Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has rejected two complaints about a pension transfer. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decisions.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This decision addresses the nature of the duty owed by an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to its visitors who might be injured by falling branches or trees. The claim against the defendant was dismissed as the court was concerned not to impose a standard of care that was inappropriately high. This duty must be assessed in the context of the extremely low risk that trees pose and recognising there is no such thing as an entirely safe tree. The court reinforced the need for a risk-based approach to tree safety management through inspection; as well as re-iterating the standard of care is that of the ordinarily skilled tree inspector (the ‘Bolam’ test) in accordance with the well-established principle laid down in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. Written by Nicholas Thorne, partner at BLM Law.

Pensions analysis: In the Pensions Ombudsman determination of Mr R, CAS-79272-B1B3, the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) has rejected a complaint about a switch of pensions between a managed fund and a cash fund with a different provider. The complainant argued that he was entitled to financial loss on the investments due to the provider’s failure to switch funds. The DPO found that the provider was not guilty of maladministration as it had not given him advice and there was no computer system failure. It was the complainant’s responsibility to provide the switch instructions correctly on the online portal. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has partially upheld a complaint about the repayment of an overpaid spouse’s pension. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Private Client analysis: District Judge Chloë Phillips has given judgment in Coady v Coady PT-2023-BHM-000025 (Business & Property Courts in Birmingham (Probate)), determining as a preliminary issue whether a coronavirus (COVID-19) era ‘garden signing’ satisfied section 9 of the Wills Act 1837 (WA 1837). The court held that it did not, with the result that the Will of 25 April 2020 was invalid. Written by Charlotte John of Gatehouse Chambers.

Personal Injury analysis: Claire Spearpoint, solicitor at Leigh Day, London, analyses the recent personal injury case of PT Civil Engineering v Davies [2017] EWHC 1651 (QB), in which the owner of a van successfully appealed against a finding that he was liable for injuries to a man who had been driving the van when a fire broke out. The claimant driver was unable to establish a link between his injuries and negligence by the van’s owner.

Law360: Beazley said on 23 July 2024 that it does not expect a major financial impact from the global IT outages that impacted transport and health infrastructure earlier in July 2024, after analysts had warned that the insurer could take a hit of up to US$205m.

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Mr Hyman (CAS-88359–S7J2), the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about a scheme opt out where complainant claimed he was not adequately informed that he was being automatically enrolled into the scheme. The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman found that both the provider and the employer had complied with their automatic-enrolment duties and followed the correct procedure set out by automatic enrolment legislation. Contributions had been returned so the complainant had not suffered any financial loss. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: In the Pensions Ombudsman determination of Mr E, CAS-79469-G9X0, the Deputy Pensions Ombudsman (DPO) has rejected a complaint against a scheme administrator where the pension transfer had been made within the six-month statutory time limit and there was no unnecessary and unreasonable delays. The administrator had undertaken HMRC required checks about the receiving scheme, designed to protect members, and the complainant had declined the administrator’s offer to waive the checks. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Sean Linley of Carter Burnett, Legal Costs Consultants, considers a recent decision where it was argued that a bill of costs was non-compliant because it didn’t include the expert fee notes and separate breakdowns of the costs of the medical agency and the experts.

Public Law analysis: The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Bean with Lord Justice Males and Lord Justice Lewis concurring) has determined that the routine redaction of the names of junior civil servants (those below Senior Civil Service (SCS) band) contained within documents disclosed in judicial review claims is not compatible with the duty of candour. While the court agreed with Mr Justice Swift that it would usually be permissible to redact contact details if useful, and redaction of names could be justified in some instances (for example where there are national security implications or a real risk to personal safety) the practice of routinely doing so was ‘inimical to open government and unsupported by authority’ (at §36). Written by Freya Foster, barrister at Henderson Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This was an appeal against a county court decision arising out of a fall into a ditch, where protective barriers had not been robust enough to prevent the fall. The claim was dismissed at first instance. The claimant/appellant appealed on the basis that inter alia, the judge incorrectly interpreted and construed the Code of Practice, published by the Secretary of State and thereunder entitled Safety at Street Works and Road Works (‘the Code’), and failed to give due weight to the fact that the Code was statutory guidance which set or informed the applicable standard of care. There was also an appeal in relation to whether these works constituted an obstruction. The court found that the Code had substantially been complied with, that such compliance was prima facie evidence of reasonableness, that deviations from the Code did not of themselves amount to negligence, and that these works were not obstructing access to the highway, and so that cause of action could not succeed. Written by Thomas Mallon, barrister at Henderson Chambers.