MyClaim - We're here to help

January 2010 Case Law Reports

Back to News

Robert Lee Uren v (1) Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd (2) Ministry of Defence (3) David Lionel Pratt & Ors (Syndicate 2525)

This case concerned a health and fun day at a RAF base which involved an inflatable pool provided by the first Defendant who had been hired to run the health and fun day.  The Claimant had launched head first into the pool to complete a task and broke his neck rendering him tetraplegic.

The Claimant claimed that there had been a breach of duty to take reasonable care ensuring the Claimant was safe in partaking in the game.  It was held that the risk of serious injury in using the pool was small and did not amount to breach of common law duty of care.

Goldsmith Williams (A Firm) v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd

This was a case involving the Claimant firm of solicitors, third party solicitors and the third party solicitor’s insurers.  The third party solicitors firm consisted of two sole directors.  One director had fraudulently obtained a mortgage and then stole the mortgage monies.  His wife then purported to buy a property from him and these mortgage monies were also stolen.  The mortgage company looked to the third party insurer for compensation.

It was held that the third party insurer was entitled to repudiate liability under an exclusion clause where all of the third party solicitor’s directors had acted fraudulently or dishonestly.  The second director although he had not stolen the money himself, was found to have aided the first director with his fraud.

Biddle & Co (A Firm) v TETRA PAK LTD & 6 ORS

This concerned a Defendant’s appeal against a decision to allow the Claimant to serve particulars of claim, despite the expiry of a relevant limitation period.  The Claimant had issued the claim form against two Defendants however they had served the claim form and particulars of claim only on the first Defendant. The Claimant then served the claim form together with draft amended particulars on the second Defendant.  The second Defendant refused to consent to the amendment on the grounds that this would introduce a new claim outside the limitation period.

It was held that the Claimant was able to serve separate particulars of claim on the Defendant so that no amendment was required to the original particulars of claim.  If the particulars of claim did not confine the claim against a particular Defendant, the cause of action remained seated in the claim form, in the same way that it remained seated against all Defendants before the serve of particulars.  The fact that the particulars of claim that were served on the first Defendant only related to them did not mean that the Claimants were confining or abandoning the claim against the second Defendant.

Osei-Antwi v South East London & Kent Bus Co Ltd

This was an appeal against a decision of contributory negligence where a pedestrian sustained injury from being hit by a bus when she was standing on the pavement.  The Judge at first instance held that she had been stood too close to where the buses made sharp turns and she should have kept a look out.

It was held on appeal that the initial Judge’s decision was wrong.  The Claimant had been stood on the pavement in a designated area waiting to cross.  She was not obliged to move further back as she was stood in an area where vehicles were not entitled to be.  She had not caused or contributed to the accident.

Michael Henry v Thames Valley Police

This case concerned a motorcyclist who was instructed to dismount his motorcycle following which he became injured by the police car driving too close.  The Claimant’s claim for damages was dismissed at first instance.

It was held on appeal that the officer was justified in using his car as a trap or barrier but not in the manner that would create any foreseeable risk of injury to the Claimant.  The police officer driving knew the Claimant was dismounting and had misjudged the space required to allow the Claimant to dismount.  His driving fell below the standard of care expected from a reasonably skilful and careful driver.

The Claimants damages were reduced by 60% for contributory negligence.  The police had indicated that they required him to pull over earlier, however he continued home before he stopped and dismounted.