18/08/2008
An important update.
Following on from our article of 21 July 2008 the case concerning the organisers of a bouncy castle party for children has been reviewed by the appeal courts who have overturned the decision to hold the parents who organised the children’s party responsible. The Judge held “that it was impossible to preclude all risk, when playing together; children may injure themselves or each other. It is impractical for parents to keep children under constant surveillance or supervision, and it would not be in the public interest for the law to impose a duty upon them to do so. Some circumstances or activities may, however, involve an unacceptable risk to children unless they are subject to supervision or even constant surveillance.”
It would appear therefore that the Courts may still hold parents who organise children’s activities liable for personal injury dependent upon the facts of each case. The outcome is - be exceptionally careful when organising events.
For further information contact juliejones@burrsugden.com
21/07/2008
Take Care when organizing Children’s Parties
A recent case awarded significant damages to a child claimant attending a birthday party who had been playing on a bouncy castle provided by the parents of the children celebrating birthdays.
The Court found that the parents had not supervised the use of the bouncy castle sufficiently. Two 11 year olds were allowed to go on the bouncy castle with children of difference sizes. One of the boy’s heels caught a younger child on the forehead causing serious injury.
Judgment was given against the parents who had hired the bouncy castle for failing to adequately supervise the use of the bouncy castle by the children attending the birthday party.
For further details contact Julie Jones at jjones@burrsugden.com.
23/05/2008
Failure to act causes bank to lose property
In the recent Court of Appeal case of National Westminster Bank PLC v Ashe the Court accepted that a mortgagee who had not paid the mortgage for a number of years was entitled to claim possession of the property.
A mortgage was granted to the Bank over Mr and Mrs Ashe’s property to secure sums owed by Mr Ashe. A number of formal demands for payment were made by the Bank but no steps were taken to protect its legal position when payments ceased. Mr Ashe was subsequently made Bankrupt by a Creditor and in earlier proceedings his Trustee in Bankruptcy sought, and obtained, a declaration from the Court that, given the last payments made to the Bank had been over 12 years ago, the Legal Charge on the property had been extinguished.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge in the earlier proceedings that there was no evidence that Mr and Mrs Ashe had asked for, or were positively given, express permission by the Bank to remain in the property after the last payment they had made. Therefore the 12 year time limit for bringing a claim for recovery of land under the Limitation Act 1980 had started to run at that stage. The Bank was consequently out of time to bring a claim for possession and the Charge over the property was extinguished.
For more information contact dtear@burrsugden.com.
16/05/2008
Preparing Britain for the Future – The Government’s draft legislative programme
This paper sets out details of proposed government legislation to come. In the foreword Gordon Brown emphasizes his wish that the public get involved in consultation over new laws.
On issues directly related to employment law issues it says that the Government is bringing forward proposals for a right to time off to train, enhanced flexible working, fair treatment of agency workers and welfare reform to enhance skills and get people ready for work.
16/05/2008
Flexible Working
According to newspaper reports, Gordon Brown is planning to extend the right to request flexible working hours to parents of children up to 12 years old (possibly more). Currently parents with children up to 6 (older if disabled) and those who care for elderly relatives have the right.
David Cameron and the Conservatives have already stated that they would extend the right to all parents with children under the age of 18.