Personal Injury - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 64 cases, and was prepared on 27 February 2010.

Firth -v- George Ackroyd Junior Ltd [2000] Lloyds Med Rep 313
2000	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers

Long -v- Tolchard and Sons Ltd
5 Jan 2000 CA	Limitation, Personal Injury
	When a party requested a court to set aside the limitation period, he was under a high duty to disclose all relevant details. Where it turned out later that he had failed to disclose relevant aspects of his medical history, it was perfectly open to the court to revisit the original order and to re-instate the limitation period.
	Limitation Act 1980 33, 11

Ord -v- Upton Times, 11 January 2000; Gazette, 07 January 2000; [2000] Ch 352
7 Jan 2000 CA Aldous LJ, Kennedy and Mantell LJJ	Personal Injury, Insolvency	Casemap 1 Citers
	An action for damages for personal injuries arising from negligence, brought by a bankrupt was a hybrid claim. It involved claims which were both of a personal and a proprietorial nature, and as such the claim vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. Any part of it could only remain with the bankrupt if it fell within an established exemption. Damages relating to any personal cause of action would be held by the trustee in trust for the bankrupt. (Aldous LJ) "The authorities are only consistent with the conclusion that the trustee is entitled to the damages for past and future loss of earnings and is not entitled to the damages for pain and suffering. As there is a single cause of action, it vested in the trustee. There is in my view nothing in that conclusion which imposes practical difficulties with which the law cannot deal. The trustee as constructive trustee would have to account to the bankrupt for the property which he obtained inadvertently or by arrangement in an action which vested in him for the benefit of the creditors. The idea that the cause of action should vest in the bankrupt would not be acceptable and compulsory joinder of both could lead to difficulties when the claim for loss of earnings was small compared with the potential costs of the litigation. In such a case the trustee, if the cause of action vested in him, would have to consider carefully his duty to the bankrupt and would probably, if requested, assign the cause of action to him".
	Insolvency Act 1986 306

Norman -v- Ali and Another, Norman -v- Aziz
13 Jan 2000 CA	Limitation, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
	The claimant sought damages following a road accident against an uninsured driver through the Motor Insurer's Bureau. The Bureau later required him to issue proceedings also against the car owner on the ground that he had permitted the driving. At first it was held the limitation period was six years for such a claim, but on appeal it was held that the words referring to a personal injury action in the Act were wide, and it was only required that the damages claimed arose in respect of personal injuries. The limitation period was three years.
	Limitation Act 1980 11 - Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1988

Margaret Patricia Briody -v- St Helens and Knowlsey Heath Authority Gazette, 03 February 2000; Times, 01 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 178
21 Jan 2000 QBD The Hon. Mrs Justice Ebsworth Dbe	Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant having become unable to have children through the negligence of the Authority, claimed in damages the cost of arranging a paid surrogacy arrangement abroad. Such arrangements here were void and unenforceable, and it would be against public policy to award them. In this case, the chances of success were also still very small. Such a claim, properly made might be recoverable under other circumstances.
	Link[s] omitted

Practice Direction (Queens Bench Division: Kilrie Children'S Home Litigation)
1 Feb 2000 QBD	Personal Injury
	All cases for damages for personal injury arising out of allegations of sexual assault and claims of a related nature having taken place at Kilrie Children's Home should be now begun or if having been begun should now be transferred to the Manchester District Registry.

Regina -v- Tandbridge District Council and Another, Ex Parte Al-Fayed
1 Feb 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Administrative, Planning	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A planning authority disallowed an objection to the erection of a mobile telephone transmitter. Although there had been an omission in the procedure followed by the council, it was clear that it had in fact considered the evidence put forward by the objector, and had made its decision in the light of that evidence. Objectively unjustified fears in a local community might be taken into account, but in this case they should not.

Kent -v- Griffiths and others [2000] EWCA Civ 3017; [2000] 2 WLR 1158; [2000] 2 All ER 474; [2001] QB 36; [2000] PIQR P57; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 109
3 Feb 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites
	Damages in negligence were sought when the defendant ambulance service were said to have been late in responding. Held: The defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.
	Link[s] omitted

Burgess -v- British Steel and Another
3 Feb 2000 CA	Costs, Personal Injury
	The plaintiff had failed to beat a payment in, but the judge refused the defendants their costs after the payment in because a medical report filed before the payment in had accused the claimant of malingering and he claimed to have gone on to disprove that allegation. It was held that this was insufficient to justify departure from the general rule. The malingering had not been the central issue, and that could be dealt with by apportioning the costs between the issues.

