateparae, Governor-General Order in Council At Wellington this 15th day of February 2016 Present: His Excellency the Governor-General
More informationDOLMANS INSURANCE BULLETIN
DOLMANS INSURANCE BULLETIN Welcome to the March 2018 edition of the Dolmans Insurance Bulletin REPORT ON In this issue we cover: Fundamental dishonesty, summary strike out and displacement of Qualified
More informationDELCHI CARRIER S.p.A. v. ROTOREX CORP. 71 F.3d 1024 (2d Cir. 1995)
DELCHI CARRIER S.p.A. v. ROTOREX CORP. 71 F.3d 1024 (2d Cir. 1995) WINTER, Circuit Judge: Rotorex Corporation, a New York corporation, appeals from a judgment of $1,785,772.44 in damages for lost profits
More informationHealth and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 (LI 2016/15)
Reprint as at 15 May 2017 Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 (LI 2016/15) Jerry Mateparae, Governor-General Order in Council At Wellington this 15th day of February 2016 Present: His
More informationLegally, where does the catastrophe lie? Is the one in a million chance the only one that matters? Jason Bleasdale
CATASTROPHIC INCIDENTS Legally, where does the catastrophe lie? Is the one in a million chance the only one that matters? Jason Bleasdale What makes an incident CATASTROPHIC? The extent t of wrongdoing
More informationIndependent Press Standards Organisation Arbitration Scheme Consultation Paper
Independent Press Standards Organisation Arbitration Scheme Consultation Paper A consultation regarding the implementation of an arbitration scheme to aid access to justice and reduce costs relating to
More informationGCSE CITIZENSHIP STUDIES
SPECIMEN ASSESSMENT MATERIAL GCSE CITIZENSHIP STUDIES 8100/1 PAPER 1 Draft Mark scheme V1.0 MARK SCHEME GCSE CITIZENSHIP STUDIES 8100/1 SPECIMEN MATERIAL Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment
More informationConsumer Protection Act 1987 recent cases on causation
Consumer Protection Act 1987 recent cases on causation There have been several recent judgments in relation to cases pursued under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 ( CPA ) which provide helpful guidance
More informationJUDGMENT. HM Inspector of Health and Safety (Appellant) v Chevron North Sea Limited (Respondent) (Scotland)
Hilary Term [2018] UKSC 7 On appeal from: [2016] CSIH 29 JUDGMENT HM Inspector of Health and Safety (Appellant) v Chevron North Sea Limited (Respondent) (Scotland) before Lord Mance, Deputy President Lord
More information10/23/2017. Understanding Causation in Clinical Negligence Claims. The But For Test
Clinical Negligence Team Understanding Causation in Clinical Negligence Claims 24 October 2017 Robert Mills & Jimmy Barber St John s Chambers The But For Test If the Claimant proves a breach of duty and
More informationTHE INTERPRETATION OF EXCLUSION CLAUSES
BRIEFING THE INTERPRETATION OF EXCLUSION CLAUSES MAY 2016 LITERAL AND NATURAL MEANING IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE COMMERCIALITY MAY BE CONSIDERED THE COURT MAY ALSO CONSIDER APPLICATION OF THE CONTRA PROFERENTEM
More informationMARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW. 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers
More informationIt brings together key decisions to allow policing bodies within Scotland to develop and build on good practice.
