DOCSLIB.ORG

Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update 5 October 2020 Edition 314 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Cohabitees of Deceaseds to Qualify Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. for Fatal Accident Bereavement Award from 6 October In this issue, there is a common theme of imminent/anticipated legislative and procedural reform, affecting UK jurisdictions. We report that the list of eligible PAGE 4 applicants for ‘bereavement’ damages will lengthen within days, that new costs management and disclosure requirements are now in effect, that the Ministry of 122nd UPDATE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIONS: Defence (MoD) is getting ever closer to contesting personal injury claims brought Novel Precedent T in Force to Facilitate ‘Variation Costs’, as Expert Witnesses 6-years after the ‘date of knowledge’ and that the recoupment of NHS charges Accede to Risk of Civil Contempt (for treating ‘industrial diseases’) from negligent employers could be off the cards, Proceedings in Rephrased Statement due to lack of incentive. of Truth We also announce the details of two significant claimant firm acquisitions; firstly PAGE 6 of Heptonstalls Solicitors, by HH Legal and secondly of Jigsaw Law, by Slater and Gordon. Proposed Legislation, Which Strengthens the MoD’s Position on Limitation in Military PI Claims, Survives Our final article of this issue examines the existence of a relationship between 2nd Reading in Commons permanent hair dye application and cancer, in lieu of a recently published paper, sourced in the British Medical Journal. We investigate whether or not the Faculty of Advocates Remarks that the supposed risks faced by personal users and workers are valid. Scottish Bill, Devised to Recover the NHS’ Costs of Treating Industrial Disease Any comments or feedback can be sent to Boris Cetnik or Charlotte Owen. Victims, Lacks ‘Incentivising Effect’ As always, warmest regards to all. PAGE 8 Sold Out of Administration, Heptonstalls Solicitors is Pipped to Penetrate List of SUBJECTS ‘Top 200 Law Firms’ Bereavement Damages and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 – New Precedent T and Slater and Gordon Acquires PI New Expert Witness Statement of Truth – Limiting Section 33 Discretion Through Specialist, Jigsaw Law, for Undisclosed Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill – Faculty of Advocates’ Opinions Fee on Liability for NHS Charges (Treatment of Industrial Disease) Scotland Bill – HH Legal Acquires Heptonstalls Solicitors – Slater and Gordon Acquires Jigsaw Law – PAGE 9 BOHS Responds to Silica Report Commissioned by All Party Parliamentary Group BOHS Calls for Swifter Reaction to on Respiratory Health – MAGS Report on Healthcare Workers with Mesothelioma Report Which Dubbed Silica ‘The Next – Permanent Hair Dye Use and Cancer. Asbestos’ PAGE 10 Mesothelioma UK Study on Healthcare Workers Affected by Mesothelioma Sparks Broader Discussion on Asbestos Exposure Risks in Publicly Owned Buildings PAGE 12 Solidifying Tenuous Links Between Repeated Hair Dye Exposure and Cancer – What are the Personal and Professional Risks? P AGE | 2 Cohabitees of Deceaseds to Qualify for Fatal Accident Bereavement Award from 6 October Tomorrow, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2020 will enter into force. Back in May of last year (here), we reported that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had published A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The purpose of the draft Remedial Order, contained within the proposal, was to adjust the restrictive wording of s.1A(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which Sir Terence Etherton MR had deemed, in the case of Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (Rev 2) [2017] EWCA Civ 1916, to be incompatible with Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in accordance with s.4 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. The claimant, in Smith, was a cohabitee of the deceased and could not be defined as an eligible applicant for bereavement damages, under the existing s.1A(2) list. As such, the new statutory instrument was prepared to broaden s.1A(2) and enable ‘a claimant who cohabited with the deceased person for a period of at least two years immediately prior to the death’ to bring a claim for damages for ‘bereavement’. It was also foreseen that multiple cohabitants could qualify and under these circumstances, the award would be divided equally. N.B. The fixed compensatory sum for bereavement was increased to £15,120 for claims with a cause of action (i.e. date of death) accruing on or after 1 May 2020, by implementation of The Damages for Bereavement (Variation of Sum) (England and Wales) Order 2020 – we notified our readers of this in edition 306 of BC Disease News (here). For claims with pre-dating causes of action, the sum remains at £12,980. PAGE | 3 Of course, the fact that a definitive date of nd enforcement has now been officially set 122 UPDATE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIONS: Novel means that a wider review of the Precedent T in Force to Facilitate ‘Variation Costs’, ‘bereavement’ damages regime, which had been encouraged by the Joint as Expert Witnesses Accede to Risk of Civil Committee on Human Rights (in their 1st report and 2nd report, dated May 2019 and Contempt Proceedings in Rephrased Statement of May 2020, respectively), is not on the cards. Such