Home > Barristers > John Norman > John Norman Case List


John Norman Case List




<< View barrister profile

Chapman v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

LTL 16/5/97; [1997] 48 EG 154

Summary:

Summary: Liability of local authority for limb falling from tree.


Stevenson (1) Hinton (2) Taylor (3) v Southwark London Borough Council

[2011] EWHC 108 (QB)


Summary:

DAMAGES - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - PLANNING

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT : MISFEASANCE : PLANNING PERMISSION

Claimants alleged that business failed because of defendants refusal to grant full planning permission.  Claim dismissed.


Ahmad v Brent London Borough Council & Others

[2011] EWHC 80 (QB)


Summary:

AMENDMENTS : EXTENSIONS OF TIME : LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION : LICENCE CONDITIONS : PARTICULARS OF CLAIM : RETURN TO CUSTODY : RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY : RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE : STRIKING OUT : REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR ADVANCING CLAIMS : DAMAGES SOUGHT UNDER COMMON LAW AND EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 ART.5 AND ART.8 : ALLEGATIONS THAT RECALL TO PRISON FOR PURPORTED BREACH OF LICENCE CONDITIONS WRONGFUL AND UNLAWFUL : art.8(1) EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS : art.5(1) EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS : EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS


Jubilee Motor Policies Syndicate 1231 v Volvo Truck & Bus (Southern) Ltd

[2010] EWHC 3641


Summary:

The definition of "same damage" in the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s.1(1) had to be construed narrowly: in order for a claimant to successfully obtain a contribution against a defendant, the genesis of either's liability to damages had to be the same. Damages paid by an insurer to an individual for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the insured party did not have the same genesis: one was causatively liable because he caused the injury, the other paid because he was liable to do so under an insurance policy.

 


Whiteside v Croydon London Borough Council

[2010] EWHC 329 (QB)


Summary:

BREACH OF CONTRACT : CAUSATION : FORESEEABILITY : LOCAL AUTHORITIES : LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS AND DUTIES : OCCUPATIONAL STRESS : PSYCHIATRIC HARM : WORKING CONDITIONS : CAUSE OF STRESS-RELATED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY : FORESEEABILITY OF INJURY : EMPLOYER'S CONTRACTUAL DUTY TO PROTECT EMPLOYEE'S HEALTH AND SAFETY


West Sussex County Council v Russell

[2010] EWCA Civ 71


Summary:

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE : DUTY OF CARE : HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES : HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE : ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : SPEED : VERGES : BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE : FAILURE OF HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO REMEDY DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT BETWEEN VERGE AND CARRIAGEWAY : s.41(1) HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 : s.58(1) HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 : s.58(2)(d) HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

 

A judge was entitled to find that a highway authority had breached its duty of care under the Highways Act 1980 s.41(1) by failing to remedy a difference in height of between 6 and 12 inches between a verge and a carriageway.

 

 

 


Nuttall v London Borough of Sutton

[2009] EWHC 294 (QB)

Summary:

Educational claim against the LEA on grounds of vicarious responsibility for the negligence of its psychologists and the negligence of its officers in the education department. 


Russell V West Sussex County Council

[2009]


Summary:

Highways claim.  The condition of a verge amounted to a breach of s.41 of the Highways Act and s.58 did not afford the Highway Authority a defence. 


Palmer v Palmer and PZ Products Ltd

[2008] EWCA Civ 46


Summary:

The Court awarded costs directly against the limited liability insurer.  Liability was founded on the insurer's failure to recognise or inquire into whether its insured had any real commercial interest in continuing to contest liability, even where the insured had also failed to address that question.  Where a deal would secure the insured's financial future, but losing a trial would lead to the insured's inevitable closure, winning or settlement were equally in the insured's interest and, inferentially, further support for a defence with any real risk would only benefit the insurer.


Kendall v Southwark Borough Council

LTL 8/6/2007

Summary:

Where an assessment of the claimant's special educational needs by an educational psychologist employed by the defendant local education authority had, in all respects, amply fulfilled the requirement for a competent assessment reflecting contemporary advice and practice, the claim for professional negligence in the making of that assessment had to fail.


St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes

LTL 25/10/2006; [2007] PIQR P10; Times, November 17, 2006; Independent, October 27, 2006

Summary:

For the purposes of the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.11(3) a claim was \"brought\" when a claimant's request for the issue of a claim form was delivered to the correct court office during its opening hours.