learningpoint Learning Point summarises those Complaint Handling Reviews in which opportunities for learning for Police Scotland and other policing bodies in Scotland have been identified. It brings together
More informationThe Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales
The Contractor s building defects liability in England and Wales We discuss in this paper in what circumstances can a contractor be found liable for defects discovered by the building occupier several
More informationOVERCOMING IMPEDIMENTS - SIMON PICKLES
OVERCOMING IMPEDIMENTS - SIMON PICKLES 1. The advantage of the title (not my own) to this brief paper is that it provides such a broad, blank canvas. I have chosen to address under it two current topics
More informationWASTE FACILITIES: DIFFICULTIES FACING DEVELOPERS. Stephen Tromans and James Burton
WASTE FACILITIES: DIFFICULTIES FACING DEVELOPERS Stephen Tromans and James Burton The difficulties for waste facilities posed by the best practicable environmental option concept and environmental assessment
More informationCHIEF CORONER S GUIDANCE No. 16. DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS (DoLS)
CHIEF CORONER S GUIDANCE No. 16 DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS (DoLS) Introduction 1. This guidance concerns persons who die at a time when they are deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity
More informationThe Current Regime. Unreasonable Behaviour
Lord Justice Jackson s Supplemental Report into Civil Litigation Costs After many months of work, Lord Justice Jackson s report on fixed costs is now available. This briefing considers his proposals and
More informationConsultation Response. Consultation on simple procedure rules
Consultation Response Consultation on simple procedure rules 24 May 2018 Introduction The Law Society of Scotland is the professional body for over 11,000 Scottish solicitors. With our overarching objective
More informationLOWIN. and W PORTSMOUTH & CO. JUDGMENT (As Approved)
[2016] EWHC 2301 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Case No: QB/2016/0049 The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Monday, 20 June 2016 BEFORE: MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING
More informationLAWS OF SOLOMON ISLANDS CHAPTER 74 SAFETY AT WORK ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I INTRODUCTORY PART II GENERAL DUTIES
1996 Edition] LAWS OF SOLOMON ISLANDS CHAPTER 74 SAFETY AT WORK ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I INTRODUCTORY SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE 2. MEANING OF "EMPLOYER" AND "EMPLOYEE" 3. MEANING OF "WORKPLACE" PART
More informationBED TIME FOR HOLDEN? THE LOCAL STANDARDS ARGUMENTS IN A POST EVANS v KOSMAR LANDSCAPE.
[2010] T RAVEL L AW Q UARTERLY 83 BED TIME FOR HOLDEN? THE LOCAL STANDARDS ARGUMENTS IN A POST EVANS v KOSMAR LANDSCAPE. Case analysis: Trevor Griffin v My Travel UK Limited, [2009] NIQB 98 Roger Dowd
More informationA nightmare for social landlords and their tenants?
A nightmare for social landlords and their tenants? Jonathan Manning and Sarah Salmon, Barristers, both at Arden Chambers and Bethan Gladwyn, Senior Associate and Head of Housing Management and Rebecca
More informationHealth and Safety at Work, Etc. Act 1974
Health and Safety at Work, Etc. Act 1974 Introduction Prior to 1974, health and safety legislation was reactive. It was enacted in response to problems in particular industries, or particular premises
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00157-MR-DLH HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and ) LENA MOORE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationHot Work Procedures. Competent means possessing knowledge, experience and training to perform a specific duty.
Hot Work Procedures Purpose This procedure will provide the knowledge and equipment required to minimize the identified workplace hazards associated with Hot Work. These procedures will provide: information
More informationGUIDANCE No.5 REPORTS TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 1
GUIDANCE No.5 REPORTS TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 1 Introduction 1. Rule 43 reports were replaced on implementation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 with Reports on Action to Prevent Future Deaths ( reports
More information2007 No. 31 HEALTH AND SAFETY. The Control of Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND 2007 No. 31 HEALTH AND SAFETY The Control of Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 Made - - - - 22nd January 2007 Coming into operation All Regulations except
More informationRESPONSE FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Draft Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2007 RESPONSE FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS March 2007 1 1. INTRODUCTION
More informationIs there a public interest in exposing details of the private lives of celebrities? Richard Spearman QC
Is there a public interest in exposing details of the private lives of celebrities? Richard Spearman QC I think that the answer to this question is that, generally speaking, there is no real or genuine
More informationIMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL HL BILL 66 BRIEFING FOR LORDS REPORT 6 FEBRUARY 2006 CLAUSE 4 ENTRY CLEARANCE APPEALS
IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY BILL HL BILL 66 BRIEFING FOR LORDS REPORT 6 FEBRUARY 2006 CLAUSE 4 ENTRY CLEARANCE APPEALS ILPA is a professional association with some 1200 members, who are barristers,
