Search results

March 16, 1970 Negligence — Duty of care — Damage to electric cable by workmen building wall on road — Resulting power failure in near‐by factory — Damage to plant and machinery and loss of day's production in factory — Claim for damages by factory owner — Whether damage too remote — Liability of defendant — Whether actionable nuisance.

July 26, 1966 Restraint of trade — Master and Servant — Pension fund — Employees required to join pension fund — Provision that if employee engaged in “activity or occupation… in competition with or detrimental to… interests” of employers committee entitled to cancel rights and benefits — Whether provisions of fund part of terms and conditions of employment of salesman — Whether a covenant in restraint of trade — Whether unreasonable.

July 28, 1971 Mines and quarries — Act of 1954 — Duty to set holing supports — Whether applicable to prop free face cut by shearer machine — Common law duty of care — Technical mining knowledge and experience — Relevant date for considering — Whether at date of accident — Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz. II, c.70), s.81(l) — Coal and Other Mines (Support… Regulations), 1956 (S.I.1956 No. 1763), reg. 10(1)

March 26, 1969 Damages — Personal Injuries — Quantum — Epilepsy — Epileptic subject — Almost 50/50 chance of recurring attacks — Appropriate sum — Agreed medical reports — Desirability of calling medical witnesses to assist court

May 26, 1971. Limitation of action — Asbestosis — Workmen contracting progressive and insidious disease over number of years due to employers' breaches of statutory duty — Actions commenced pursuant to leave in extended time — Whether workmen entitled to bring action outside satisfactory three‐year period — Limitation Act c.47, 1963, ss. 1 and 7.

Explores judicial attitudes in professional negligence cases affecting liability for property investment advice. Focuses on the standard of work required to discharge the legal duty of care and on apparent contradictions in approach by the courts. Reviews a series of cases which are taken to exhibit traditional attitudes to professional liability and studies modern cases which are irreconcilable with those attitudes. Includes liability to third party mortgagors and to third party mortgagees in an analysis of the duty of care, and considers the implications of the perceived expansion of the advisor′s professional duties, which include potential conflicts of interest and the dichotomy between the standards current among professionally qualified and unqualified practitioners. Suggests that judicial attitudes are influential in shaping the practice of property investment advice, but that this intervention is fraught with difficulties as it creates uncertainty among professional advisors about the nature of the tasks undertaken.

The doctrine of illegality in the law of contract generally is complex. Furthermore, a great deal of it is not directly relevant to employment law. Any discussion on the doctrine of illegality in the law of contract generally would therefore be irrelevant in a work treating solely illegality of the contract of employment. Cases concerning aspects of illegality relating to contracts of employment have at times come before industrial tribunals and the courts. It is therefore proposed to limit the discussion to those aspects which concern solely contracts of employment. For a reader reading on the subject the reader is referred to the standard textbooks.

The Plaintiff, a self‐employed sales agent, was engaged on 21st November, 1980 by the Defendant, a financial services company selling life assurance and pension policies. The terms of his engagement were contained in two successive contracts of which the latter provided, inter alia, (1) that he should be an independent contractor remunerated by commission payable on premiums generated by business introduced by him; (2) that the relationship between the two parties was that of agent and principal and (3) that that agency was an exclusive one ie the plaintiff was not entitled to act as agent for any other principal. In addition, Clause 10(g) of that contract provided as follows:

December 13, 1973 Master and Servant — Negligence — Manual lifting operation — Load caught on obstruction increasing effective weight — Two men sharing load near safe limit — Whether foreseeable risk that one man would receive a disproportionate share of load — Meaning of maximum safe load.

June 28, 1972 Limitation of action — Asbestosis — Workman contracting insidious disease over number of years through employers' breach of statutory duty — Action commenced more than one year after giving up work — Lack of knowledge that disease attributable to breach of duty — Whether workman entitled to bring action outside period — Limitation Act 1963 (c.47) ss. 1(3), 7(3).