reform would require primary Truth legislation. Since 1 October 2020, The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020 have been Thus, from 6 October, the incompatibility enforced and with them, the new costs budgeting Precedent T. issue looming over the 1976 Act should be resolved and this is ultimately expected to Section 4 of the Statutory Instrument introduces a new CPR 3.15A: ‘Revision and variation of have a ‘small’ financial impact on paying costs budgets on account of significant developments (“variation costs”)’. parties. What is unclear, moving forwards, is whether the Government was right to declare that ‘the existing provisions on bereavement damages are discriminatory’, not least because they were ‘only ever intended to … [allow] … a token payment payable to a limited group of people’, or whether the Joint Committee was correct to warn that without extended reform, s.1A is ‘still vulnerable to human rights challenges’, e.g. from: • Cohabitees who were in a permanent’ and ‘loyal’ relationship lasting less than 2- years; • Non-cohabiting partners, who planned not to cohabit until they were married; • Cohabitees stricken by the grievance of divorce; • Fathers grieving the loss of children born outside of wedlock; • Parents grieving the loss of adult or married children; • Children grieving the loss of a parent; and • Siblings grieving the loss of a brother or sister. CPR 3.15A revises the old procedure covering updates to Precedent H costs budgets, in instances where there are ‘significant developments’ during the course of litigation. The former position on budget variation had been informed by the ruling of Chief Master Marsh, in the case of Sharp v Blank & Ors [2017] EWHC 3390 (Ch) and was articulated through an expired iteration of the Costs Management Practice Direction (PD) 3E, though precedent was known to have been inconsistently practiced:1 PAGE | 4 Having scrapped para 7.6, it is now mandatory and proper procedure to use Precedent T, in the event that ‘variation costs’ are accrued. This is made clear by CPR 3.15A and updated PD 3E wording (pasted from the Schedule to the 122nd Practice Direction Update): In 2019, the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) surveyed practitioners and found that 24% of respondents claimed to always stick to their budgets, while 21% admitted to always exceeding what is budgeted and 45% sometimes exceed budgeted costs. Meanwhile, 19% of costs lawyers have never seen an application to revise a budget.2 These statistics may dramatically change moving forwards, with ACL Chair, Claire Green, conceding that courts will almost certainly look less favourably on parties that go over budget without attempting to adhere to the reworded Rules and Practice Direction. Urging solicitors to ‘act conservatively at this stage and not take any risks’, Ms. Green highlighted that a series of court rulings will be necessary to define, for example, ‘significant developments’ and ‘promptly’, in the context of CPR 3.15A. Nonetheless, speaking at the Costs Law Reports Conference last month, Queen’s Bench Master Victoria McCloud gave some indication as to what these undefined terms might imply. The Master cautioned that ‘prompt’ would foreseeably be interpreted ‘strictly’ and without much room for excuse, while ‘significant developments’ would probably comprehend a scenario wherein a party only envisages exceeding their budget by a small amount. What is more, she signalled that courts would take an ‘unsympathetic’ view of a party approaching the court for a revision without first entering into discussions with their opponent. Transitioning from costs to expert witnesses, we now move on to discuss another important change comprised in the 122nd Practice Direction Update. The judiciary’s intensifying focus on claims fraud and dishonesty over the past couple of years has only served to bolster the reputation of civil contempt proceedings. As a consequence, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chancellor have consented to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee’s (CPRC) modification of PD 35 para 3.3, so that experts are now (since 1 October) forced to produce more extensive signed statements of truth that recognise the risk of contempt applications being made against them, should applicants accuse them of having been dishonest. PAGE | 5 Earlier this year, barrister and commentator, Gordon Exall, forewarned the significance of this extended expert declaration: ‘There is nothing to prevent a party from adopting this wording now. Most reports served at this time, in most civil proceedings, will not reach court until after October 1st.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discussion Paper on Damages for Wrongful Death