Ian Cantwell -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] ScotCS 36
9 Feb 2000 IHCS Lord Coulsfield and Lord Cowie and Lord President	Scotland, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The petitioner appealed a refusal of his claim for compensation. He was a serving police officer injured whilst arresting an offender. He had retired on medical grounds and received pensions, which the Board found deductible from any award reducing his claim below the minimum. The relative scheme sought to award damages on a basis comparable to common law. Held: Paragraph 20 provided that compensation was to be reduced by any pension received but paragraph 19 said reductions were not to be made for the receipt of money paid because the claimant had purchased that benefit. Parry was not comparable because there was the board was not in the position of a tortfeasor. An alteration in the Scheme intended to limit compensation to avoid providing the Applicant with an income higher than that which he would otherwise have enjoyed, should not be interpreted to mean that throughout the period after the date of his normal retirement he should benefit to the tune of one half of his ill-health pension. The effect of section 10 is that no deduction fell to be made in respect of the petitioner's pension for the period after his normal retirement date. This result was inequitable.
	Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 19 20 - Administration of Justice Act 1982 10
	Link[s] omitted

Beth Linda Matthews (an Infant By Her Mother and Next Friend Janice England Formerly Matthews) -v- East Suffolk Health Authority [2000] EWCA Civ 58
25 Feb 2000 CA	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Dermot Gerard Richard Walsh -v- Andre Martin Misseldine [2000] EWCA Civ 61
29 Feb 2000 CA Lord Justice Brooke, Stuart-Smith LJ	Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury	1 Citers
	The claimant sought damages for injuries from 1989. His claim was pursued effectively, but a four-year delay ensued after 1994. He then sought to enlarge his claim greatly by introducing a lot of new issues of which the defendant's insurers had no notice when they calculated the value of the claim in the early 1990s for the purposes of a payment into court CPR 3.1(2)(a) and 3.1(3)(a) give the court power to extend time for compliance with a rule subject to conditions. The court declined to strike out his claim despite the considerable delay on condition that the claimant was limited to prosecuting his claim on the basis of his case as it stood before the long period of delay commenced. "Although CPR 3.1(a) expressly preserves the courts' inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse, this is a residual long-stop jurisdiction. The main tools the courts have now been given to exterminate unnecessary delays are to be found in the rules and practice directions and in the orders they may make from time to time."
	Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) 3.1(3)(a)
	[ Bailii ]

Stark -v- Post Office [2000] EWCA Civ 64; [2000] PIQR 105; [2000] ICR 1013
2 Mar 2000 CA Waller LJ	Health and Safety, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	The duty imposed by the regulations was absolute, and an employee postal worker who was injured when a brake on his bicycle broke, was entitled to damages. There is no rule to prevent a member state imposing duties over and above those required under European law. The bicycle was not 'in an efficient working order and in good repair'.
	Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2932) - European Directive 89/655
	Link[s] omitted

Heil, Rees and Another, Schofield, Ramsay, Kent, Warren, Annable, Connolly -v- Rankin & Anr, Mabco (102) Ltd, Saunders & Taylor Ltd, Rivers, Griffith & Ors, Northern General Hospital Nhs Trust, Southern Derbyshire Health Authority, Tasker [2000] 2 WLR 1173; [2000] EWCA Civ 84; [2000] 3 All ER 138
23 Mar 2000 CA	Constitutional, Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Law Commission had recommended that the general level of damages awarded for pain suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury cases should be raised. The court would do so. Awards above £10,000 should be raised on a sliding scale to a one third proportion in the most severe cases. No change in principle was involved. It was proper for the Court of Appeal to respond to such a report provided it confined its answer to provision of tariffs. The old awards had become out of line with what society as a whole would consider reasonable.
	Link[s] omitted

