ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related practice notes about Foreseeability

E&W Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event for specific tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived]

E&W Brussels I (recast)—the harmful event for specific tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the requirement for a harmful event to enable a court to have special jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast). It then considers what is a harmful event when considering specific types of claims: economic loss, damaged or defective goods, personal injury claims, intellectual property claims, actions for inducing breach of contract as well as other types of claims. For guidance on the general principles that apply when dealing with tort and delict claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—tort and delict claims (art 7(2)) [Archived]. For guidance when dealing with contract claims under the regulation, see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—contract claims (art 7(1)) [Archived]. Impact of UK’s departure from the EU Following exit day (ie 31 January 2020), the UK became a third state in respect...

Duty of care in personal injury claims

Duty of care in personal injury claims This Practice Note will consider the common law duty of care. For information on statutory duties, see Practice Note: Breach of statutory duty and the overlap with the common law. For breach of duty of care, see Practice Note: Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims. For guidance on vicarious liability, see Practice Notes: Nature and operation of vicarious liability, Scope and impact of vicarious liability and Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test. For information on the duty of care in clinical negligence claims, see Practice Note: Duty of care and breach in clinical negligence claims. For a claimant to succeed in proving their claim in common law negligence they must first prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care. Examples of established relationships When assessing whether a duty of care exists, the court will consider whether there is an established precedent for the relationship between the parties and follow the...

View the related precedents about Foreseeability

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] claim No. [insert claim number] Between [Mr A B]        Claimant -and- [C D PLC]        Defendant __________________________________ Particulars of claim __________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a mail sorter at its Islington office and acting in the course of his employment. The Claimant’s employment commenced on [insert date]. At all material times, the Claimant’s line manager was [insert name of Claimant’s line manager, eg Mr Bloggs]. [Mr Bloggs]’ line manager was [insert name, eg Mr Jones]. The Defendant’s Managing Director was [insert name, eg, Mr Smith]. 2 The Defendant owed the Claimant the following duties in tort and/or contract: 2.1 a duty to take reasonable care of the Claimant’s health and safety, which included employing competent fellow workers; and/or 2.2 a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Claimant from suffering foreseeable psychiatric injury in the course of or as a result of...

Letter of claim—a living mesothelioma claimant who was exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of a family member

Letter of claim—a living mesothelioma claimant who was exposed to asbestos from the work clothes of a family member      Your ref:Our ref:Please ask for:Date:Direct Line:Email:      Dear [insert organisation name] URGENT—LIVING MESOTHELIOMA CLAIMANT YOU MUST DEAL WITH THIS LETTER IMMEDIATELY Re: Our Client: Address: Date of Birth: National Insurance Number: Your Previous Employee: Date of Birth: Date of Death: National Insurance Number: Place of Work: We are instructed by our above named client in respect of a claim for damages due to personal injury in connection with exposure to asbestos, as a consequence of asbestos dust carried home on the work clothes of a family member, [insert relation eg husband, wife or parent and insert their name] while they were employed by [insert employer’s name] between [insert dates]. It is for this reason we are directing the claim to you. We are writing this letter in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims. Please confirm the identity of your insurers. Please...

View the related News about Foreseeability

Sentencing health and safety offences (R v Nestle UK)

Corporate Crime analysis: The defendant applied for permission to appeal a fine of £640,000 following a guilty plea to one count of failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, contrary to regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998) and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). Permission to appeal was sought on three potential grounds: (1) whether the offender’s breach was a significant cause of actual harm; (2) the discount for guilty plea; and (3) whether a strict liability offence under the regulations should attract a lesser fine than a fine imposed for a breach of HSWA 1974. The application was refused: (1) the judge was entitled to uplift for actual harm; (2) the discount of 20% for guilty plea was not arguably wrong; (3) strict liability was only relevant to the issue of culpability. Written by Fiona Canby, barrister at Temple Garden Chambers.