Insight
INSIGHT 218
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we consider the Court of Appeal decision of Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2022] EWCA.
In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the duty of a public authority to take action to prevent harm to individual members of the public.
Insight
INSIGHT 217
27, July 2022
![Alistair Graham](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/0061_Alistair-Graham-800x800.jpg)
![Alistair Graham](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/0061_Alistair-Graham-800x800.jpg)
By Alistair Graham
In this week’s edition of Insight, we look at Hoyle v Hampshire County Council and others [2022] EWHC 934, a case brought to trial by Partner, Alistair Graham.
The case involved a man driving on the A287 who was fatally injured when a tree adjacent to the road fell onto his car.
Insight
INSIGHT 216
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we return to the case of Celine Martin V Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, which we first considered in Insight 210 when the court considered the issue of whether, when statutory funding was in place for care, it was appropriate to separate the physical care and make private provision for it. The court also considered mental capacity and the weight to be attached to neuropsychological testing to determine that issue.
In the earlier decision, the court concluded it was appropriate to separate the mental care, which was deemed adequate, and the physical care, which was not. The court also concluded that the claimant, although vulnerable to suggestion by others, did not lack capacity.
The claimant was also given leave to amend the proceedings to claim the cost of a personal injury trust.
The issues remaining were:
Whether the damages were to be paid by a lump sum order or by a periodical payments order (PPO)?
Whether the PPO should be variable?
Whether the claimant should receive damages to reflect the set-up and running costs of a personal injury trust (PIT)?
The hearing was before His Honour Judge Bird sitting as a high court judge.
The judgment is available at [2022] EWHC 532.
Insight
INSIGHT 215
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we report on the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd. The Court of Appeal considered an appeal of the decision of His Honour Judge Rawlings sitting at Stoke-on-Trent County Court and appeal of the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer.
The decision considers whether an employer can be held to be vicariously liable or in breach of duty for injury resulting from horseplay at work.
Insight
INSIGHT 214
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we report on the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Brown v South West Lakes Trust and others.
The Court of Appeal considered an appeal of the decision of His Honour Judge Gore QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).
The decision considers liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 in respect of claims from trespassers, the duty owed under the 1984 Act owed by landowners adjoining a highway and also highlights the consequences of failing to properly plead a claim.
Insight
INSIGHT 213
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we look at limitation in abuse cases:
When is a fair trial not a fair trial? When it's inequitable.
TVZ and others v Manchester City Football Club Limited [2022] EWHC 7 (QB)
Eight victims of prolific child abuser Barry Bennell have lost their compensation claims against Manchester City FC. Mr Justice Johnson, sitting in the High Court in London, ruled in a 134-page judgment that the claims were out of time and that for various reasons it would be inequitable to allow them to proceed against Manchester City FC.
Insight
INSIGHT 212
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we report on the recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Ford v Seymour – Williams.
The Court of Appeal considered an appeal of the decision of Michael Kent QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).
The decision considers the requirements of sections 2(2)(b) and 2(2)(c) of the Animals Act 1971.
Insight
INSIGHT 211
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we report on the recent High Court ruling in the case of Celine Martin v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust.
This case dealt with a claim where there was statutory funding in place for care and whether it was appropriate to separate the physical care and make private provision for it.
The case also considered mental capacity and the weight to be attached to neuropsychological testing to determine that issue.
Insight
INSIGHT 210
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
In this week’s edition of Insight, we report on the recent High Court ruling in the case of Martin Savigar v Ainscough Crane Hire Limited. The High Court considered an appeal of the decision of HHJ Beech sitting at Preston County Court.
The decision considers the difficulties establishing liability when the cause of injury is not known and the application of res ipsa loquitur in such circumstances.
Insight
INSIGHT 209
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
Welcome to this week's edition of Insight, in which we report on the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Buttar Construction Limited v Arshdeep. The Court of Appeal considered the appropriate test to apply when considering an application for an interim payment in a claim involving multiple defendants.
Insight
INSIGHT 208
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
Welcome to this week's edition of Insight, in which we report on the recent High Court ruling in the case of Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Limited T/a Bear Grylls Survival Race (1) Big Bang Promotions International Limited (2). The High Court considered the defendants' liability to the claimant who had suffered injury whilst participating in a Bear Grylls Survival Race.
Insight
INSIGHT 207
27, July 2022
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
![Malcolm Henké](https://www.h-f.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Malcolm-Henke-800x800.jpg)
By Malcolm Henké
Welcome to this week's edition of Insight, in which we report on the recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of J v A South Wales Local Authority. The Court of Appeal considered whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw an admission of liability made pre-litigation.