Gammon v East Sussex County Council

LTL: 22/9/2006

Summary:

Claims directly against a local authority, which related to the school at which an individual ought to have been educated or the proper amount of extra teaching help to be provided by the local authority, were not justiciable by the courts because the decisions involved were governed largely by policy considerations.


Lebrooy v LB Hammersmith

LTL 21/9/2006; [2006] EWHC 1976

Summary:

Allegations that medical and social work records contained inaccurate and defamatory materials. Interlocutory strike out application. Held: even if they did, the Claimant had no real prospect of success. S.139 of the mental Health Act 1983 engaged by reason of the apparent activities of those accused; in the circumstances no permission to proceed with the Action.


Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor v Pollard & Anor

LTL 12/4/2006; [2006] EWCA Civ 393

Summary:

Case considered liability for dishwasher powder which injured baby when he opened bottle and ate it. Construction/application of Consumer Protection Act 1987 ss.3/10. Held: standard imposed under the Act was merely one of general public expectation, which could not equate to existing but unpublished standards imposed by the BSI unless the label suggested as much.


Skipper v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

LTL 15/3/2006; [2006] EWCA Civ 239

Summary:

As a matter of principle general damages could be awarded for the frustration, loss of self-confidence and loss of self-esteem resulting from the failure of a school and local authority to identify and ameliorate the effects of dyslexia, and a claim for general damages and for damages by way of lost earning capacity based on such a failure could not be struck out as having no real prospect of success.


Palmer v Palmer

2006 EWHC (not reported)

Summary:

Consumer Protection Act 1987. Liability of manufacturer of "safety" device inhibiting operation of seatbelt [pure question of fact] - [JN wins]


Banks v Ablex Ltd

LTL 24/2/2005; [2005] EWCA Civ 173; [2005] IRLR 357; Times, March 21, 2005

Summary:

There were no incidents from which the respondent employer could have foreseen that the aggressive behaviour of another employee might result in injury to the mental health of the appellant employee.


Martindale v Oxfordshire County Council

LTL 17/2/2005 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

Stress claim; a teacher's claim for damages arising from depression due to stress at work failed since he failed to show that the defendant employer had breached any common law duty owed to him and the provisions of the Council Directive 89/391 relied on did not establish any cause of action.


Moy v Pettman Smith & Anor

LTL 3/2/2005; [2005] UKHL 7; [2005] 1 WLR 581; [2005] 1 All ER 903; [2005] NPC 15; Times, February 4, 2005

Summary:

Case considered the nature of a solicitor's or barrister's duty to advise on settlement, and the standard of care involved. In particular whether there is any duty to give detailed advice as to the risks involved. Held: taking account of all the circumstances, advice given by the appellant barrister to the claimant fell within the range of that to be expected of reasonably competent counsel of the appellant’s seniority and purported experience and the Court of Appeal had therefore judged her actions too harshly.


Moy v Pettman Smith & Anor (HL)

LTL 3/2/2005; [2005] UKHL 7; [2005] 1 WLR 581; [2005] 1 All ER 903; [2005] NPC 15; Times, February 4, 2005

Summary:

Case considered the nature of a solicitor's or barrister's duty to advise on settlement, and the standard of care involved. In particular whether there is any duty to give detailed advice as to the risks involved. Held: taking account of all the circumstances, advice given by the appellant barrister to the claimant fell within the range of that to be expected of reasonably competent counsel of the appellant’s seniority and purported experience and the Court of Appeal had therefore judged her actions too harshly.


Nouchin v Stone

10.1.05

Summary:

Professional negligence claim against solicitors and barrister in respect of settlement of action; struck out on basis that claim did not disclose proper claim and was not pleaded properly; confirmed on appeal on different grounds, viz. no real prospect of success given nature of claim and heads of loss.


Whitlam v Hazel

LTL 2/12/2004; EWCA Civ 1600

Summary:

Where the occupation of an insured was correctly described as trainee golf professional, the insurer was entitled to avoid a motor insurance policy for failure to disclose that as his occupation, even though the insured had not deliberately misled the insurer


Bielecki v Suffolk Coastal County Council

LTL 11/11/2004; [2004] EWHC 3142

Summary:

Town & Country Planning; Local Authority Duties: there could not be a contract between a local authority and an individual for a grant of planning permission. No duty of care owed in respect of planning procedures, however badly they may be administered.


