<< View barrister profile
Cassley -v- GMP & Sundance Ltd
 EWHC 722 (QB)
This involved a claim for damages brought by the estate of the Deceased (James Cassley) against his employer (GMP) and its client (Sundance), an Australian mining company, who chartered from Aero-Service (a Congolese based company) a twin engine plane for a flight from Yaounde, Cameroon to Yangadou in the Republic of Congo to convey the Deceased and its Board Directors for an inspection visit to its iron ore mine at Nabeba. The plane flew into the side of a ridge at Avima with the loss of all on board. This case was heard only weeks after the decision in Dusek v Stormharbour Securities LLP  EWHC 37 (QB) in which an employer was found to be liable for the death of its employee on facts that were superficially similar to the present. The judgment is of significance to the developing field of employer liability in negligence for death of and/or injuries caused by third party carriers to its staff when engaged in overseas travel. In particular, the judgment provides guidance as to the standards of care that are expected, and perhaps more significantly not to be expected, from employers. The rulings on the need to prove causation of loss are also of considerable interest and importance.
The unsuccessful Claimants sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. That application was refused on paper by Tomlinson LJ. Following an oral renewal of permission hearing the Claimants were refused permission to appeal – see judgment of 8 July 2016 at  EWCA Civ 711.
Hughes v Eastwell Manor Hotel  (QB)
Landau v The Big Bus Company & Zeital  EWCA Civ 1102
TARBS v Republic of Macedonia  EWHC 1691
Hadlow v Peterborough City Council  EWCA Civ 1329
Bent v (1) Highways & Utilities Construction Ltd (2) Allianz Insurance PLC  EWCA Civ 292
 EWCA Civ 292 CA (Civ Div)
In assessing the liability of insurers to pay the hire charges for a motorist's replacement car following a road traffic accident for which their driver was responsible the judge had erred in declining to assess the "spot hire" rate on the basis that evidence of the position at a somewhat later date than that of the hire was irrelevant. Working with comparables and making adjustments was the daily diet of judges concerned with valuation in all sorts of fields and evidence of the spot rate a year or so later than the relevant date was likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time.
HELD: In the case of a pecunious claimant, the damages to be awarded were normally to be assessed at "spot hire" rates; that was the rate at which a broadly similar car could be had on the market. The heart of the judge's reasoning had been that evidence of the position at a somewhat later date than that of the hire was irrelevant. That was a mistake. Very often when assessing valuation evidence in all sorts of fields, the court had evidence of prices of the same or similar things at different dates and had to make appropriate adjustments. Working with comparables and making adjustments was the daily diet of judges concerned with valuation in all sorts of fields. Clearly, evidence of the spot rate a year or so later than the relevant date was likely to throw considerable light on what the spot rate would have been at the time. In those circumstances, it was appropriate to order a retrial in which it would be open to both sides to adduce what evidence they chose about spot rates and equivalent rates.
Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd
Where a claimant's car was damaged in a road traffic accident caused by the defendant, the cost of a hiring a replacement car was irrecoverable as a result of a claimant's unreasonable rejection of a defendant's offer to provide a replacement car.
Durrant v (1) Thames Water (2) Surrey County Council
A water company was liable at common law for personal injuries caused to a woman who slipped on the pavement on ice formed at the edge of water from a leaking stopcock, which was situated on private property. The water company had taken responsibility for the leak by gritting the ice and putting a warning cone at the site on one occasion.
Shapoor v (1) Promo Designs (2) Motor Insurers Bureau
A driver was not under an obligation to report an uninsured driver in order to claim against the Motor Insurers' Bureau for a road traffic accident where the uninsured driver had complied with the obligations under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.154(1).
Craner v Dorset County Council
 EWCA Civ 1323
In the circumstances, a personal injury suffered at work by a school handyman involved a breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 reg.12(3).
Steadman v TNT
Credit hire; mitigation of loss. A claimant who has refused to accept the defendant's offer to hire her a car is entitled to recover nothing, given that had she accepted the offer it would have been free to her. A claimant cannot recover for something that would have been free, as she has lost nothing. The cost to the defendant is an irrelevant consideration in mitigation.
Evans v (1) TNT Logistics Ltd (2) Admiral Insurance
 Lloyd's Rep IR 708
Where a driver had acted unreasonably and had failed to mitigate his loss after a road traffic accident, his award of damages should have been limited to that which he would have recovered had he acted reasonably.