Royston Frederick Williams -v- BOC Gases Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 95; [2000] ICR 1181
29 Mar 2000 CA Brooke LJ, Thorpe LJ	Employment, Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The plaintiff claimed damages from his employer in respect of injuries suffered during the course of his employment. The defendant paid the claimant a sum to which he had no contractual entitlement, saying that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages that he might be awarded against the defendant. The money came from the defendant's own fund. Held: "In my judgment, the judge was over-influenced by the decision of this court in McCamley which should be treated, until it receives the consideration of the House of Lords, as a case turning on its own particular facts: in other words, for what members of that court, deciding the issue as a jury question, thought was just, reasonable and in accordance with public policy on the facts of that case." and "The "benevolence" exception is limited in terms to gifts arising from the benevolence of third parties, and does not cover benevolent gifts made by the wrongdoer himself, for which allowance ought prima facie to be made against any compensation he might have to pay. Neither of the justifications for the benevolence exception apply to the tortfeasor. Deductibility will encourage him to make benevolent payments in future to injured employees, rather than the reverse. And it certainly cannot be said that in making the gift, his intention was to benefit the plaintiff rather than to relieve himself of liability pro tanto: he would have been happy to achieve both purposes at once. A fortiori in a case in which he said in terms, at the time he made the gift, that it was to be treated as an advance against any damages he might have to pay."
	[ Bailii ]

Barry -v- Ablerex Construction (Midlands) Ltd [2000] P.I.Q.R. Q263
30 Mar 2000 QBD Latham J	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	After a delay of delay 5 years, the judge deducted two years interest from the award to reflect the plaintiff's delay.
	Damages Act 1996

Griffin Inns Limited -v- Tessel Meike Merel Van Oudenhoven [2000] EWCA Civ 102
4 Apr 2000 CA Lord Justice Tuckey Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Stuart-Smith	Personal Injury, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Wardlaw -v- Fife Health Board [2000] ScotCS 91
4 Apr 2000 SCS Lord Kingarth	Scotland, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Holtby -v- Brigham & Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 111; [2000] 3 All ER 421
6 Apr 2000 CA Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Clarke	Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A claimant who sought damages for injuries suffered by the ingestion of asbestos whilst working for one employer, but had also worked for other periods for other employers where similar activities had been involved, had the onus in the claim to prove causation. It might be impossible to apportion the damage exactly, but he must demonstrate a substantial contribution from the defendant. Having been found responsible in this way, the employer would be responsible only to the extent of his contribution to the asbestosis. Each tortfeasor should be responsible only for the proportion which its exposure contributed to the damage.
	Link[s] omitted

Neil Knapman -v- Keith Charman [2000] EWCA Civ 115
6 Apr 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Damages
	[ Bailii ]

Regina -v- Ministry of Defence, ex parte Walker [2000] UKHL 22; [2000] 2 All ER 917
6 Apr 2000 HL	Personal Injury, Armed Forces
	The Ministry of Defence operated a scheme for compensating soldiers serving abroad who were injured as a result of criminal activity. The claimant, whilst serving on a peace-keeping mission in Bosnia, was injured when a hut was hit by a shell fired from a Serbian tank. The scheme refused compensation. There is no necessary incompatibility between activities which were military and ones which were in breach of international law. The scheme could properly exclude injuries resulting from military activity.
	Link[s] omitted

Wisely -v- John Fulton Plumbers Ltd (Scotland) and Wadey -v- Surrey County Council [2000] UKHL 24; [2000] 1 WLR 820
6 Apr 2000 HL	Personal Injury, Damages, Benefits, Scotland	Casemap 1 Cites
	A plaintiff in a personal injury action, was entitled to claim, and be paid, interest on his award for compensation for lost earnings, even though some part of it was to be paid direct to the Department of Social Security by way of recovery of benefits. The scheme for recovery of benefits paid deliberately stayed clear of complications which would arise if attempts were to be made to recalculate awards if interest on this element was not to be included. Section 17 meant that interest had to be calculated by reference to a figure which ignored the fact that benefits had been received and ignored the fact that the defendant was paying the benefits to the Secretary of State.
	Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 17
	Link[s] omitted

