A Forestry Commission contractor was not an employee and was not owed a duty of care

The Claimant was an independent contractor to the Forestry Commission with control over the use of his work equipment and the Commission was not liable for injuries caused by the equipment.

Duty of care supervising children on bouncy castle

In Harris v Perry, the Court examined the nature and extent of the duty of care of those supervising children on bouncy castle at a private party.

Claim for asbestos related lung cancer succeeds

In Shortell v Bical, the Court concluded that, where the Deceased had been a smoker but did not have asbestosis, his exposure to asbestos was sufficient to have doubled the risk of lung cancer so the claim succeeded, subject to 15% contributory negligence for his smoking.

Apportionment of liability for Claimant’s use of unsuitable ladder

Where the Claimant had been sent out to do a job at height and chose to use an unsuitable ladder he found there, the Court of Appeal reconsidered apportionment of liability between the employers and occupiers and the proper interpretation of the PUWER 1998. (Mason v. Satelcom Ltd and others)

Insurers had not waived their right to repudiate the claim for late notification

In Kosmar Villas –v- Syndicate 1243, the Claimant had breached a condition precedent for reporting circumstances likely to give rise to a claim. The insurer had not reserved its rights but was not estopped from avoiding the claim.

Liability for contribution in mesothelioma claim

Where the Claimant had mistakenly believed it was liable and paid damages to the estate of a railway worker who had died of mesothelioma, it was entitled under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 to recover those damages from the company that was in fact liable.

Limitation period for minor in “hit and run” accident

The Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against a finding that the MIB procedure for claims by minors against untraced drivers should be subject to a limitation period no less favourable than that for traced drivers under the Limitation Act 1980 s.28.

Court’s power to disapply a success fee set by CPR 45

The Court of Appeal held that the Court has no discretion to disallow a success fee fixed by CPR r.45.11