More informationTOPIC 2: LEGAL REMEDIES (DAMAGES - IN TORT AND CONTRACT)
TOPIC 2: LEGAL REMEDIES (DAMAGES - IN TORT AND CONTRACT) Damages in tort to award expectation loss Damages in contract to award for the compensation of expected benefits/disappointed expectations in both
More informationJUDGMENT. Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) (Respondent) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited (Appellant)
Michaelmas Term [2017] UKSC 77 On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 661 JUDGMENT Tiuta International Limited (in liquidation) (Respondent) v De Villiers Surveyors Limited (Appellant) before Lady Hale, President
More informationThe Safari Workaround decision
Group Actions 9 October 2018 The Safari Workaround decision By On 8 October 2018, Warby J handed down judgment rejecting a representative claim against Google on behalf of a class of iphone users (Lloyd
More informationPinsent Masons. The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer. Legal Briefing Corporate and commercial. The Legal 500
Pinsent Masons The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer Legal Briefing Corporate and commercial The Legal 500 James McBurney, Partner james.mcburney@pinsentmasons.com Jonathan Fortnam, Partner jonathan.fortnam@pinsentmasons.com
More informationDust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions Apportionment) Order 2007
No 142 New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal (Standard Presumptions Apportionment) Order under the Dust Diseases Tribunal Regulation I, Robert John Debus MP, the Attorney General, in pursuance of clause
More informationPearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world
Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE England and Associated Companies throughout the world Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk Pearson Education Limited 2014
More informationBefore : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1483 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/17339/2013 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More informationBefore : MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4006 (TCC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT Case No: HT-2014-000022 (Formerly HT-14-372) Royal Courts of Justice
More informationPolice and crime panels. Guidance on confirmation hearings
Police and crime panels Guidance on confirmation hearings Community safety, policing and fire services This guidance has been prepared by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and the Local Government Association.
More information9084 LAW 9084/41 Paper 41 (Law of Tort), maximum raw mark 75
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Subsidiary Level and GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2009 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW 9084/41
More informationRTA Post Jackson How to deal with them 3 months on what have we learned?
www.clerksroom.com Administration: Equity House Blackbrook Park Avenue Taunton Somerset TA1 2PX DX: 97188 Taunton Blackbrook T: 0845 083 3000 F: 0845 083 3001 mail@clerksroom.com www.clerksroom.com RTA
More informationLicensing and Public Nuisance
Licensing and Public Nuisance DAVID HORROCKS Independent Chartered EHP Technical Partner: Statutory Nuisance Solutions david@statutorynuisancesolutions.co.uk www.statutorynuisancesolutions.co.uk (c) Statutory
More informationLiability for Injuries Caused by Dogs. Jonathan Owen
Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. This article addressed the liability for injuries caused by dogs, such as when a person is bitten, or knocked over by a dog. Such cases,
More informationConsultation Stage Resource Assessment: Arson and Criminal Damage Offences
Consultation Stage Resource Assessment: Arson and Criminal Damage Offences 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document fulfils the Council s statutory duty to produce a resource assessment which considers the likely
More informationEmployment Special Interest Group
Employment law: the convenient jurisdiction to bring equal pay claims - the High Court or County Court on the one hand or the Employment Tribunal on the other hand? Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. On 24
More informationPESTICIDES ACT Revised Edition CAP
PESTICIDES ACT 2008 Revised Edition CAP. 28.28 Pesticides Act CAP. 28.28 Arrangement of Sections PESTICIDES ACT Arrangement of Sections Section PART 1 - PRELIMINARY 5 1 Short title... 5 2 Interpretation...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando BETWEEN AND PRICESMART TRINIDAD LIMITED
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando H.C.A. No S - 857 of 2003 BETWEEN ZORISHA KHAN Plaintiff AND PRICESMART TRINIDAD LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Justice
More informationAS LAW COMPONENT CODE
SPECIMEN MATERIAL AS LAW COMPONENT CODE PAPER 2 Mark scheme Series V1.0 Mark schemes are prepared by the Lead Assessment Writer and considered, together with the relevant questions, by a panel of subject
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:
The Tribunal s Order is subject to appeal to the High Court (Administrative Court) by the Respondent. The Order remains in force pending the High Court s decision on the appeal. SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY
More informationFIGHTING INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS - A GUIDE FOR CHARITIES. In times of financial and fiscal austerity Charities face lean times.
