Archive for the 'causation' Category

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council – WLR daily

“The special rule attributing causation to multiple defendants in mesothelioma cases also applied to a single defendant who, in breach of duty, exposed a victim to asbestos dust, where her only other known exposure was low level asbestos fibres in the general atmosphere and where she subsequently contracted the disease.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2011
 
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 106 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 34

“For the purposes of applying the causation test in regulations 5 and 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 the combined effect of all relevant misleading acts and omissions had first to be ascertained, and then subjected to the test whether, taken in the aggregate, it would probably cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken.”

WLR Daily, 3rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sienkiewicz (administratrix of the estate of Enid Costello decd) v Greif (UK) Ltd – WLR Daily

Sienkiewicz (administratrix of the estate of Enid Costello decd) v Greif (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1159; [2009] WLR (D) 321

“A claimant bringing an action in tort for exposure to asbestos dust resulting in mesothelioma was required to establish that the tortious exposure had materially increased the risk of contracting the disease.”

WLR Daily, 10th November 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Burglar cleared of woman’s murder – BBC News

“A burglar who attacked a 94-year-old woman has been cleared of her murder.”

Full story

BBC News, 16th July 2009

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Bailey v Ministry of Defence and Another – Times Law Reports

Bailey v Ministry of Defence and Another

Court of Appeal

“Where medical science could not establish the probability that but for an act of negligence an injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘but for’ test was modified and the claimant would succeed.”

The Times, 26th August 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Bailey (by her father and litigation friend) v Ministry of Defence and another – WLR Daily

Bailey (by her father and litigation friend) v Ministry of Defence and another [2008] EWCA Civ 883

“Where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘but for’ an act of negligence an injury would not have happened, but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘but for’ test was modified and the claimant would succeed.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Drake v Harbour – Times Law Reports

Drake v Harbour

Court of Appeal

“Where a claimant proved both that a defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, that would ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the claimant was unable to prove positively the precise mechanism.”

The Times, 24th March 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


May 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Categories