��˾����ҹ����

View the related checklists about Negligence

CFA checklist—non-personal injury agreements

CFA checklist—non-personal injury agreements A: General requirements Complete section A for all conditional fee agreements (CFAs) except for personal injury or clinical negligence CFAs which are subject to a separate checklist. If you answer ‘no’ to any question, the CFA you are proposing may be unenforceable and/or you may breach the SRA’s regulatory regime. Requirement Compliant Additional information Agreement is in writing Yes/No The agreement must be in writing CFA relates to advocacy or litigation services Yes/No You can only have a CFA for advocacy or litigation services. CFA does not relate to criminal proceedings, apart from proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Yes (it does not)/No (it does) CFA does not relate to family proceedings Yes (it does not)/No (it does) Family proceedings are proceedings as listed in section 58(A)(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 You are satisfied the CFA is suitable for the client's needs and take account of their best interests Yes/No...

Drafting a building contract/schedule of amendments—checklist

Drafting a building contract/schedule of amendments—checklist Once the procurement route and form of building contract has been selected (see Practice Note: Choosing the right procurement method—construction projects) the employer should consider the following matters and incorporate the appropriate drafting in the building contract particulars and schedule of amendments. This Checklist assumes that the parties are using a standard form of building contract, such as a JCT form, and that the employer is proposing the first draft including the completed contract particulars and a schedule of amendments, which amends the standard terms. This list is not exhaustive, however, and there may be other project specific matters/risks that need to be taken into account: Contractual matters • Carry out due diligence on the contractor The employer needs to carry out due diligence on the contractor at the outset to determine whether its financial position is acceptable. Confirm the contractor’s company number and name at Companies House. • Obtain consultants’ details Confirm the full details of the consultants engaged by the employer; some...

View the related flowcharts about Negligence

Checklist—road traffic accident defences

Checklist—road traffic accident defences Defence Principle Further reading Contributory negligence Where the defendant is primarily responsible for the accident, they may allege the other party was guilty of contributing to the accident. The issues to consider are:—which parties were at fault in the accident?—in what proportion should the damages be apportioned having regard to the respective responsibilities of those at fault? Practice Note: Contributory negligence in personal injury claims Contributory negligence for failure to wear a seat belt As a general principle:25% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have prevented the injuries sustained15% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would have made a considerable difference to the injuries sustained0% deduction to damages—if wearing a seat belt would not have made any difference to the injuries sustained Practice Note: Defences in road traffic accidents Contributory negligence for failure to wear a motorcycle crash helmet Leading case law has suggested:15% deduction to damages—if wearing a helmet would have resulted in less severe injuries10% deduction to damages—where the claimant...

View the related practice notes about Negligence

Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions (from 1 January 2024)

Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions (from 1 January 2024) This Practice Note provides a number of illustrative decisions to provide an insight into how the courts will deal with an application for relief from sanctions. It separates cases where relief from sanctions was granted from cases where relief from sanctions was refused noting the key facts of the case and details of the decision. This Practice Note provides details of relevant cases from 1 January 2024 onwards. For illustrative decisions involving relief from sanctions prior to 1 January 2024, see Practice Note: Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived]. For guidance on when an application for relief is required and on making or opposing an application, see Practice Notes: Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required? and Relief from sanctions—making or opposing an application. For more detailed guidance as to the court’s approach to relief from sanctions, see Practice Note: Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach. Relief from sanctions granted Case details and analysis Issue Decision The Occupiers of...

Remedies for connected lender liability in consumer credit

Remedies for connected lender liability in consumer credit This Practice Note examines a purchaser’s causes of action and remedies where the credit in a supplier-purchaser agreement is financed by a third party. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) provides that in certain instances where there is a connection between the supplier of goods and services and the creditor, the borrower will be able to seek a remedy against the creditor under CCA 1974, s 75 where the supplier has made a misrepresentation or is in breach of contract. This Practice Note looks at the main requirements of section 75 and the circumstances in which it might be applied when purchasing goods or services with a credit card. Overview Under a contract for the sale or supply of goods or services as between a supplier and purchaser, the purchaser’s causes of action and remedies are well known. However, what is the position where the transaction is financed by a third-party creditor? In certain debtor-creditor-supplier (or DCS) relationships, a consumer...

