In the case of Gray v Thames Trains and others the Claimant had been a passenger injured in the Ladbroke Grove train crash in October 1999. Although he suffered minor physical injuries, he subsequently developed severe post traumatic stress disorder and depression. In August 2001, he became involved in an argument with a pedestrian and stabbed him to death.
Gray claimed loss of earnings as part of his claim against Thames Trains which included an element for future loss of earnings for the period after his arrest and detention.
It was accepted that, if it had not been for the negligence of Thames Trains, Mr Gray may have continued to live an uneventful life and therefore would have carried on in his job and earning wages in the future.
However, the House of Lords has ruled that he cannot claim for future loss of earnings because a claimant cannot base a claim or cause of action on their own wrongdoing.
Contact Isabel Elliott on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Monday, 20 July 2009
Hearing loss caused by noise at work
A Claimant has successfully sued her employer for moderate noise levels before 1990 and received compensation for this.
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the Claimant in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 499. In this case the Claimant proved she had suffered from noise induced hearing loss. The Defendants were found liable under Section 29 of the Factory Act 1961 for damage to the Claimant's hearing sustained from January 1978.
It was found that from 1973 the defendants should have measured the noise in their workshops. If they had measured the noise they would have found the range between 85 and 89 decibels and they then should have arranged the provision of ear protectors which would not have been difficult or expensive to do.
From January 1988 the average employer will be liable in negligence for hearing loss if noise levels were between 85 and 90 decibels.
If you have suffered from loss of hearing due to noise at work which has been diagnosed in the last 3 years, please contact Isabel Elliott to discuss your potential claim.
Contact her on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
The Court of Appeal found in favour of the Claimant in Baker v Quantum Clothing Group and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 499. In this case the Claimant proved she had suffered from noise induced hearing loss. The Defendants were found liable under Section 29 of the Factory Act 1961 for damage to the Claimant's hearing sustained from January 1978.
It was found that from 1973 the defendants should have measured the noise in their workshops. If they had measured the noise they would have found the range between 85 and 89 decibels and they then should have arranged the provision of ear protectors which would not have been difficult or expensive to do.
From January 1988 the average employer will be liable in negligence for hearing loss if noise levels were between 85 and 90 decibels.
If you have suffered from loss of hearing due to noise at work which has been diagnosed in the last 3 years, please contact Isabel Elliott to discuss your potential claim.
Contact her on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
Monday, 29 June 2009
Dog Owner not liable for injury caused after he unleashed his dog
The Court of Appeal have recently held that, when considering cases where dogs have injured a person, they have to be satisfied that a reasonable person in the dog owner’s position would think that the injury caused by the dog was likely to follow from what he does or what he does not do. In the case of Whippey v. Jones, CA, 8/4/09 the dog handler was not liable because it was not unreasonable to unleash the dog when he did. It is not enough that the injury was a possibility, it has to be likely to happen.
Contact Isabel Elliott on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
Contact Isabel Elliott on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
Friday, 19 June 2009
Taking photographs - Privacy
In January 2009 the European Court of Human Rights (EctHR) delivered judgment in the case of Reklos & Davourlis v Greece (App. No. 1234/05).
The facts are a bit thin but involve parents of a baby boy who was taken to a special care baby unit after he was born. Unknown to the parents the hospital allowed a photographer to take pictures of the baby. The photographs were later presented to the parents who were upset that the hospital had allowed the photographer access to their baby inside the unit. The clinic refused to hand over the negatives.
The Court found that taking photographs on this occasion violated the baby's right to respect for his private life.
The Court noted that the negatives belonged to the photographer, that the parents were refused the negatives and that the images might be exploited, contrary to the wishes of the baby or its parents.
This ruling suggests that consent of the subject to the mere taking of the photograph is crucial, not least because it presupposes a discussion as to the future use/exploitation of the image and by whom.
Adults can also object to their photograph being taken by others.
Contact Isabel Elliott on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
The facts are a bit thin but involve parents of a baby boy who was taken to a special care baby unit after he was born. Unknown to the parents the hospital allowed a photographer to take pictures of the baby. The photographs were later presented to the parents who were upset that the hospital had allowed the photographer access to their baby inside the unit. The clinic refused to hand over the negatives.
