Post-1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of health and safety statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. Practitioners must therefore bring claims in negligence. The relevant statutory provisions may nevertheless inform the standard of care expected in workplace settings and can be cited in statements of case as outlining the procedures for identifying and assessing risk and implementing measures in light of those assessments. Claims should be based in negligence relying on breach of a regulation as evidence of the negligence. The claimant will (usually) need to prove that the defendant failed to take all steps reasonably practicable to comply with the regulation. Defendant practitioners should be alive to this and any opportunities to argue that the defendant took all reasonable care. In order to establish negligence the claimant will need to prove that: • the harm was foreseeable,

This Practice Note examines liability for accidents in schools, discussing case law that illustrates the factors that may distinguish a successful claim against a school or its owners from an unsuccessful claim. These factors include duty of care, vicarious liability, contributory negligence, foreseeable consequences, causation and proximity, the age, disposition and mental capacity of the child, the level of supervision expected in a school and the extent to which the child was at the material time under the care or control of the school. Accidents happen in schools Children are often injured without any fault on the part of any person. They are by definition young and inexperienced. Equally, they cannot expect to go through life without taking any risks and when they do take a risk, often (through inexperience of life) unknowingly or underestimating the level of risk, sometimes they will be injured. Accidents do happen and 'not every misfortune occurring on school premises attracts compensation', according to the Court of Appeal in Richards v Bromley London Borough. The law reports are

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: E-scooters have become a very popular mode of transportation. No one is sure of the exact number of privately owned e-scooters in the UK, but estimates are in the range of 750,000 to over a million. With the exception of repeated extensions of the rental schemes, however, little has happened to bring about their safe integration onto the road network. That may be about to change. Written by Michael McCabe & Caroline Hall at DAC Beachcroft.

Aside from motor vehicles, there are many other types of users of the highway, including: • motorcyclists • cyclists • e-bikes • e-scooters • emergency vehicles • learner drivers Each user of the highway is under a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to ensure they do not injure their neighbour. Consideration of the leading cases for each category of road user, together with the Highway Code rules, provide practitioners with the general approach taken by courts when assessing the relative culpability of the parties involved in road traffic accidents. It is worth noting that motorcycles and cyclists are much more likely to overtake and to filter past stationary traffic than cars. Cyclists and motorcyclists are also at a greater risk of injury in a collision than car drivers and therefore hold a more elevated position in the ‘hierarchy of road users’ that has been included in the introductory sections to the Highway Code since January 2022. Motorcyclists Motorcycles can accelerate much

Types of accidents A personal injury claimant who has been injured in an accident on a highway may claim that the maintenance, or the lack of it, of the highway itself was the cause of the accident. The types of accidents that may occur in this context include: • pedestrians tripping over uneven or broken paving stones • pedestrians falling into trenches or other works on the highway that are not sectioned off • cyclists being thrown off their bicycle when going into a pothole or other defect • motor vehicles losing control, or pedestrians slipping, on ice or snow This Practice Note focuses on accidents on the highway which are caused by a defect resulting from a failure to maintain the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980). In such cases, practitioners will need to consider the following: • did the accident occur on a public highway? This will depend on whether the highway was ‘a highway maintainable at public expense’ under HiA 1980, s 36 • did

Personal Injury analysis: An incident in which a claimant’s fall and subsequent injury, giving rise to chronic disability, took place on 1 October 2013—the day in which section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. Dominic De Saulles, senior lecturer at the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University, says that the case is important because it contains the first High Court guidance on the interpretation of ERRA 2013, s 69.

This Practice Note provides local authorities with best practice guidance on accommodating children pursuant to a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). It covers the requirements of the section 20 arrangement and the need to avoid drift and delay in making decisions about the child’s long-term care. It also discusses whether claims for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) on the basis of a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are sustainable. Note the information in this Practice Note relates to the law in England. The law in Wales in this area is covered by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and the related statutory instruments. For further reading on the position in Wales, see Practice Note: Local authority powers and duties to provide accommodation for children in Wales. Parental Consent is not a requirement for accommodation under section 20 In the final chapter of the trilogy of London Borough of Hackney v Williams, the