    Discussion Paper on Damages for Wrongful Death August 2007 DISCUSSION PAPER No 135 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission. EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £18.00 NOTES 1. In accordance with our Publication Scheme, please note that (i) responses to this paper will be made available to third parties on request in paper form once the responses have been considered at a Commission meeting unless a respondent has asked for a response to be treated as confidential or the Commission considers that a response should be treated as confidential; (ii) subject to the following, any summary of responses to this paper will be made available to third parties on request in paper form once it has been considered at a Commission meeting: any summary will not be made available in relation to projects where the subject matter is considered by Commissioners to be of a sensitive nature; any summary being made available will not include reference to any response where either the respondent has asked for the response to be treated as confidential or the Commission considers that the response should be treated as confidential. Any request for information which is not available under the Commission’s Publication Scheme will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. 2. Please note that some or all responses to this paper and the names of those who submitted them may be referred to and/or quoted in the final report following from this consultation or in other Commission publications and the names of all respondents to this paper will be listed in the relative final report unless the respondent specifically asks that, or the Commission considers that, the response or name, or any part of the response, should be treated as confidential.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 805 Thursday No. 101 3 September 2020 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions Aid Impact .....................................................................................................................437 Tree Planting ..................................................................................................................441 Folic Acid.......................................................................................................................444 Covid-19: Local Restrictions ..........................................................................................447 Covid-19 Statement........................................................................................................................451 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................466 Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................488 Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................502 Channel Crossings in Small Boats Commons Urgent Question..............................................................................................515
    [Show full text]
  • Part I Introduction
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is the seventh consultation paper in our “examination of the principles governing and the effectiveness of the present remedy of damages for monetary and non-monetary loss, with particular regard to personal injury litigation”.1 The current Fatal Accidents Act reached the statute book in 1976 and was substantially amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which introduced a number of reforms based on the recommendations of the Law Commission2 and of the Pearson Commission.3 We were keen to consider once more damages for wrongful death because aspects of the present law remain controversial and difficult. For example, there is continuing controversy over damages for bereavement, which were made available for the first time in 1982.4 Other reforms introduced in 1982 have, in some respects, had more far-reaching effects than appear to have been intended.5 And there is continuing dissatisfaction over the statutory list of dependants, which many see as too restrictive.6 In addition to these areas of concern, this paper presents us with the opportunity to examine coherently and in depth an area of law which has developed in a piecemeal fashion with a view to eradicating any anomalies and inconsistencies that have been created. 1.2 In addition to a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, an action can often be brought against the defendant by the personal representatives of the deceased for the benefit of the estate of the deceased under section 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Unlike the Fatal Accidents Act, the right of action of the estate is a survival of the action that the deceased would have had against the wrongdoer, and the action therefore survives irrespective of whether the death was caused by the wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Limitation Act 1980. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) DISCLAIMER: As Member States provide national legislations, hyperlinks and explanatory notes (if any), UNESCO does not guarantee their accuracy, nor their up-dating on this web site, and is not liable for any incorrect information. COPYRIGHT: All rights reserved.This information may be used only for research, educational, legal and non- commercial purposes, with acknowledgement of UNESCO Cultural Heritage Laws Database as the source (© UNESCO). Limitation Act 1980 1980 CHAPTER 58 An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. [13th November 1980] Annotations: Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by Water Act 1981 (c. 12, SIF 130), s. 6(4) C2 Act amended (1.5.1994) by Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43, SIF 46:4), s. 73(9)(c); S.I. 1994/1096, art.2(1) Act amended (31.1.1997) by 1996 c. 23, s. 14(1) (with s. 81(2)); S.I. 1996/3146, art. 3 C3 Act modified (E.W.) (1.12.1991) by Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56, SIF 130), ss. 209(4), 223(2) (with ss. 82(3), 186(1), 222(1), Sch. 14 para. 6) Act applied with modifications by Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57, SIF 130), s. 208(4)(with ss. 16(6), 179, 222(3), 224(1), 225(4), Sch.