The Court found that taking photographs on this occasion violated the baby's right to respect for his private life.
The Court noted that the negatives belonged to the photographer, that the parents were refused the negatives and that the images might be exploited, contrary to the wishes of the baby or its parents.
This ruling suggests that consent of the subject to the mere taking of the photograph is crucial, not least because it presupposes a discussion as to the future use/exploitation of the image and by whom.
Adults can also object to their photograph being taken by others.
Contact Isabel Elliott on 020 8300 9321 or ielliott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
What happens if..
I become unable to manage my finances because of old age or ill health?
If you become unable to manage your finances because of mental ill-health – whether through increasing age and forgetfulness or as a result of accident – someone will need to step in to take over to administer your property and affairs.
While you still have mental capacity, you can choose who you wish to do this on your behalf by creating a Lasting Power of Attorney. This is a document under which you authorise one or more people you have selected to manage your property and affairs. It can come into operation straight away or it can be operative only at some future time when you have become unable to manage your finances.
You can impose conditions on your chosen attorney – for example, a condition that they may not sell your house or limiting the assets they may deal with. Subject to those conditions an attorney can do most things which you could do yourself. However they may not change your will without a court order.
A Lasting Power of Attorney has to be registered with the Court before it can be used. It is expected that it will be registered as soon as it is signed, so that in the event of you becoming incapable in the future, the attorney will be able to step in immediately to manage your finances for you.
There are safeguards in that notice of the registration has to be given to others- again, nominated by you- and once registered anyone who is concerned about the way in which the attorney is managing your affairs can notify the Court of Protection which regulates the conduct of attorneys and can intervene if need be.
An attorney has to agree to act and to be bound by the statutory principles which are intended to protect you and to help you to take part, as much as possible , in decisions that affect you.
If you do not have a Lasting Power of Attorney, anyone (usually a member of your family) may apply to the Court of Protection to have themselves, or someone else appointed as a ‘Deputy' who will be authorised by the Court to manage your property and affairs, under the supervision of the Court.
The Deputy will be able to do only what is authorised by the Court and may need to apply to the Court for guidance or further authority, for example if your property needs to be sold to fund care fees.
Like an attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney , a Deputy is required to adhere to the statutory principles mentioned above.
Contact Gillian Scott on 020 8300 9321 or gscott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
If you become unable to manage your finances because of mental ill-health – whether through increasing age and forgetfulness or as a result of accident – someone will need to step in to take over to administer your property and affairs.
While you still have mental capacity, you can choose who you wish to do this on your behalf by creating a Lasting Power of Attorney. This is a document under which you authorise one or more people you have selected to manage your property and affairs. It can come into operation straight away or it can be operative only at some future time when you have become unable to manage your finances.
You can impose conditions on your chosen attorney – for example, a condition that they may not sell your house or limiting the assets they may deal with. Subject to those conditions an attorney can do most things which you could do yourself. However they may not change your will without a court order.
A Lasting Power of Attorney has to be registered with the Court before it can be used. It is expected that it will be registered as soon as it is signed, so that in the event of you becoming incapable in the future, the attorney will be able to step in immediately to manage your finances for you.
There are safeguards in that notice of the registration has to be given to others- again, nominated by you- and once registered anyone who is concerned about the way in which the attorney is managing your affairs can notify the Court of Protection which regulates the conduct of attorneys and can intervene if need be.
An attorney has to agree to act and to be bound by the statutory principles which are intended to protect you and to help you to take part, as much as possible , in decisions that affect you.
If you do not have a Lasting Power of Attorney, anyone (usually a member of your family) may apply to the Court of Protection to have themselves, or someone else appointed as a ‘Deputy' who will be authorised by the Court to manage your property and affairs, under the supervision of the Court.
The Deputy will be able to do only what is authorised by the Court and may need to apply to the Court for guidance or further authority, for example if your property needs to be sold to fund care fees.
Like an attorney under a Lasting Power of Attorney , a Deputy is required to adhere to the statutory principles mentioned above.
Contact Gillian Scott on 020 8300 9321 or gscott@wmk-law.com alternatively Contact Us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