Mark John Killick & Margaret Rose Nugent and Emma Jane Ritchie-Burridge, Ivor Ronald Binney, Carl William Adair Claim Ants -v- William Rendall (Sued on her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Lloyd's Syndicates Listed In the Schedule to the Writ of Summons) [2000] EWCA Civ 122
11 Apr 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Insurance
	[ Bailii ]

Margaret Rose Nugent Mark John Killick Suing As Executors of Matthew Charles Harding, Deceased -v- Michael Goss Aviation Limited Janine Goss, Executor of the Estate of Michael Goss, Deceased and Polo Aviation Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 130
14 Apr 2000 CA	Transport, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Elvicta Wood Engineering Ltd and James Neal Services Ltd -v- Huxley [2000] EWCA Civ 139
19 Apr 2000 CA	Health and Safety, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Daniels -v- Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508; [2000] PIQR 193; [2000] CPLR 462; [2000] 1 WLR 1382
3 May 2000 CA	Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Casey -v- Morane Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 147
5 May 2000 CA	Damages, Personal Injury, Health and Safety
	An employee suffered injuries at work for which he was adjudged 15% responsible and the company 85%. Because of the accident he was demoted and suffered loss of earnings. He claimed that loss of earnings in his action for damages. The court found that the company should pay the damages. The company was itself predominantly responsible for the damage caused, and these losses flowed directly from the accident.
	Link[s] omitted

Dingley -v- Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police [2000] UKHL 14; 2000 SC (HL) 77
11 May 2000 HL Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde	Police, Personal Injury, Scotland	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The officer had been injured in an accident in a police van. He developed multiple sclerosis only a short time afterwards. The respondent denied that the accident caused the MS. Held: There is no proof of what causes MS. But it was common ground that trauma never causes the disease. The question was whether trauma could trigger it. In a small number of cases the onset of symptoms is preceded by trauma, but coincidences can occur. So the theory that trauma triggers the onset of symptoms of MS has to be tested. There was insufficient evidence in this case to support such a conclusion. Appeal dismissed.
	Link[s] omitted

Koonjul -v- Thameslink Healthcare Services Times, 19 May 2000; [2000] PIQR 123
19 May 2000	Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers

Makepeace -v- Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 171; [2000] BLR 287
23 May 2000 CA Mantell LJ	Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor's duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site's main contractor.
	Link[s] omitted

Jolley -v- Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082; [2000] UKHL 31; [2000] 3 All ER 409
24 May 2000 HL Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Personal Injury, Negligence, Torts - Other	Casemap 1 Citers
	An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal that the possibility of injury to children playing on such an object was foreseeable. The judge had also found a particular danger of an older boy seeking to prop it up and repair it. The council had argued that this latter event was unforseeable. Held: The Court of Appeal had not been justified in disturbing the Judge's finding of fact. Given the ingenuity of children for mischief, mischief which went beyond that foreseen, but which was of the same type, was capable of leaving the authority liable under the Act. There was no social value or cost saving to the Council in creating a risk by leaving a derelict boat lying about. It was something which they ought to have removed whether it created a risk of injury or not. They were liable for an injury which, though foreseeable, was not particularly likely. Foreseeability does not denote a fixed point on the scale of probability.
	Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 2(2)
	Link[s] omitted

Bittles -v- Harland & Wolffe Plc & a W Hamilton & Co Ltd [2000] NIEHC 13; [2000] NIQB 13
24 May 2000 NIHC Girvan J	Northern Ireland, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	"In a case such as the present where the plaintiff has been exposed to and has inhaled asbestos dust as a result of the defendant's negligence and has in consequence developed pleural plaques, the development of the pleural plaques even if asymptomatic represents bodily damage and a personal injury which when combined with the defendant's breach of a duty of care brings about the establishment of a cause of action against the defendant. It is trite law that for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence he must establish a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage. Once the plaintiff has suffered the physical bodily damage represented by the pleural plaques his cause of action has accrued and the plaintiff's claim will relate to all the physical consequences and risks which flow from the negligence. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages both for the pleural plaques and for the risks of developing more dangerous medical conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. " "In a case such as the present where the plaintiff has been exposed to and has inhaled asbestos dust as a result of the defendant's negligence and has in consequence developed pleural plaques, the development of the pleural plaques even if asymptomatic represents bodily damage and a personal injury which when combined with the defendant's breach of a duty of care brings about the establishment of a cause of action against the defendant. It is trite law that for a plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence he must establish a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage. Once the plaintiff has suffered the physical bodily damage represented by the pleural plaques his cause of action has accrued and the plaintiff's claim will relate to all the physical consequences and risks which flow from the negligence. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages both for the pleural plaques and for the risks of developing more dangerous medical conditions such as asbestosis and mesothelioma. "
	Link[s] omitted