    [Show full text]
  • CLAIMS for WRONGFUL DEATH Item 1 of the Seventh Programme of Law Reform: Damages
    The Law Commission (LAW COM No 263) CLAIMS FOR WRONGFUL DEATH Item 1 of the Seventh Programme of Law Reform: Damages November 1999 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. When the terms of this report were agreed on 8 September 1999, Professor Andrew Burrows was also a Commissioner. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.open.gov.uk/lawcomm/ ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When a person is killed through the fault of another, particular persons (for example, members of the deceased’s immediate family) are able to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 for losses which they suffer as a result of the death. This report (with accompanying Draft Bill) recommends reform to the availability of compensation in such cases. A key aim of our recommendations is to modernise the existing legislation, so as to bring this area of the law into line with the values of modern society. We also seek to render the law fairer and more certain than it is at present. The present law arbitrarily excludes from an entitlement to claim compensation for financial loss some people who were financially dependent on the deceased. Our proposed reform would remove that anomaly by adding a generally worded class of claimant to the present fixed list.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposal for a Remedial Order to Amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976
    A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 May 2019 A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 Presented to Parliament pursuant to paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 May 2019 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Civil Law Policy Team Civil Justice and Law Division, Post Point 10.18 Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-1261-6 CCS0419122256 05/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 Contents Background to the proposed Remedial Order 3 Draft of the proposed Remedial Order 6 Explanatory memorandum to the proposed Remedial Order 8 1 A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2 A proposal for a Remedial Order to amend the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 Background to the proposed Remedial Order Introduction This paper presents a draft of a proposed Remedial Order to amend section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA) to allow an award of bereavement damages to a new category of claimant.
    [Show full text]
  • A Draft Bill
    Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill December 2009 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty December 2009 Cm 7773 £9.50 © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please contact the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected]. ISBN: 9780101777322 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002338531 12/09 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Contents Foreword 3 Introduction 4 Civil Law Reform Bill 7 Explanatory Notes 23 1 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill 2 Civil Law Reform A Draft Bill Foreword The civil law affects us all in many different ways every day of our lives and continues to affect our property even after we are dead. It is important that it is kept up to date and that it is as simple and fair as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • [Vol. 50, No. 3] 318 a HISTORY of the FATAL ACCIDENT ACTS
    318 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly [Vol. 50, No. 3] A HISTORY OF THE FATAL ACCIDENT ACTS Richard Kidner, Professor of Law, University of Wales, Aberystwyth. It is often said that the introduction of the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 was one of the great law reforming measures of the last century but it will be suggested that the proposers of the Act were confused in their objectives and that a century and a half later there are still problems with how to compensate for death.1 Commonly known as Lord Campbell’s Act, the original Bill in 1845 was not even introduced by him but by Lord Lyttleton, while Lord Campbell dealt with the related issue of deodands. Furthermore it was not until a late stage in the Bill’s progress that it was amended to provide compensation to the relatives of the deceased, a point now regarded as the essence of the provision. Subsequently the Act was amended no less than seven times, and over the years the pressure for liberalising the law has been constant. The purpose of this article is to show that the proposals were not fully thought through at the time and that the complexities of compensation for fatal accidents were not properly understood and it is hoped to link the initial failure with problems that became apparent later. This will involve a study of the origins and purposes of the original Act together with its early interpretation. However before looking at the Act itself it is necessary first to explain two legal issues which prompted the reform of 1846.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Limitation Act 1980 CHAPTER 58 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I ORDINARY TIME LIMITS FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ACTION Time limits under Part I subject to extension or exclusion under Part II Section 1. Time limits under Part I subject to extension or exclusion under Part II. Actions founded on tort 2. Time limit for actions founded on tort. 3. Time limit in case of successive conversions and extinction of title of owner of converted goods. 4. Special time limit in case of theft. Actions founded on simple contract 5. Time limit for actions founded on simple contract. 6. Special time limit for actions in respect of certain loans. 7. Time limit for actions to enforce certain awards. General rule for actions on a specialty 8. Time limit for actions on a specialty. Actions for sums recoverable by statute 9. Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute. 10. Special time limit for claiming contribution. A ii c.58 Limitation Act 1980 Section Actions in respect of wrongs causing personal injuries or death 11. Special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries. 12. Special time limit for actions under Fatal Accidents legislation. 13. Operation of time limit under section 12 in relation to different dependants. 14. Definition of date of knowledge for purposes of sections 11 and 12. Actions to recover land and rent 15. Time limit for actions to recover land. 16. Time limit for redemption actions. 17. Extinction of title to land after expiration of time limit. 18. Settled land and land held on trust. 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Project No 66
