Ministry of Defence v AB and Others (Court of Appeal November 2010):
The Atomic veterans test litigation
Following an appeal by the Ministry of Defence, the Court of Appeal held that all but one of these cases, the veterans who developed cancer allegedly as a result of being exposed to radiation during atomic weapons testing had submitted their claims outside the three year time limit to commence claims for injury in such cases and were not allowed to proceed under the Court's discretionary power to waive the time limit. The Court gave further guidance on how the three year period is calculated in cases involving diseases and injuries over time, and when discretion would be exercised.
Love v Dewsbury (Queens Bench division November 2010):
When assessing damages for future losses, the Court was not prepared to depart from the 2.5% discount rate set by the Lord Chancellor to assess the discount to be given for investment of a lump sum now to provide future return. The evidence presented in the case showed that as rates of return on savings and investments have dropped, any lump sum invested will not provide full compensation for future losses claimed, such as care needs or earnings. The Judge held that the rate had to be altered by the Lord Chancellor through legislation, rather than varied by the Court on a case to case basis.
Campaigning is underway to ask the Lord Chancellor to re visit the discount rate and announcements are expected shortly.
UNITE announces further support for asbestos victims (November 2010):
Trade union Unite will back an appeal to the Supreme Court over the liability of insurers to pay compensation to victims of work-related asbestos exposure. On 8 October, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2008 High Court ruling on mesothelioma, a cancer of the lungs caused by asbestos exposure. It decided that, in some cases, employers' liability insurance is triggered not by exposure to asbestos, but by the onset of symptoms. The cases are due to be heard before the Law Lords in the Supreme Court in December of 2011.
Valentine v Transport for London and Hounslow BC (Court of Appeal December 2010):
The Court gives guidance in a fatal road accident case on the extent of the duty of Highway authorities (in the case, Transport for London) to remove any surface lying obstructions from the carriageway. It is confirmed that there is no duty under the Highway Act to remove such material. The Court did indicate that the family of the deceased could continue their claim against the local authority (Hounslow Borough Council) in negligence relating to the way in which road cleaning had been carried out. The case continues.
Scout Association v Barnes (Court of Appeal December 2010):
The Court dealt with an appeal by the Scout Association against a finding of liability for shoulder injuries suffered by Mr. Barnes whilst he was a 13 year old scout. He was injured during a game referred to as 'objects in the dark' which involved turning lights off during a period of running to be able to find a block. Mr. Barnes unfortunately hit an obstruction and fell, causing his injuries. The Court considered the balance between the desirable activity of scouting and the risk of harm from the game, and on a majority decision (2 to 1) felt that the risk of injury was sufficient to hold the association liable.
EVERETT & ANOR v COMOJO (UK) LTD (T/A THE METROPOLITAN & ORS) (Court of Appeal January 2011):
The Court of Appeal examined the duty on a hotel / nightclub to ensure the safety of visitors to the club from the acts of others within the club. In this case, an assault took place. The assailants could not be found and the injured victims submitted claims against the venue where the assault took place, which was a member's club. The Court examined the duty of the venue in detail and held that whilst a duty did exist, it was not a stringent one. The Court further held that in the circumstances of this case, the actions of the untraced assailants could not have been foreseen by the management of the club, and as a result, the club was not held liable for falling below its duty of care.