June Robertson Or Macey-Lillie -v- Lanarkshire Health Board &C [2000] ScotCS 136
26 May 2000 OHCS Lord Philip	Damages, Personal Injury, Scotland
	Economic circumstances have not changed sufficiently yet to alter the rate of three per cent used when calculating damages in personal injury cases. Though the returns on government stocks had fallen the figure of two per cent was not yet appropriate, and lay within the range of returns contemplated when the original figures had been set.
	Damages Act 1996
	[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]

Mather -v- British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 141
30 May 2000 SCS Lord Osborne	Scotland, Personal Injury, Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites
	The pursuer sought damages for injury to her mental health, alleging it was sustained as a consequence of the fault of the defenders et separatim the fault of an employee of the defenders.
	Link[s] omitted

Greatorex -v- Greatorex and Others
6 Jun 2000 QBD	Negligence, Personal Injury
	Policy considerations meant that a person who injured themselves, could not be liable in negligence to third parties who suffered psychiatric injury having seen the incident. A fireman came to the rescue, by co-incidence, of his own son. As a rescuer, he was not owed a duty of care, and his relationship as father could not change that. To allow actions by relations in such circumstances would in general tend to encourage undesirable litigation, and encourage family strife.

Jamie Young and Isaiah Beck and Jean Beck -v- Fraser Symington Mcdowall [2000] ScotCS 154
9 Jun 2000 SCS Lord Macfadyen	Scotland, Personal Injury
	The pursuer suffered head injuries in a road accident. The parties disagreed as to the extent of disablement resulting and therefore the damages. He had sought training in engineering, but had again been injured, and it was felt to be unsafe for him to return. Held: The evidence was not entirely satisfactory, but he had suffered some memory and other losses: 'the pursuer's memory loss constitutes a severe disability that renders the pursuer virtually unemployable.'
	Link[s] omitted

Heil -v- Rankin [2000] EWCA Civ 187; [2001] QB 272
13 Jun 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without being excessive. There is no general or universal logical basis for rules in these situations. The possibility of hypothetical future injury should not be given any excess weight in assessing future losses of earnings.
	Link[s] omitted

Goodes -v- East Sussex County Council [2000] UKHL 34; [2000] 3 All ER 603; [2000] 1 WLR 1356
16 Jun 2000 HL Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough	Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Local Government	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to 'maintain' the road. Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road in repair did not include an absolute duty to remove all ice. The 1959 Act was a consolidating Act and did not extend the responsibilities of highway authorities. 'Maintenance and repair' might sometimes include the removal of ice, but, and contrary to established authority, those words related to works to the surface of the roadway not to matter which might accumulate on it. The presence of ice and snow did not mean that the highway was out of repair. Removing ice and snow was a different kind of obligation which could be imposed on highway authorities only by Parliament. A highway authority's duty under section 41(1) of the 1980 Act to maintain the highway was a duty to keep the fabric of the highway in such good repair as to render its physical condition safe for ordinary traffic to pass at all seasons of the year. It did not include a duty to prevent the formation of ice or remove an accumulation of snow on the road.
	Highways Act 1980 41(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Ballantine -v- Newalls Insulation Co Ltd
22 Jun 2000 CA	Damages, Personal Injury, Benefits
	The purpose of the rules was to provide statutory compensation for the pneumoconiosis suffered in this injury. Where therefore that person received damages for the same injury, the benefits received were to be deducted from the damages before payment.
	Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers Compensation) Act 1979