Cases which distinguish leases from licences are very fact sensitive. However, the usual starting point is the issue of ‘exclusive possession’. This is the legal right to exclude all others from the land. It is the hallmark of a tenancy, and, by contrast, a licensee does not have this right. Where the arrangement between the parties is contained in a written agreement, the focus will be on the true construction of the agreement; albeit properly construed in the light of the surrounding factual matrix. Do the terms give rise to the grant of exclusive possession? More particularly, if the terms of an agreement grant: (i) exclusive possession; (ii) for a term; and, (iii) at a rent, to someone then, in the

An accompanying relative is a family member who is permitted to travel to, enter or remain in a jurisdiction alongside a primary migrant or applicant, such as a worker, student, refugee or patient. In UK and Irish immigration law, the concept appears mainly in rules and policies on “dependants” or “family members”, rather than as a stand‑alone defined term, and may include a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner, child or, in limited schemes, other close relatives.The status and rights of an accompanying relative depend on the underlying route (for example, Skilled Worker, International Protection, EU Settlement Scheme, or Irish employment permits) and the specific statutory instruments, Immigration Rules, Home Office/UKVI guidance, or Irish immigration policy governing that route. Typical issues include eligibility criteria, evidence of relationship, financial requirements, rights to work or study, and consequences if the primary migrant’s status ends.Usage is broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though the detailed categories and conditions are jurisdiction‑specific. Practitioners should check the applicable legislation, rules and guidance for the particular visa, protection claim or cross‑border movement being advised on.

An accomplice is a person who intentionally helps or encourages another to commit a criminal offence, for example by providing information, tools, transport or acting as lookout. In legal practice, the concept underpins liability for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence.In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the modern law of complicity is primarily governed by statute (notably the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 and Serious Crime Act 2007) and case law on secondary participation. The term “accomplice” itself is more descriptive than technical, but is often used in judicial directions (for example on the need for caution in treating accomplice evidence).In Scotland, similar principles apply under the common law of “art and part” guilt, although the terminology differs. In Ireland, the Criminal Law Act 1997 and related case law recognise liability for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, with “accomplice” again used mainly as a descriptive label.Across all four jurisdictions, an accomplice must generally have knowledge of the essential circumstances of the offence and an intention to assist or encourage, making the concept central to prosecuting group crime and assessing the reliability of co‑accused evidence.

An accomplice witness is a person who participated in, or is implicated in, the offence and gives evidence against others, usually for the prosecution. They may testify after pleading guilty, under immunity, or pursuant to an assisting offender or leniency agreement (often called a supergrass arrangement). The term is descriptive rather than statutory; treatment is shaped by case law.In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, accomplice evidence is admissible and a conviction may lawfully rest on it. There is no mandatory corroboration rule; the trial judge gives a discretionary warning where appropriate about the dangers of relying on such evidence, especially where benefits or inducements exist.In Scotland, an accomplice (socius criminis) is a competent witness, but the general corroboration requirement applies: crucial facts must be proved from more than one source. Judges commonly direct the jury to take particular care with accomplice testimony.In Ireland, accomplice evidence is likewise admissible. Judges typically warn the jury to scrutinise uncorroborated accomplice testimony with care, though a conviction can in law be based on it.Practically, credibility, corroboration, disclosure of any undertakings, and tailored jury directions are central.

Accord and satisfaction describes the process by which parties resolve an existing contractual or other civil dispute by agreeing a new obligation (the accord) and then performing it (the satisfaction), thereby discharging the original claim. In practice, it commonly arises in debt claims, settlement of damages, and commercial disputes where a lesser sum or different performance is accepted in full and final settlement.In England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, it is a common law concept developed through case law rather than detailed legislation, and is closely linked to the doctrines of contract formation, consideration (or, in Scotland, cause/consent), and waiver.Key features are: (i) a genuine dispute or uncertainty as to liability or amount; (ii) a clear agreement that the new performance will settle the existing claim; and (iii) actual performance of that new obligation. Until satisfaction occurs, the original claim is not fully extinguished.Accord and satisfaction is frequently considered alongside part‑payment of debt, settlement agreements, releases, and compromise of litigation, and is relevant to drafting “full and final settlement” clauses and assessing whether a creditor can pursue any balance after accepting alternative performance.