FIGHTING INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS - A GUIDE FOR CHARITIES In times of financial and fiscal austerity Charities face lean times. All of those who work and/or live in London will see individuals seeking to
More informationBefore: THE HON. MR JUSTICE ROTH (President) PROFESSOR COLIN MAYER CBE CLARE POTTER. Sitting as a Tribunal in England and Wales.
Neutral citation [2017] CAT 27 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case No: 1266/7/7/16 Victoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB 23 November 2017 Before: THE HON. MR JUSTICE ROTH (President) PROFESSOR
More informationThe Control of Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND 2012 No. 179 HEALTH AND SAFETY The Control of Asbestos Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 Made - - - - 25th April 2012 Coming into operation - 28th May 2012 9.75 STATUTORY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. George Ojar. Narendra Ojar Maharaj. And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011 02402 BETWEEN George Ojar Narendra Ojar Maharaj And Claimants Liloutie Deosaran also called Shirley Badal Deosaran also
More informationEvidence on the sentencing of mothers for the All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the Sentencing of Women
Evidence on the sentencing of mothers for the All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the Sentencing of Women Submitted by Dr Shona Minson, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford The submission
More informationTHE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 1999 Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Object of Act 4. Interpretation 5. Non-application of Act 6. Act binds the State Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY
More informationNorthumbria University s Public Law Research Group s response to the Judicial Review consultation
Northumbria University s Public Law Research Group s response to the Judicial Review consultation January 2013 1 Contents Foreword Chapter one Chapter two Chapter three Chapter four Appendix.3 Time limits
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Governor-General Order in Council At Wellington this day of 2015 Present: in Council Pursuant to sections 221 and 227 of the Health and Safety
More informationState of New York Court of Appeals
State of New York Court of Appeals MEMORANDUM This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 123 In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation.
More informationEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Bill House of Commons Report stage. Tuesday 16 January 2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill House of Commons Report stage Tuesday 16 January 2018 This briefing supports: New Clause 15 non regression of equality law; New Clause 16 right to equality; Amendments
More informationGOVERNMENT CHALLENGES TO THE RULES ON STANDING IN JUDICIAL REVIEW MEET STRONG AND EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES TO THE RULES ON STANDING IN JUDICIAL REVIEW MEET STRONG AND EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION R (on the application of O) v Secretary of State for International Development [2014] EWHC 2371 (QB)
More informationWelcome to April 2018 s edition of Disease-i; the publication for busy disease practitioners!
Welcome to April 2018 s edition of Disease-i; the publication for busy disease practitioners! We always enjoy hearing from our readers, so if you have any suggestions for topics or experiences to share,
More informationA-v-West Yorkshire Police (Employment Tribunal, Nov 1999)
A-v-West Yorkshire Police (Employment Tribunal, Nov 1999) Employment Tribunal second ruling November 1999 Foreword This second decision of the employment tribunal assessed the respondents liability for
More informationSee Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, (Application no /04), European Court of Human Rights.