Thomas -v- Kwik Save Stores Ltd
27 Jun 2000 CA	Damages, Personal Injury
	When assessing damages under the Act, the court's job was limited to that of calculating financial dependency. The deceased had provided, as his wife, housekeeping services to the claimant, but she had been in poor and diminishing health. There was no way in reality of predicting whether she could have continued to provide those services or would have even become a housekeeping burden. Damages for loss of her housekeeping services reduced from 50,000 to 20,000.
	Fatal Accidents Act 1976

Christopher Jebson -v- Ministry of Defence [2000] EWCA Civ 198; [2000] 1 WLR 2055
28 Jun 2000 CA Kennedy, Potter LJJ, Steel J	Personal Injury, Negligence	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip. Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents occurring whilst drunk, the rule is not absolute. The defendant had assumed some responsibility to the claimant, and that responsibility did not disappear only because of the claimant's drunkenness. This was an organised night out from an army training camp. Ignoring any particular duties, the defendant would know that the troops were being carried in a lorry with a tailgate, and that the drunken soldiers might be expected to stand up in the back. It was foreseeable that injury (whether slight or serious) would occur as a result of the drunken and rowdy behaviour of the passengers, including the danger that someone would fall from the vehicle as a result, such wider risk being apt to include within its description the accident which actually happened. Though the defendant was liable, the claimant was still largely the author of his own misfortune and was 75% responsible for his own injuries.
	Link[s] omitted

Joseph Sniezek -v- Bundy (Letchworth) Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 212
7 Jul 2000 CA	Limitation, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Fraser -v- The State Hospitals Board for Scotland [2000] ScotCS 191; 2001 SLT 1051
11 Jul 2000 OHCS Lord Carloway	Personal Injury, Scotland, Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	An employer has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid for his employees unnecessary risk of injury including psychiatric and not merely physical injury, but that duty does not extend to a duty to avoid an employee experiencing unpleasant emotions short of such injury. Complication has been caused in this area of law because of its involvement with a related issue of a distinction between those suffering primary and secondary injuries, for example as witnesses of an event.
	Link[s] omitted

Lawrence -v- Chief Constable of Staffordshire
25 Jul 2000 CA	Damages, Personal Injury
	Current changes in interest rates did not justify a departure from the guidelines set down of two per cent on damages for general pain and suffering and loss of amenity. There is no essential or necessary reason why the rate for such a claim should be the same as was to be used when calculating future losses. The two awards of interest are fundamentally. One is an actuarial assessment of future losses, and the other is a discretionary award.

Gogay -v- Hertfordshire County Council [2000] EWCA Civ 228; [2000] IRLR 703; (2001) 3 LGLR 14; [2000] Fam Law 883; [2001] 1 FCR 455; [2001] 1 FLR 280
26 Jul 2000 CA Hale LJ	Employment, Personal Injury, Children	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	It should not be automatic that a care worker in a children's home being investigated for allegations of child abuse must be suspended. Such a suspension involved different issues to those in the enquiry itself. Characterisation of the enquiries under section 47 had not helped in this case. The 'knee jerk' reaction of suspension in this case amounted to a breach of the employer's duty of trust and confidence toward the employee. Such a suspension which led to damages could be compensated in damages, although the law was in need of clarification. The duty in this case was in contract, rather than in tort, but there is more reason to distinguish between physical and psychiatric injury in this case than in other breaches of an employer’s duties: "There is all the difference in the world between hurt, upset and injury to feelings, for which in general the law does not provide compensation whether in contract or (with certain well-defined exceptions) in tort, and a recognised psychiatric illness."
	Children Act 1989 47
	Link[s] omitted

R -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Ex Parte B
27 Jul 2000 QBD	Personal Injury, Crime
	The applicant claimed an award for physical and mental symptoms suffered after being the victim of a consensual buggery whilst under the age of consent. For a child of twelve or thirteen, and such act would inevitably lead to such damages. The apparent consent must be disregarded, and the act was a crime of violence.

Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel Ex Parte B
1 Aug 2000 QBD	Personal Injury, Crime
	The applicant claimed an award for physical and mental symptoms suffered after being the victim of a consensual buggery whilst under the age of consent. For a child of twelve or thirteen, and such act would inevitably lead to such damages. The apparent consent must be disregarded, and the act was a crime of violence.

