Summary of Recent Cases – Substantive Law


Event Management Company In Breach Of Duty To A Visitor To Santa’s Grotto
Dufosse v. Melbry Events Ltd, CA, 14/12/11

The Court allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the dismissal of her claim for damages for a leg injury sustained as a result of tripping and falling over a plastic icicle christmas tree bauble during a visit to Santa’s grotto. The Court of Appeal approached the issue of whether the Respondent event management company had breached its duty of care from the starting premise of whether the icicle was there to be seen. On the basis that the icicle was there to be tripped upon, the Court of Appeal held that the proper inference was that it was there to be seen. Consequently, the Court of Appeal held that whilst in principle the Respondent had a safe system in place for checking the floor of the grotto for tripping hazards, on this particular occasion the Santa and elf had not been as careful in the checking of the floor as they should have been. As such, the Respondent was found to have breached its duty of care to the Appellant.

Protestor Successful In Recovering Damages For Assault By Police Officer In The Course Of A Demonstration
Minio-Paluello v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, QBD, 16/12/11

Eder J held that the Claimant protestor, who sustained a fractured arm during a pro-Palenstinian demonstration following restraint by a police officer, was entitled to recover damages from the police for assault. Eder J held that whilst the police officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the Claimant was committing the offence of obstructing the highway and that the arrest was thus lawful and the Claimant resisted her arrest, the method and force used by the officer to get the Claimant to her feet were not reasonable or proportionate. In particular, the locking of the Claimant’s arm behind her back and lifting her by that arm was dangerous and her injuries were avoidable. The Claimant was awarded damages for assault and general damages of ВЈ11,500.00.

In Upholding A Limit On Damages For Future Loss of Earnings In A Claim Under The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001, The Upper Tribunal Had Not Erred
Rust-Andrews v. First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) & Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Interested Party), CA, 19/12/11

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal in respect of her claim for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2001 following a violent assault at work and which caused her to suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder. The Appellant claimed that she was entitled to ВЈ100,000.00 future loss of earnings. The First-tier Tribunal awarded her ВЈ19,028.00 for past and future loss of earnings on the grounds that she had failed to mitigate her loss in not undertaking cognitive behavioural therapy (‘CBT’). The Appellant’s application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal. The Court of Appeal held the First-tier Tribunal had been entitled to find that on a balance of probabilities, had the Appellant undertaken the recommended CBT there would not have been an ongoing loss of earnings for which she would be entitled to recover compensation. Consequently the appeal was dismissed.

January 16, 2012 В· Editorial Team В· Comments Closed
Posted in: Cases