ILPA response to the Department of Education consultation on the draft regulations and statutory guidance for local authorities on the care of unaccompanied asylum seeking and trafficked children The Immigration
More informationREPORT FORM MARITIME LABOUR CONVENTION, 2006, AS AMENDED (MLC, 2006)
Appl. 22. MLC Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE REPORT FORM FOR THE MARITIME LABOUR CONVENTION, 2006, AS AMENDED (MLC, 2006) The present report form is for the use
More informationPowers to Search (CJ and PO Act 1994)
LPG0.2.01 Stop and Search Powers to Search (CJ and PO Act 1994) Student Notes Version 1.08 The NPIA is operating as the Central Authority for the design and implementation of Initial Police Learning for
More informationBurges Salmon. The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer. Legal Briefing Projects, energy and natural resources. The Legal 500
Burges Salmon The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer Legal Briefing Projects, energy and natural resources The Legal 500 Michael Barlow, partner michael.barlow@burges-salmon.com Simon Tilling, associate simon.tilling@burges-salmon.com
More informationEnglish Fee Shifting Techniques Applied in US Arbitrations
English Fee Shifting Techniques Applied in US Arbitrations Commercial agreements containing arbitration clauses often include fee shifting provisions, purporting to enable the prevailing party to a dispute
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D IN THE MATTER of Section 11, 12, 13 of the Arbitration Act, Chapter 125 of the Laws of Belize AND
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 CLAIM NO. 169 of 2011 CLAIM NO. 293 of 2011 IN THE MATTER of Section 11, 12, 13 of the Arbitration Act, Chapter 125 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER of
More informationBiosecurity Law Reform Bill
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 15 November 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: BIOSECURITY LAW REFORM BILL 1. We have considered whether the Biosecurity
More informationIlott - Upholding Testamentary Freedom. Ilott (respondent) v The Blue Cross and others (Applicants) [2017] UKSC 17
Temple London EC4Y 7BA T. 2 7353 4854 F. 2 7583 8784 DX. LDE 19 clerks@3djb.co.uk www.3djb.co.uk Ilott - Upholding Testamentary Freedom Ilott (respondent) v The Blue Cross and others (Applicants) [217]
More informationGARDEN COURT CHAMBERS CIVIL TEAM. Response to Consultation Paper CP25/2012: Judicial Review: proposals for reform
GARDEN COURT CHAMBERS CIVIL TEAM Response to Consultation Paper CP25/2012: Judicial Review: proposals for reform Introduction 1. This is a response to the Consultation Paper on behalf of the Civil Team
More informationJUDGMENT. Meyer (Appellant) v Baynes (Respondent)
Hillary Term [2019] UKPC 3 Privy Council Appeal No 0102 of 2016 JUDGMENT Meyer (Appellant) v Baynes (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) before
More informationNEWPORT BC v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES AND BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD
174 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CHEMICAL WASTE WORKS Env.L.R. NEWPORT BC v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES AND BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD COURT OF ApPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) (Staughton L.J.,
More informationExpectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel?
Expectation, Reliance and Detriment. What is it the essential aim of the remedy of proprietary estoppel? Elizabeth Fitzgerald discusses this controversial topic in the wake of the recent decision of the
More informationTHE WORKING OF THE STRICT LIABILITY SYSTEM IN THE UK Mark Mildred 1
THE WORKING OF THE STRICT LIABILITY SYSTEM IN THE UK Mark Mildred 1 The definition of a defective product as one whose safety is not such as a person may be entitled to expect 2 is circular and opaque.
More informationGwyn Evans, Barrister
Presumption of Death Act 2013 Gwyn Evans, Barrister The Appendix below sets out the Explanatory Notes to the Presumption of Death Act 2013, which are very informative as to its rationale. Fully in force
More informationFLOODING CLAIMS. By Andrew Williams. Last winter was the wettest since records began in It s a fair bet, then, that
By Andrew Williams Last winter was the wettest since records began in 1766. It s a fair bet, then, that there may be several flooding claims arising out of the events of that winter that have yet to be
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationA Guide to the UK s Bribery Act 2010 Martin Polaine. London Centre of International Law Practice. Anti-corruption Forum, 007/ /02/2015
A Guide to the UK s Bribery Act 2010 Martin Polaine London Centre of International Law Practice Anti-corruption Forum, 007/2015 16/02/2015 This paper is downloadable at: http://www.lcilp.org/anti-corruption-forum/
More information