1 / 10

Legal Update 24 January 2007 John Morrell Weightmans

Legal Update 24 January 2007 John Morrell Weightmans. Highways. Duty to maintain – s.41 Highways Act 1980 Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions –v- Mott McDonald Ltd and others – Flooding on highway. Statutory Defence – s.58 Highways Act 1980 Atkins v L B Ealing

dorjan
Télécharger la présentation

Legal Update 24 January 2007 John Morrell Weightmans

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Update 24 January 2007 John Morrell Weightmans

  2. Highways • Duty to maintain – s.41 Highways Act 1980 • Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions –v- Mott McDonald Ltd and others – Flooding on highway. • Statutory Defence – s.58 Highways Act 1980 • Atkins v L B Ealing • Common Law Negligence • Shine v L B Tower Hamlets

  3. Education Negligence • Marr v L B Lambeth • Negligence • Breach of Statutory Duty • Liability of Education Offices [Carty v L B Croydon] • “This is in reality an action for breach of statutory duty in disguise or an action based on a general claim of inadequate teaching or even an inadequate educational system … They are not readily characterised as submissions in a negligence case. They … may in places have force were this a case before SENDIST or even an action for breach of statutory duty but rather fade in an action for negligence.”

  4. Social Services • Limitation • Young v Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and the Home Office • S.14(2) Limitation Act 1980 K R v Bryn Alyn Community holdings Ltd – substantially subjective test • S.14(3) Limitation Act 1980 • Adams v Bracknell Forest BC – substantially objective test

  5. Young - • Substantially objective test • Knowledge outside limitation period • No exercise of discretion under S.33 Limitation Act 1980 • A v Nugent • When did the claimants first have knowledge that they had suffered significant injury? That is, when should they reasonably have considered that they had suffered an injury sufficiently serious to justify their instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment?

  6. S.14 Limitation Act 1980 – all 3 claims, knowledge outside limitation period • S.33 Limitation Act 1980 – 2 claims no exercise of discretion, 1 claim, discretion • L + B Reading Borough Council and Others • No duty owed to parent wrongly accused of abuse • [D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust]

  7. Adoption • B v A County Council • [A v Essex County Council] • Duty of care owed – foreseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable • No liability on facts

  8. Trees • Poll v Viscount Asquith of Morley • A level (ii) inspector would have realised that a close-up inspection of this particular tree was required

  9. Human Rights • Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police • Article 2 – Right to Life • Did the police do all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they had, or ought to have had, knowledge?

  10. Employer’s Liability • Pennington v Surrey County Council • Judge – Unsuitable equipment under Regulation 4 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 • Court of Appeal – Inadequate instruction and training under Regulation 11(2)(d) of the 1998 Regulations

More Related