Sandry -v- Jones
3 Aug 2000 CA	Litigation Practice, Personal Injury
	In personal injury cases involving substantial damages claims, it was inappropriate for a district judge to seek assess the level of damages to be awarded. Cases involving a degree of complexity should be referred to a circuit judge. Even though in this case the award had been made by the district judge by consent of both parties, legal advisers should take care to protect their client's interests.

Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Embling
15 Aug 2000 QBD	Personal Injury
	The distinction made in the tariff of injuries in the Act, between 'full recovery' and 'continuing disability' referred not to the general condition of the claimant, but rather to the state of the limb in question. The real distinction was between the words 'full' and 'continuing'. A remaining observable loss of function indicated continuing disability.
	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995

Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Ex Parte Leatherland, Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Ex Parte Bramall, Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Ex Parte Kay [2001] ACD 76
12 Oct 2000 QBD	Natural Justice, Personal Injury, Administrative	Casemap 1 Citers
	The practice of withholding the reasons for a decision until the day of an appeal which had come to be adopted was unfair and bad administration. The Tribunal should give proper reasons for its decision, together with the gist of any evidence which they had taken into account in coming to that decision. Such a system had caused unnecessary expense, and caused litigation rather than prevented it.

Regina on Application of T -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Board [2000] EWHC Admin 404; [2000] EWHC Admin 404
19 Oct 2000 Admn	Damages, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Codd -v- Thompson Tour Operations Ltd
20 Oct 2000 CA	Personal Injury, Negligence
	A judge had been correct to say that when considering the liability of an English Tour operator for the negligence of a hotel in Spain, for an injury occurring in Spain, the standards of negligence to apply where those of an English court, but that did not mean that the safety standards to be applied were English ones. The test of negligence was whether the hotel operator had complied with local standards, not whether he had complied with English safety standards.

King -v- Bristow Helicopters Ltd
25 Oct 2000 IHCS	Personal Injury, Damages, Transport
	The definition 'any other bodily harm' contained in the Warsaw Convention was wide enough to include psychiatric harm. Returning to the original text of the convention it was clear that it was not intended simply to import the French law, and that the words were ones of expansion, rather than limitation of the scope of damages which could be claimed. Psychiatric harm which was not claimed to be consequent from physical injury or condition, was claimable under the Convention.
	Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929

Smith -v- National Health Service Litigation Authority [2000] EWHC 564 (QB); [2001] Lloyd's Rep Med 90
14 Nov 2000 QBD Andrew Smith J	Professional Negligence, Personal Injury
	Link[s] omitted

Colin Trevor Ludlow -v- National Power Plc [2000] EWCA Civ 289
17 Nov 2000 CA Henry LJ, Potter LJ, Wall J	Personal Injury, Damages
	Link[s] omitted

Margaret Ribee -v- Michael Norrie [2000] EWCA Civ 275; [2001] L & TR 23
22 Nov 2000 CA	Torts - Other, Land, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	An owner of a property let to tenants was liable to a neighbour injured after a fire in the property, where the fire arose in circumstances which the owner had power, through the making of rules to prevent. The damage arose from a tenant smoking in a communal area. The test was whether the owner had the right to debar such behaviour. Since he did, he must be treated as the occupier of the land for this purpose and was therefore liable to the neighbour.
	Link[s] omitted

McDonald or Cross and Another -v- Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Another [2000] ScotCS 307; [2001] IRLR 336
5 Dec 2000 SCS Lord Macfadyen	Scotland, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	A promising 39-year old executive, was employed in a job in which (because of geographical factors) close day-to-day supervision of his work was impossible. He became ill with depressive illness and killed himself. After the employee had been off work with depression, his line manager travelled to see him and spent almost the whole day discussing his work and his future with him. He reduced his responsibilities and continued to maintain contact with him by telephone. Unfortunately the depression continued. Held: The employer was not liable for the tragedy which ensued because ". . .the evidence does not establish that objectively the job was the problem. For all the defenders knew, they were dealing with an employee who, for reasons that were not clear, had become unable to cope with the job that he had previously managed successfully."
	Link[s] omitted

