Commercial Marine Piling v Pierse Contracting Ltd

Issue 112 - October 2009 (click to download pdf [1])

Which court, the English or Irish, had jurisdiction to hear a claim relating to a parent company guarantee?

Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd & Others

Issue 110 - August 2009 (Click to download PDF [2])

To what lengths should an expert go to explain any difficulties he may have had preparing his report?

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority v Halcrow Gilbert Associates Ltd & Ors

Issue 90 - December 2007 (click to download pdf [3])

Was it reasonable for the LFEPA to recover the costs of reinstating a property damaged by fire?

Tesco Stores Ltd v David Constable & Others

Issue 88 - October 2007 (click to download pdf [4])

How wide was the cover provided by a public liability insurance policy?

See Issue 95 [5] - May 2008 - for Court of Appeal decision

Pearson Education Ltd v The Chartered Partnership Ltd

Issue 82 - April 2007 (click to download pdf [6])

Negligence - who was responsible for the damage caused by flooding?

Aerospace Publishing Ltd and Anr v Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Issue 80 - February 2007 (click to download pdf [7])

How should the Court approach the recovery of management time and staff costs?

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd and others

Issue 66 - December 2005 (click to download pdf [8])

Can more than one employer be found vicariously liable for the negligent act of an employee?

LMS International Ltd and Others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and Others

Issue 65 - November 2005 (click to download pdf [9])

Does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher apply today?

Gemma Ltd v Gimson and anr

Issue 50 - August 2004 (click to download pdf [10])

HHJ Thornton QC provides guidance on the amount of money likely to be ordered in a claim for damages for inconvenience, loss and anxiety.

Mistry v Thakor and Others

Issue 64 - October 2005 (Click to download PDF [11])

What steps should a project manager take to inspect a property for defects?

Hood v Mitie Property Services (Midlands) Ltd & another

Issue 63 - September 2005 (Click to download PDF [12])

Where an experienced contractor holds itself out as being capable of carrying out roofing work, to what extent might the site owner be liable in damages following an accident?

R v Jarvis Facilities Ltd

Issue 60 - June 2005 (Click to download PDF [13])

The Court of Appeal once again had to consider the size of an appropriate fine following a successful prosecution for Health and Safety offences. See also R v P&O European Ferries (Issue 55)

Sahib Foods Ltd (in liquidation) v Paskin Kyriakides Sands

Issue 43 - January 2004 (click to download pdf [14])

The Court of Appeal had to apportion responsibility for a fire in a food factory which one party said was caused by the failure of the architect to provide for the installation of non-combustible panels and the other said was caused by the negligence of the workers preparing food.

R v P&O European Ferries (RFC Ltd)

Issue 55 - January 2005 (Click to download PDF [15])

How will the court assess the size of an appropriate fine following the successful prosecutionfor health and safety offences?

King v Richard Farmer (t/a RW Farmer (Builders))

Issue 52 - October 2004 (Click to download PDF [16])

Which party controlled the way in which work was carried out on site?

Michael Humpheryes v Ledcon UK Ltd and Storage Engineering Services

Issue 50 - August 2004 (Click to download PDF [10])

Here, in a personal injury claim for injuries caused by tripping on floor studs at a construction site, the Court had to decide who was in control and responsible for that site.

R v Nishimatsu, R v Conder Structures Ltd

Issue 44 - February 2004 (click to download pdf [17])

Nishimatsu Construction was fined £700,000 (and ordered to pay £145,000 in costs) following an explosion on the Docklands Light Railway. The size of the fine reflected the judge's view that there was a breach of duty which put the public at risk. Conder Structures Limited was fined £100,000 plus costs of £60,000 following the death of a ground worker when structural steel columns were blown down in the wind.

R v Bristol Magistrates Court Ex Parte Junttan Oy

Issue 40 - October 2003 (Click to download PDF [18])

The House of Lords decided that Junttan could be prosecuted under both section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and for breach of the 1992 Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 (HSWA) following the death of a piling rig operator. This was important because the maximum penalty under the HSWA was a fine of £20,000, while the machinery supply regulations set a maximum fine of just £5,000.

Re: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Issue 38 - August 2003 (Click to download PDF [19])

The Court of Appeal reduced a fine imposed upon Anglian Water from £200,000 to £60,000 following a conviction for discharging sewage effluent into a river. The Court noted that the fine should be set at a level which makes some impact on the company concerned to overcome a suggestion that it might be cheaper to pay the fine rather than undertake the work necessary to prevent the offence in the first place. But it ruled that original fine was excessive in this case compared with those imposed on other companies.

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics plc

Issue 37 - July 2003 (click to download pdf [20])

The Court of Appeal discussed whether or not the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 imposed obligations to supply and maintain protective equipment which relates solely to identified risks. Decision upheld by the House of Lords - see Issue 49 [21].

William Hare Ltd

Issue 35 - May 2003 (click to download pdf [22])

William Hare Ltd was fined £75,000 plus costs following the death of a worker who fell from a staging board.

R v Yorkshire Sheeting & Insulation Ltd

Issue 33 - March 2003 (click to download pdf [23])

The Court of Appeal held that a fine of £100,000 imposed upon Yorkshire Sheeting following the death of a worker who fell through a roof light was excessive and reduced it to £55,000.

Horton v Taplin Contracts Ltd

Issue 29 - November 2002 (click to read issue - html [24])

The Court of Appeal had to consider whether Taplin was liable for injuries caused when a scaffolding tower was deliberately toppled over by a third party.