View the related precedents about Negligence

Distribution agreement—non-exclusive—short form

Distribution agreement—non-exclusive—short form This Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Manufacturer); and 2 [insert name of party] [of OR a company incorporated in England and Wales under number [insert registered number] whose registered office is at] [insert address] (Distributor); each of the Manufacturer and the Distributor being a party and together they are the parties. Background (A) The Manufacturer manufactures [and supplies] the Products. (B) The Distributor has agreed to distribute the Products on a non-exclusive basis in the Territory in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The parties agree: 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement: Active Sales • has the meaning given in Article 8(7) of VABEO; Affiliate • means any entity that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is in under common control with, another entity where “control” means the beneficial ownership of...

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals

Claim against a driver for a collision caused by misleading signals IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Claim No: Parties 1 A B Claimant and 2 X Y Defendant _____________________________________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. The Defendant was the owner and driver of a [insert make and model of vehicle] registration number [insert registration number]. 2 On [insert date], the Claimant was lawfully waiting at the intersection of [insert street name] and [insert street name, town, county]. The Claimant was stationary and preparing to turn left. As she waited, the Defendant’s vehicle approached from the Claimant’s right. The Defendant’s vehicle slowed and signalled to turn left into the Claimant’s street. In reliance on the Defendant’s signal, the Claimant commenced her left turn. The Defendant failed to turn left and proceeded across the junction, colliding with the Claimant’s vehicle. 3 The accident was caused...

View the related q&as about Negligence

Is there any guidance or case law on the duty of care owed by a school to children outside of the school gates, eg on a footpath near to the school? Assume that the child was injured by a vehicle.

Is there any guidance or case law on the duty of care owed by a school to children outside of the school gates, eg on a footpath near to the school? Assume that the child was injured by a vehicle. See the judgment of Mr. Justice Nicol in the High Court case of Webster v Ridgeway Foundation School. Paragraphs [111]–[121] of the judgment provide analysis of the relevant authorities on the duty of care owed by a school to pupils within the school. The basic starting point is the oft-cited ratio of Auld L.J. in the Court of Appeal case of Gower v London Borough of Bromley that: ‘A head teacher and teachers have a duty to take such care of pupils in their charge as careful parents would have in like circumstances, including a a duty to take positive steps to protect their well-being.’ The principle is, in effect, that the school is acting in loco parentis. The first issue relevant to this Q&A...

Can a company pay for or indemnify one of its directors in relation to a fine which has been imposed on such director following civil or criminal proceedings?

Can a company pay for or indemnify one of its directors in relation to a fine which has been imposed on such director following civil or criminal proceedings? We assume in this Q&A that the company is a private company limited by shares. A company is generally prohibited from indemnifying its directors against any liability in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or trust in relation to the company (section 232(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)). However, directors can be protected from liability by the acquisition and maintenance of insurance by the company for its directors against liabilities and by the company giving qualifying indemnities to its directors against certain liabilities (CA 2006, s 232(2)). Accordingly, a company may purchase a directors’ and officers’ insurance policy (D&O policy) to protect a director from liability (CA 2006, s 233). A D&O policy covering the liabilities of directors is a commercial product. The range of cover will depend on the terms negotiated with the...

View the related News about Negligence

Understating the incurred costs in a cost budget did not amount to misconduct (Vardy v Rooney)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Cavanagh considered an appeal from a preliminary issues hearing relating to costs assessment proceedings following the trial in this well-publicised litigation. The defendant, Coleen Rooney, had included only the costs which were considered to be reasonable and proportionate within her budget, instead of actual expenditure. The judge agreed with the first instance decision of Master Gordon-Saker and concluded that the defendant had not acted unreasonably or improperly in the approach taken to the incurred costs of her budget. Whilst the court was critical of the lack of transparency and the failure to make clear the basis on which the incurred costs had been set out, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant had acted unreasonably or improperly so as to warrant a sanction for misconduct. This is an important decision as it will inevitably affect the approach taken by some parties regarding the incurred costs of a budget. Written by Claire Kretzmann, associate costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Jurisdictional challenges from abroad and the duty of full and frank disclosure (Okuashvili and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Okuashvili v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco, the High Court heard a complex jurisdictional challenge in respect of two separate sets of proceedings brought against various individuals and companies located in or with a nexus to Georgia. The judgment, which resulted in the court ultimately declining jurisdiction over almost all of the claims against all but one defendant, provides a helpful summary of the law applicable to the granting of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR 6.37. It also serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure which arises in the context of without notice applications such as an application for permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, and of the factors the court will take into consideration when determining whether or not there has been valid service out of the jurisdiction. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.