Published on Fenwick Elliott (https://www.fenwickelliott.com)

Home > Research & insight > Newsletters > Dispatch > Other

Other

R v Jarvis Facilities Ltd

Issue 60 - June 2005

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)

PDF logoClick to download PDF [1]

R v P&O European Ferries (RFC Ltd)

Issue 55 - January 2005

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

PDF logoClick to download PDF [2]

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

Issue 52 - October 2004

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

PDF logoClick to download PDF [3]

Michael Humpheryes v Ledcon UK Ltd and Storage Engineering Services

Issue 50 - August 2004

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.

PDF logoClick to download PDF [4]

Gemma Ltd v Gimson and anr

Issue 50 - August 2004

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

PDF logoClick to download PDF [4]

  • Load more [5]

Links
[1] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/docs/dispatch/Dispatch_issue_60.pdf [2] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/docs/dispatch/Dispatch_issue_55.pdf [3] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/docs/dispatch/Dispatch_issue_52.pdf [4] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/sites/default/files/docs/dispatch/Dispatch_issue_50.pdf [5] https://www.fenwickelliott.com/print/research-insight/newsletters/dispatch/other?page=9