Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 – Law Journals

Legal news: Employment update

Lesley Finlayson rounds up the latest developments affecting employers and their advisers Employers should only discuss retirement plans with employees when they have a clear and proportionate legitimate aim such as succession planning. Enquiring about retirement plans alongside grievance management was discriminatory In Tapping v Ministry of Defence [2021], a civil servant has won an …

Continue reading "Legal news: Employment update"

This post is only available to members.

Duty of care: Can you run in school?

Jonathan Holsgrove reports on the duty of care owed to schoolchildren after a recent case ‘A measure of discretion is needed and provided to teachers who are best placed to know the school, the environment and the pupils in their care. In those circumstances the court should be slow to substitute its own judgement and …

Continue reading "Duty of care: Can you run in school?"

This post is only available to members.

Safeguarding: Child sexual abuse in sport

Philip MD Grundy and Paul Stewart consider who are the potential defendants in an action for damages and preventative measures for the future ‘It is arguable that a coach committing abuse has done so in the course of an activity for the benefit of the FA and the football club.’ Childhood sexual abuse in sports …

Continue reading "Safeguarding: Child sexual abuse in sport"

This post is only available to members.

Liability: Pure omissions and public authorities

Ruth Kennedy considers the basis upon which liability can be established ‘The general principle is that there is no liability for the wrongdoing of a third party, even where that wrongdoing is foreseeable.‘ This article focuses on liability for pure omissions in tort with a particular focus on public authorities. The general principle of the …

Continue reading "Liability: Pure omissions and public authorities"

This post is only available to members.

Compensation: Vicarious liability – still ‘on the move‘

Philip Davy considers the far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court which held a local authority vicariously liable for the tortious acts of foster carers ‘This was not a case of negligence or fault-based liability; instead it was a case focused upon whether, and if so in what circumstances, ‘non-fault‘ liability could attach to the local …

Continue reading "Compensation: Vicarious liability – still ‘on the move‘"

This post is only available to members.

Sexual Abuse Claims: A new boundary for vicarious liability?

Lawrence Caun considers the implications after Barclays Bank was held liable for a GP’s historic sex abuse ‘In assessing whether it was fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the bank, many judges may not have found it difficult to conclude that Dr Bates’ actions in undertaking the medical examinations were entirely in pursuit …

Continue reading "Sexual Abuse Claims: A new boundary for vicarious liability?"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10

Vicarious liability; breach of duty; protection for victims of tort; employment relationship ‘Technical arguments about employment status will not save a defendant from vicarious liability, since the approach looks at the business reality.’ Who would have thought a generation ago that the prison service would be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a prisoner? …

Continue reading "Case Report: Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10"

This post is only available to members.

Multiple Defendants: Who to sue?

In the second of two articles Linda Jacobs looks at legal liability in multiple defendant claims ‘Where two or more tortfeasors cause different damage to the claimant, the causes of action are distinct from one another. The claimant can sue each defendant, but can only recover the extent of the damage for which each tortfeasor …

Continue reading "Multiple Defendants: Who to sue?"

This post is only available to members.

Health And Safety Regulations: New hope for injured employees

Sam Collard and Ewelina Ochab outline an important case when considering non-delegable duty of care ‘It is still unknown whether Woodland v Essex CC will be used in employers’ liability, however the case gives hope for injured employees seeking compensation for their injuries.’On 1 October 2013, s69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 …

Continue reading "Health And Safety Regulations: New hope for injured employees"

This post is only available to members.