Claimant paralysed during competitive activity fails in claim

In Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK), a claimant paralysed when he dived into an inflatable pool during a Health & Fun Day failed in his claim. Enjoyable competitive activities are important and beneficial and a balance had to be struck between the level of risk involved and the benefits the activity.

Government statement on asbestos disease

The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw has made a statement on the government's decision on the question of compensation for pleural plaques, and also about speeding up mesothelioma claims. It announced also the setting up of an Employers’ Liability Tracing Office and an Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau.

Duty of care of highway authority to speeding motorist

A highway authority must maintain the highway so that it is free of danger to all users including those who make common mistakes. (Russell v West Sussex CC)

School’s duty of care to pupil injured on school premises by outsider

In Webster v Ridgeway Foundation School, a pupil who had received severe head injuries following an assault by pupils and non-pupils on school premises failed in his claim against the school.

Duty of care owed to mother of abused child

A local authority failed to strike out a claim for damages brought by the mother of a child she had reported as having been abused by a neighbour’s child (C v Merthyr Tydfil CBC)

Froom v Butcher guidelines still good law

The guidance in Froom v Butcher was still the correct approach to adopt for failure to wear a seat belt and, in any event, the Defendant failed to prove that the Claimant’s injuries would have been less severe had he worn one.

Protection from Harrassment Act

In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd, the Court considered the proper test for determining what conduct could amount to harassment for the purpose of the 1997 Act and found a claim in damages.

Costs recoverable in claims that should be allocated to SCT

Where a consent order provided for costs to be paid on the standard basis, the Costs Judge could still consider whether it was reasonable for the paying party to pay more than would have been recoverable had the case been allocated to the SCT. (O'Beirne v Hudson).

Drew v Whitbread

There was no rule that a failure to raise a point before the trial judge would preclude the raising of that point before the costs judge on a detailed assessment. Where a case had been heard on the multi-track and costs awarded on the standard basis, the costs judge was not entitled simply to rule that costs should be assessed on the fast track basis, but it was permissible to assess costs on the standard basis taking into account that the case should have been allocated to the fast track.