AB v Tameside & Glossop Health Authority [1996] EWCA Civ 938

Facts:

  • C argued that the choice of the telephone as a means of alerting and reassuring people, who had received treatment from a health worker later found to be HIV+ was not correct.


 Ratio:

  • There was no breach of a duty to care, even though some people called had suffered distress.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

O'Connell v Jackson [1972] 1 QB 270

Facts: C sought damages after an accident. D was a car driver who had negligently moved forward into the path of the C, a motorcyclist, who was injured. D argued that C was contributorily negligent in not wearing a crash helmet. Issue: Does a motorist’s failure to wear a helmet amount to contributory negligence in case of an accident? Ratio: Appeal allowed. C should have foreseen the possibility of being in an accident. C must bear some of the responsibility for the consequences of the accident and the amount of damages is to be reduced by 15 per cent.
Read more

Jackson and others v A-G (2005)

Facts: In November 2004, the British Government enacted the Hunting law which prohibited fox hunting Bill received support in the House of Commons but opposition in the House of Lords, so the Parliament Act 1949 was used to counter the House of Lords' ability to delay the bill and so it received royal assent The claimant attempted to assert that the Hunting Act 2004 was invalid as the 1949 Parliament Act was itself illegal Issue: Was the Parliament Act 1949 unlawful, and subsequently was the Hunting Act 2004 unlawful? Held: At the first hearing and upon appeal, the Courts found for the Attorney General, determining that the Hunting Act and the Parliament Acts were lawful This decision was upheld on final appeal to the House of Lords
Read more