18 Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Ali v. Capita Customer Management Ltd.and Hextall v. The Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police[2019] ewca Civ 900, 24 May 2019

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-224
Keyword(s):  
Customer Management ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Court Of Appeal

R v Westwood (Thomas): diminished responsibility and disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Mennim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This is a commentary on R v Westwood (Thomas), where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the judge had erred in assessing Westwood’s ‘retained responsibility’ as medium to high under the Sentencing Council Guideline for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Although the sentencing judge concluded that the offending was caused by Westwood’s anger, the Court of Appeal found the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated that the most significant factor was Westwood’s mental illness and that his anger at the time of the offence was a manifestation of his mental illness. Westwood’s responsibility was low, and it was appropriate to impose both a hospital and restriction order.  

Harassment at Work as Discrimination: The Current Debate in England and Wales

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-114
Author(s):  
Pauline Roberts ◽  
Lucy Vickers
Keyword(s):  
Race Relations ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Racial Harassment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Victims Of Bullying ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In 1996–97 there were a number of significant decisions which extended the scope of employers' liability for sexual and racial harassment at work, based upon the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. This article seeks to analyse the impact of these recent cases. It began by considering the relationship between the concepts of ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’ and the problems inherent in using the anti-discrimination legislation to deal with harassment and bullying at work; we then focus on the recently demonstrated ‘purposive’ approach of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal in interpreting the statutes and consider how this combats the weaknesses identified. Alternative forms of relief will be briefly considered, in particular the recently enacted Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The authors, while welcoming the recent decisions, argue that there are some victims of bullying who remain outside the protection of the existing anti-discrimination legislation (as they do not fall within any of the groups identified for protection), notwithstanding the robust advances of the EAT. We suggest that the Protection from Harassment Act may not completely fill this gap.

Estoppel

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Chartered Accountants ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Disciplinary Committee

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel applied to successive complaints before a professional disciplinary body, that disciplinary proceedings were civil in nature and that therefore the principles of res judicata applied, and that there was no reason why cause of action estoppel should not apply to successive sets of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by C-W, a chartered accountant, against the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision by the Committee to refuse to dismiss a second complaint based on the same facts of a first complaint that had been dismissed on the merits.

The Enduring Legacy of ‘Reckless Disregard’

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McArdle
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Canadian Province ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Personal injury at common law has spawned many cases where sports participants have inflicted injury either upon other participants or upon spectators/bystanders. This paper is not an exhaustive analysis of those ‘sports torts' cases but focuses instead upon the impact of Wooldridge v Sumner, a Court of Appeal decision that was legally sound but based upon highly significant errors of fact, and which has subsequently been advanced before the courts in two jurisdictions as authority for untenable propositions that concern both the standard of care and the duty of care owed by sports participants. While a consideration of the authorities prior to Wooldridge illustrates that there was never a basis at common law for the argument that either the standard or the duty of care differed from that pertaining in non-sporting contexts, the case has been appropriated by counsel in order to argue along those lines even though Wooldridge is not authority for either proposition. On some occasions those arguments have actually received the support of the courts of England and Wales and of the Canadian Province of British Columbia. Despite the existence in both jurisdictions of more recent authorities that ought to have heralded the demise of both concepts, they have proved remarkably tenacious.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document