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Project No 66 Fatal Accidents WORKING PAPER FEBRUARY 1978 The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia was established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1972. The Commissioners are - Mr. N.H. Crago, Chairman Mr. E.G. Freeman Mr. D.K. Malcolm. The Executive Officer of the Commission is Mr. C.W. Ogilvie, and the Commission's offices are on the 16th floor, City Centre Tower, 44 St. George's Terrace, Perth, Western Australia, 6000. Telephone: 3256022. CONTENTS Paragraph PREFACE CHAPTER 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.1 CHAPTER 2 - OUTLINE OF THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT 2.1 History of Act 2.1 Scope of Act 2.4 Calculation of damages 2.9 Class of claimants 2.14 CHAPTER 3 - OTHER LEGISLATION 3.1 THE LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1941 3.3 WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT 1912-1976 3.6 SOCIAL SERVICES ACT 1947 (CWTH) 3.12 CRIMINAL INJURIES (COMPENSATION) ACT 1970-1976 3.15 INTERACTION OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS 3.16 POSSIBLE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE LAW 3.19 Should the Fatal Accidents Act be repealed? 3.19 National Compensation Bill 3.25 CHAPTER 4 - THE LAW ELSEWHERE 4.1 Lineal relatives 4.3 Collateral relatives 4.4 Divorced spouse 4.5 De facto husband or wife 4.6 In loco parentis 4.7 Relatives by marriage 4.8 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION: CLASS OF CLAIMANTS 5.1 THE RATIONALE OF FATAL ACCIDENTS LEGISLATION 5.1 Possible extensions 5.5 CHANGING THE RATIONALE 5.13 (a) Commercial relationships 5.19 (b) Socially undesirable relationships 5.23 EXTENSION BY ADDING TO PRESCRIBED CLASS 5.24 Divorced spouse 5.27 De facto husband or wife 5.28 In loco parentis 5.35 Working Paper on Fatal Accidents / 37 Collateral relatives such as brother and sister 5.39 Collateral half blood relatives and relationships deduced through them 5.43 Relatives by marriage, and not by blood 5.46 Other relationships: great-grandson and great-grandfather 5.47 OTHER MATTERS 5.48 Posthumous children 5.48 Illegitimate children 5.49 Prospect of surviving spouse's remarriage 5.50 CHAPTER 6 - DISCUSSION: SOLATIUM 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2020
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT 1976 (REMEDIAL) ORDER 2020 2020 No. [XXXX] 1. Introduction 1.1 This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 1.2 This memorandum contains information for the Joint Committee on Human Rights. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 To implement the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Jacqueline Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust; and the Secretary of State for Justice ([2017] EWCA Civ 1916) by amending the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA) to provide for claimants who have lived with the deceased person for at least two years immediately prior to the death to be eligible for an award of bereavement damages. 3. Matters of special interest to Parliament Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3.1 This Remedial Order is laid pursuant to the power in section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Matters relevant to Standing Orders Nos. 83P and 83T of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Public Business (English Votes for English Laws) 3.2 This entire instrument applies to England and Wales only. 3.3 The instrument does not have any minor or consequential effects outside England and Wales. 3.4 In the view of the Department, for the purposes of Standing Order No. 83P of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Public Business, the subject- matter of this entire instrument would be within the devolved legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if equivalent provision in relation to Northern Ireland were included in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly as a transferred matter and the Scottish Parliament if equivalent provision in relation to Scotland were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • LSM Exam Report 2019
    Examiners’ reports 2019 Examiners’ reports 2019 LA1031 Legal system and method – Zone B Introduction The question paper followed the same format as in 2018 and was split into three parts. Part A was a series of short questions on the seen case, Part B was a choice of two essays from six and Part C was a problem question to be answered with reference to a seen statute, which was also provided in the examination. Comments on specific questions PART A Candidates must answer these COMPULSORY questions about the seen case Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193. General remarks on Part A The Swift case was identified as the case to be studied in preparation for Part A in November 2018. Candidates intending to sit the May/June examination were required to submit a case note by 13 March 2018 and, ideally, this case note would have been used as a revision aid in preparation for the examination. Part A of the examination focuses solely on the text of the case of Swift and candidates should not have referred to any material other than Swift in answering the questions in Part A. An indicative answer to each of the questions in Part A and an excellent answer would have included almost all of this detail. Common errors The inability to formulate the ratio of the case was the most common error; given that this is an element of the case note it must be assumed that most candidates did not prepare this part well when writing their case note.
    [Show full text]