Contributor Page
Kennedys Law
Email  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +44 20 7667 9667
Fax: +44 20 7667 9777
25 Fenchurch Avenue
By Simon Balls, Partner, Tony Moran, Chartered Legal Executive, Sam Mason, Senior Associate
The Court of Appeal considered the availability of compensation for flight delays in circumstances where a passenger booked connecting flights with a non-community carrier, departing from an EU airport...
By Jillian Raw
Cloud computing will continue to rapidly evolve, creating new capabilities and new opportunities.
By Radd Seiger, Partner
Kennedys and its client Carillion scored a major success recently at Sheffield County Court against a claimant represented by Irwin Mitchell.
By Roger Jones, Partner
Mr Ul-Haq and Mrs Parveen were involved in a genuine accident when the Defendant, Mrs Shah drove into the rear of their stationary car at traffic lights. They claimed for minor whiplash injuries.
By Mark Burton, Partner
Kennedys has recently settled a claim by a Polish citizen for a fraction of the amount claimed by raising arguments in relation to the assessment of loss of a chance and making use of our network of international offices to gather relevant evidence.
By Richard West, Partner
The Bill has been launched as a Private Bill by Labour MP, Andrew Dismore. Mr Dismore has said "There are only two types of insurance which are legally compulsory: for cars and for employers."
By Kathy Dwyer, Partner, Leanne King, Solicitor
A lawyer from Kennedys’ Liability Division was present when the Court of Appeal gave judgment this morning in the appeals of “Copley v Lawn” and “Maden v Haller”. The key issue in dispute was mitigation of loss in credit hire claims.
This article begins a journey, one that begins to look at the concept of innovation in the field of providing legal services. The field that I explore is that in which the liability lawyer is camped. The article poses some questions for debate. I offer no single answer but hope, reader that you will be patient and understand why that is the case.
By Mark Dickson, Partner
When might a defence based on the ex turpi or illegality principle be successful in a tort case? The ex turpi rule (or ex turpi causa non oritor actio, to give the principle its full name) is that no legal action based on illegality can succeed
By Roger Jones, Partner, Scott Nightingale
The House of Lords handed down judgment on 2 July 2008 in the Scottish case of “Spencer- Franks –v- Kellogg Brown and Root Limited and Others (2008) UKHL 46”, which heralds a change of interpretation in how the Courts should look at whether an employer has breached the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations [“PUWER”] 1998, which replaced the previous PUWER 1992 regulations.
Claimants who exaggerate their claims risk serious punishment.
Anxiety claims under the 1997 Act may drop following a recent Court of Appeal decision.
By Andrew Caplan, Partner, Rachel Moore, Partner
The House of Lords has overturned its own previous decision in the case of Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498 in which the House had unanimously decided that s11 of the Limitation Act 1980 did not apply to acts of deliberate assault (including acts of indecent assault), and allowed the appeals in the cases of A v Hoare, X and Another v Wandsworth London Borough Council, C v Middlesborough Council, H v Suffolk County Council, Young v Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and Another.
By Joanne Kelly, Solicitor
The Court of Appeal Judgment in the case of Allison v London Underground Limited, concerning the construction of Regulations 4 and 9 of the Provision & Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 ("PUWER") was handed down on 13th February 2008.
By Rachel Moore, Partner, Katrina Rea
Following the case of “Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes [2007] EWCA Civ 1203”, reported in our February edition of Liability News, practitioners were concerned that if Defendants wished to rely on a limitation defence then, in accordance with CPR Part 11; notification should be given on the Acknowledgement of Service Form confirming that the Defendant was disputing the Court’s jurisdiction and an application had to be made within 14 days.