Public Authority Liability Update - August 2015

Welcome to the summer edition of the Public Authority Liability Update.

We appreciate that, at this time of year, many of you will be thinking of matters far removed from issues of law and insurance.

However, this has been a particularly busy year in terms of decided cases and legislative developments. For your convenience therefore, we have bundled up the most important developments within this update which we hope you have an opportunity of considering at some point in, hopefully, the quiet month of August.

There is something of a paradox within the judiciary. In the lower courts, the judiciary are increasingly alive to fraudsters. They have also become more robust in upholding our arguments in highways cases. However, in the (higher) appellate courts, the Human Rights Act continues to exercise a controversial influence. Also of note within this update is a Court of Appeal data protection case which significantly increases the risk of compensation being awarded and a failure to clamp down on costs in NIHL claims.

In terms of central government, we have seen helpful legislation insofar as both fraudulent claims and good deeds/heroism are concerned. To counter balance that, the recent cuts announced by the Chancellor are deep and will affect the ability to defend cases generally and the morale of witnesses in particular. We are acutely conscious of the need to support and reassure your witnesses.

Meanwhile, the Jackson reforms have been in operation for over two years. On 13 May 2015, Lord Justice Jackson delivered a paper providing his views on how the new costs regime is working in practice. We have considered in this update how the Court rules may change in the future.

Finally, we would like to thank you for your support this year, all that remains for us to do is wish you a happy and relaxing time for what remains of the summer.

THE SKYLIGHT'S THE LIMIT

Buckett v Staffordshire County Council QBD (13.4.2015)

Facts

The Claimant sustained severe injuries while trespassing on school grounds on a weekend afternoon with a group of other youths.

The group had spent some time climbing on the low roofs of the school and breaking into and stealing from the tuck shop. Finally, in the early evening, the Claimant accessed the upper roofs and climbed over fencing separating a section of flat roof from a pitched roof.

This section had a number of skylights that were raised above the surface and consisted of panes of unstrengthened glass. The Claimant...