The starting point for considering a claim for personal injury arising out of a dog attack is the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971). AA 1971, s 2(2) provides that a keeper of a non-dangerous animal (which, for the purposes of AA 1971, is what a domestic dog would be) is strictly liable for damage caused by it if: • the damage is of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused by the animal, was likely to be severe • the likelihood of the damage or of its being severe was due to characteristics of the animal which are not normally found in animals of the same species or are not normally so found except at particular times or in particular circumstances, and • those characteristics were known to that keeper or were at any time known to

Section 14 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 (RRA 1842) provides a power for railway companies to enter upon adjoining lands to repair accidents or slips which have happened or are apprehended, to any cutting, embankment or other work belonging to them, and to do such works as may be necessary for the purpose. The works must be as little injurious to the adjoining lands as the nature of the accident or apprehended accident will admit of, and shall be executed as quickly as possible with full compensation being paid. To prevent an accident or a slippage the railway company must first obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter

The crux of the question is whether a term of forfeiture for nonpayment of rent may be implied. It is implicit within the question as a whole that one is concerned with both oral and written leases since the question draws a distinction between the two scenarios. The landlord is entitled to forfeit the tenancy for breach of condition notwithstanding there may be no express proviso for re-entry or forfeiture clause; see: Kehinde Akintola Abidogun-v-Frolan Health Care Ltd. A condition should be contrasted to covenants or other stipulations. The term ‘condition’ signifies some quality annexed to an estate by virtue of which it may be

Allegations of contributory negligence are frequently raised as a riposte to tripping claims. For these purposes, there is no important distinction between claims that occur in a private car park or elsewhere. Indeed, it is respectfully suggested that it would be incorrect to focus (at least in a general way) on the location of a tripping accident for the purposes of considering contributory negligence: the focus should be on the conduct of the claimant and whether that can properly be considered to be blameworthy. It is possible, however, that where a

We assume that the person injured by the employee is bringing a personal injury claim. We have been unable to find any case law on the specific point raised in this Q&A, however, you may find the following information useful. For guidance on an employer’s vicarious liability for deliberate acts by an employee, see Practice Note: Vicarious liability for deliberate or criminal acts. Case law involving an employee physically assaulting a customer or member of the public In the case of Fennelly v Connex, a ticket inspector assaulted a customer following an argument relating to the customer’s refusal to show his ticket. Although the High Court ascertained that by assaulting the customer, the ticket inspector was acting outside of the course of his employment, the Court of Appeal held that this was incorrect.

As discussed in the article ‘Globalisation of the European loan markets: interpretative challenges and pitfalls’: (2017) 3 JIBFL 143 at [145]: ‘All or substantially all: Regularly referred to in the context of asset disposals and mandatory prepayment provisions, there is no English reported case-law on the meaning of “all or substantially all”. Its meaning will depend on the usual rules of English law construction of contracts. There is commentary to suggest that the key interpretative criterion is the value of the assets to the company; but other criteria, for example, whether it refers to the number of assets of a company as a whole, may be equally valid. Most English law practitioners take the view that this phrase means everything other

Where an individual is adjudged bankrupt, it is possible for their bankruptcy to be annulled on one of three grounds: • if it appears to the court that, on any grounds existing when the bankruptcy order was made, the order ought not to have been made (section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)) • if it appears to the court that, to the extent required by the rules, the bankruptcy debts and the expenses of the bankruptcy have all, since the making of the bankruptcy order, been either paid or secured to the satisfaction of the court (IA 1986, s 282(1)(b)) • where an undischarged bankrupt enters into an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) with their creditors (IA 1986,

A claim for loss of services is no different in principle to a claim for a loss of chance of increased income dependency based on the deceased’s likely promotion prospects. It is very well-established that such claims are legitimate and can be recovered under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. In terms of authority, a clear example of recovery for loss of services that were not provided by the deceased at the date of their death but which would have been in the future is the case of Carol Devoy (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Alexander Devoy

Private investigators are subject to the same requirements as to unlawful behaviour (criminal or civil) as any other individual or organisation. In Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi, Rix J (as he then was) noted that: ‘It seems to me that if investigative agents employed by solicitors for the purpose of litigation were permitted to breach the provisions of such statutes or to indulge in fraud or impersonation without any consequence at all for the conduct of the litigation, then the courts would be going far to sanction such conduct.’ In addition, the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA 2001) defines private investigations in relation to activities that are liable to control under that Act at PSIA 2001, Sch 2 Pt 1, para 4 as any surveillance, inquiries or investigations that are carried out for the purpose of: • obtaining

Are there any cases in which the court considered post-separation and/or premarital acquired pensions? The division of pensions in financial remedy proceedings can be extremely complex, particularly if the pension provision is significant or one which is difficult to value, such as a police or armed forces pension. It is often the case that parties overlook the need to obtain expert evidence at an early stage, leading to delay and increased cost. The treatment of pensions in financial remedy proceedings as a resource has also altered in recent years, particularly since the pension freedoms introduced in 2014 enabling parties to draw down capital subject to qualification requirements. The treatment of pensions in this way is illustrated for example in JL v SL (No 3) in which Mostyn J utilised notional capital from a pension to fund a Duxbury calculation, based upon the assumption that the wife would draw down

Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) governs the provisions that mean that where a debtor acknowledges or makes a part payment of a debt the cause of action in respect of that date accrues afresh. LA 1980, s 29(5) provides that, subject to LA 1980, s 29(6), where any right of action has accrued to recover any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim, or any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate, and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgement or payment. LA 1980, s 30 provides that any acknowledgement must be in writing

For the purposes of this Q&A we have focussed on whether a reduction in the length of term of tenancy via a deed of variation is possible without triggering a surrender and re-grant of the lease by operation of law. We have set out below general information on the issue. An increase in the length of term of the original lease automatically triggers a surrender and re-grant. For further general information on this point we refer you to Practice Note: Lease variations—surrender and re-grant issues. Generally, a variation of the terms of an existing tenancy made by consent between the parties