King -v- RCO Support Services Limited and Yorkshire Traction Company Limited [2000] EWCA Civ 314
8 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Henry And Lord Justice Kay	Personal Injury, Health and Safety	Casemap 1 Cites
	The appellant was employed by the first respondents as a steam cleaning operative. The first respondent had contracted to supply cleaning services to the second respondent at one of the second respondent's yards, where buses were cleaned. The appellant's place of employment was at that yard. The yard was iced and despite attempts to grit the ice, he slipped and was injured. His claim had been dismissed because he had not been engaged in operations at the time. Held: The task of moving the grit was itself a handling process. Appeal allowed.
	Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 4(1)(a) - Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 12(3)
	[ Bailii ]

Regina - v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, ex parte Carl Wade August; Regina -v- Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel ex parte Andrew Brown [2001] QB 774; [2000] EWCA Civ 331
18 Dec 2000 CA	Crime, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	For the purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, a juvenile but willing participant in an act of buggery, is not deemed to be a victim of a crime of violence. The purpose of the section is to disapprove of such activity in general, and therefore neither participants is to be seen as a victim. The issue of inability to consent to a sexual act because of age, which are reflected in other sections do not apply to allegations of buggery.
	Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 1 - Sexual Offences Act 1956 12 13
	Link[s] omitted

Michael Alexander Watson -v- British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated [2000] EWCA Civ 2116; [2001] QB 1134; [2001] PIQR 16
19 Dec 2000 CA Lord Phillips MR	Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant's rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxer's medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimant's injuries would not have been so severe. "It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B’s physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, A’s conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for B’s safety." and "Had the board simply given advice to all involved in professional boxing as to appropriate medical precautions, it would be strongly arguable that there was insufficient proximity between the board and individual boxers to give rise to a duty of care. The board, however, went far beyond this. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory."
	Link[s] omitted

Larner -v- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (2001) RTR 469; [2000] EWCA Civ 359
20 Dec 2000 CA Woolf LJ	Personal Injury, Local Government, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Citers
	The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not otherwise have done. The duty was a target duty, rather than an absolute one. The absence of advance warnings of a Give Way duty at a junction was within that discretion. It might be that a common law duty could arise to promote road safety, but only in truly exceptional circumstances. "…. so far as section 39 of the 1988 Act is concerned, we would accept that there can be circumstances of an exceptional nature where a common law liability can arise. For that to happen, it would have to be shown that the default of the authority falls outside the ambit of discretion given to the authority by the section. This would happen if an authority acted wholly unreasonably."
	Road Traffic Act 1988 39
	Link[s] omitted

Larner -v- Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (2001) RTR 469; [2000] EWCA Civ 359
20 Dec 2000 CA Woolf LJ	Personal Injury, Local Government, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not otherwise have done. The duty was a target duty, rather than an absolute one. The absence of advance warnings of a Give Way duty at a junction was within that discretion. It might be that a common law duty could arise to promote road safety, but only in truly exceptional circumstances. "…. so far as section 39 of the 1988 Act is concerned, we would accept that there can be circumstances of an exceptional nature where a common law liability can arise. For that to happen, it would have to be shown that the default of the authority falls outside the ambit of discretion given to the authority by the section. This would happen if an authority acted wholly unreasonably."
	Road Traffic Act 1988 39
	Link[s] omitted

Iman Abouzaid -v- Mothercare (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 348
21 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright	Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European	Casemap 1 Cites
	The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act? Held: The statute must be interpreted "in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: "though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. "
	Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1) - Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6
	Link[s] omitted

Wylie on Behalf of SMP Motor Policies at Lloyds -v- Wake [2000] EWCA Civ 349
21 Dec 2000 CA Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Laws, And Lord Justice Rix	Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury	Casemap 1 Cites
	The claimant sought to recover damages following a road accident. The driver's insurance was defective. The driver claimed under section 151, but proceedings were issued without formal notice of the issue of proceedings having been given to MIB. The claim proceeded for some time before objection was made. Held: There was a clear distinction between notice of a claim, and a notice of proceedings. The notice need not be in any particular form, but must be an unconditional clear notice of the intention to commence formal proceedings. No sufficient notice had been given. The claimant alleged an estoppel against the defendant. The section is not a statutory defence, it is a condition precedent to liability, and accordingly no estoppel could arise.
	Road Traffic Act 1988 152(1)(a)
	Link[s] omitted