This Practice Note provides an introduction to the most common types of tripping/slipping accidents, namely: 1) on a highway; 2) in a shop; 3) a claim arising from breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Acts; and 4) at work. It considers the various different causes of action and provides guidance on identifying the correct defendant in a tripping/slipping claim. Highways The Highways Act 1980 is referred to as HiA 1980. For the purposes of identifying the correct defendant and cause of action, the starting point when bringing a claim for a trip or slip is to identify where the accident occurred. At common law, a highway is a defined way over which all members of the public have the right to pass without hindrance. If the accident occurred on a highway then the claim can be classified as one of the following: • an injury sustained on a highway which was caused by a failure to maintain. The failure to maintain is either by: ◦ a highway authority

Corporate Crime analysis: In Ivey v Genting Casinos, an appeal arising out of a gamblers civil claim against a casino, the Supreme Court considered both the relevance of dishonesty to the concept of 'cheating' in the context of an implied term in gambling and gaming contracts and the test of dishonesty in both the criminal and civil law.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Rebecca Calland, Senior Associate at Walker Morris LLP considers a recent decision of the Senior Courts Costs Office authorising the hourly rate of £150 for a litigant in person. This is to be viewed against the background of CPR PD 46, para 3.4 which limits the hourly rate which can be claimed by a litigant in person to £19 per hour unless they can prove financial loss.

Why is a cost sharing exemption needed? The cost sharing exemption (CSE) has been included in Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive) since 1977. However, it was only introduced into the UK VAT legislation with effect from 17 July 2012. The delay in implementing this exemption resulted from the UK's uncertainty over the scope and purpose of the relevant provision of the VAT Directive. The lack of clarity relating to this provision resulted in an uneven playing field across the EU as Member States implemented this exemption in different ways. It also resulted in EU litigation, the outcome of which assists practitioners in interpreting the exemption. Historically, HMRC argued that the VAT grouping provisions in the UK VAT legislation were sufficient to cover the CSE as provided in the VAT Directive. However, the European Commission commenced proceedings against various Member States for incorrect enactment of this exemption, which appears to have spurred HMRC and HM Treasury to reconsider the position and move forward to implement a specific CSE in the UK VAT legislation. The Court

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has ruled that the courts have no power to ‘backdate’ the date of issue of a claim form. Overturning two earlier decisions, the Court of Appeal held that the court has no power to backdate the date of issue of a claim form to the date upon which the court receives a claim form. Issuing and sealing a claim form is a single act which takes place at the same time. The purpose of dating the claim form when sealing it is to indicate the date on which the claim form has been issued and proceedings started. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Where a court serves a claim form by mistake, eg if the claimant has specifically stated that they intend to serve the claim form themselves, service may still be effective. This may of course cause you, the claimant, difficulties, eg by the time you have been notified by the court of the service, you may be out of time for service of the particulars. Practical guidance on this area was provided by the Court of Appeal in two decisions, which the court simply overlooked the claimant's notification that it wished to serve the claim form and served the claim form anyway, they are Stoute and Power. The following will need to be considered: • make sure that you notified the court that you wished to serve the claim form yourself. This requirement is set out in CPR 6.4(1)(b). Such notification can be set out in the covering letter provided to the court when asking

During the current coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, it is likely that the day-to-day business of the courts will be disrupted due to, among other things, short-notice staff absences and changing guidance from HM Courts and Tribunals Service, the Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary. However, the guidance produced so far suggests that courts are endeavouring to continue to provide access to justice for those cases which require it. While the courts remain open, it should be possible to undertake all of the steps listed in this Q&A, such as making applications, paying fees and filing documents. Similarly, although the work of courts may become delayed, there is no indication that court staff will not, for

This Practice Note sets out the powers available to the court when making a special guardianship order (SGO) including in relation to orders regarding the child’s surname and removal from the jurisdiction. It also explains what happens to existing orders when an SGO is made and the requirement to consider whether to make a child arrangements order containing contact provisions. Existing orders Making a special guardianship order (SGO) does not automatically discharge any existing orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (s 8 order). The court must specifically consider before making an SGO whether it should vary or discharge any existing section 8 order. The test to be applied is whether it will be in the child's best interests to allow an existing order to remain in force. If a CAO that contains contact provisions regulating with whom the child is to have contact and when that contact should take place is not discharged and there is an enforcement order in place, the court must consider

Under section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 parental responsibility is defined as all the rights, duties, powers, responsibility and authority that, by law, a parent has in relation to their child and their child's property. If there is a dispute over the exercise of independent action taken by one parent, it can be challenged by an application for either a prohibited steps order or a specific issue order. A specific issue order is an order giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child. Where there is a dispute between parents with parental responsibility regarding vaccination, that dispute is a matter which must be brought

Private Client analysis: In Dorant v Dorant, the court was asked to determine which individuals were entitled to share in an intestate estate of c.£2.75m in circumstances where the deceased died unmarried, without issue, and his parents had predeceased him. Prior to this case, the authors were unaware of any kin inquiry having been reported for roughly a century. The case, therefore, provided the court with a rare opportunity to consider and provide guidance on the procedural and evidential approach to kin inquiries in the modern world, including where the burden of proof lies and the hierarchy of often complex and highly technical evidence, including forensic DNA testing. Written by Daniel Burton, barrister and Jessie Barnett-Cox, pupil-barrister of Radcliffe Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This judgment addresses the enforceability of a scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (‘Scheme’) in circumstances where the scheme will likely require cross-border recognition to be effective. In particular, it clarifies that an English court can sanction a cross-border Scheme provided that there is a likelihood or real prospect of international effectiveness. The court also considered the treatment of elevation mechanics and reaffirmed that such mechanics in a Scheme do not need to be scrutinised at the heightened level observed in the context of a Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 restructuring plan (‘Restructuring Plan’), particularly where there is overwhelming creditor support in favour of the scheme. Written by Kunal Gadhvi, partner at Irwin Mitchell LLP and Adam Bosher, solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In this case, the court granted an urgent creditors’ application (the administration application) for the appointment of three individuals from Alix Partners (the proposed administrators) as the administrators of Market Financial Solutions Ltd (the company). Written by Promit Chatterjee, barrister at Maitland.