Upton v Wiltshire County Council and Commonweal School

Gray J 14.10.04 (not reported)

Summary:

Court of Appeal is only route of Appeal from trial of limitation as a preliminary issue limitation.


Brennan v Bolt Burdon & Ors

LTL 29/7/2004; [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1017; [2005] QB 303; [2004] 3 WLR 1321; Times, August 27, 2004

Summary:

Whether mistake as to law can vitiate a contract, in particular a contract compromising litigation. Held: a common or mutual mistake of law might vitiate a compromise or consent order but there was not an operative common mistake where there was doubt as to the law concerned and where the party wishing to reopen the compromise agreement went ahead with the compromise anyway.


Flaxmann-Binns v Lincolnshire County Council

LTL 5/4/2004; 2004 EWCA Civ 424; (2004) 1 WLR 2232; Times, May 27, 2004

Summary:

Considered striking out for failure to comply with rules; illustration of circumstances where court may be forgiving of extreme delays.


Millward v Oxford CC

20.2.04 EWHC (not reported)

Summary:

Liability for injury to teacher caused by violent pupil.


Morland v Surrey

16.4.03

Summary:

Stress at work; teacher's claim dismissed; European Law issue: no material direct liability under EC Framework Directive.


Pratley v Surrey County Council

LTL 13/8/2002; EWHC 1608

Summary:

The Claimant’s decision deliberately to conceal from the defendant local authority the true state of her health meant that there was no warning or other sign from which her employer could have anticipated the risk of injury to her health.


Robinson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

LTL 25/7/2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1099; [2002] ELR 681; [2003] PIQR P9; [2002] 99(39) LSG 39

Summary:

A claim for damages in respect of alleged emotional and psychological damage resulting from failure by appropriate teaching to ameliorate the congenital condition of dyslexia was held to be statute barred. Negligence misdiagnosis of dyslexia could amount to a personal injury for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980.


Moy v Pettman Smith & Anor (CA)

LTL 28/6/2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 875; (2002) PNLR 44; Independent, June 28, 2002

Summary:

Case considered a barrister’s negligence in relation to settlement advice and the circumstances in which breach of duty can be established.


Waugh v Newham

[2002] EWHC 802 (QB)

Summary:

Liability for injury to teacher caused by violent pupil.


Anderton v Clwyd County Council

LTL 28/8/2001

Summary:

Case considered date for last service of proceedings; effect of Pt.6 of CPR. Held that weekends and bank holidays were excluded from the computation of time under CPR 6.7(1)


Hedges & Anor v Jackson

LTL 2/11/99 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

A case would not be struck out, even where there had been a long delay in bringing the matter to trial, unless it was fair and just to do so.


Jones v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

LTL 30/7/99 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

In a case where the evidence was not in dispute the question of whether, in making an arrest, a person was acting reasonably was one to be decided by the judge. Care should be exercised in finding that the lawyers must have been improper or unreasonable in a hopeless case as properly conducted and apparently reasonable cases can turn out to be hopeless cases. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.


Chilton v Surrey County Council & Anor

LTL 24/6/99

Summary:

Where the claimant’s failure to file an amended schedule of special damages must have been foreshadowed and had therefore beeen an obvious mistake, the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 would have been furthered had the parties cooperated with each other at a time when the mistake could have been remedied thus avoiding the need for satellite litigation.


Newton v Dorset Travel Service Ltd & Ors

LTL 5/5/99 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

With regard to the old rules on civil procedure, despite failure to comply with an unless order the judge should have balanced the rival contentions on an application for an extension of time for service of an expert report and should have granted the extension.


Thomson v Hanson White Ltd

LTL 1/12/98 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

The proper approach for the court to take when determining the date of knowledge for the purposes of s.14 Limitation Act 1980 was partly subjective – whether the plaintiff considered that the injury was sufficiently serious; and partly objective – whether it would have been reasonable for the plaintiff to not regard the injury as sufficiently serious.


Chapman v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

LTL 13/7/98 (unreported elsewhere)

Summary:

In an appeal on the facts a local authority sought unsuccessfully to overturn the trial judge’s decision that it was liable in nuisance for the injuries that befell the plaintiff from a branch of a tree.


Romano v Croydon LB

LTL 22/5/97; [1997] PIQR P434; Times, June 5, 1997

Summary:

Action reinstated after automatic striking out although it was ‘a very close run thing’ – application of Rastin and of recent CA decision of Ridehalgh v Horsefield.