An historic moment in football may have passed many by when, on 26 September, Spennymoor Town hosted Team Solon in a match where heading of the ball was restricted in the first half, and banned outright in the second half. Did it make a difference to the spectacle on offer? You would have to ask the 300 or so spectators, but I suspect not.Continue reading
Over a year ago we wrote about the outcome of the initial appeal in Roberts v SSAFA & AKV, a birth-related injury claim dating back to 2000 which turned on highly involved cross-border litigation issues. At the heart of it is the question of the applicable law between the two defendants (one a British charity and the other a German hospital, both of which had provided medical treatment when the claimant was born).
The previous blog summarised the complex legal points and speculated that the Court of Appeal’s decision last July might not mark the end of the proceedings. That has now proved to be so. The Supreme Court’s website noted, on 17 September, that permission to appeal had been granted back in July. However, the case name now refers just to the two defendants, which strongly suggests (a) that any remaining live issues are only as between them and (b) that the Roberts family’s claim may finally have been resolved. Assuming the issues to be argued before the Supreme Court are the same ones we summarised last year, it looks like the eventual decision about them should be an important one.
Alistair Kinley, Director of Policy & Government Affairs
For more information on BLM’s cross border offering, please click here.
The Damages (Investment Returns and Periodical Payments) (Scotland) Act 2019 received Royal Assent on 24 April 2019 but Part 2 of the Act, which allows Scottish courts to impose a periodical payment order (PPO) for future pecuniary losses in a personal injury claim rather than to award damages as a lump sum has still not yet been brought into force.
The Scottish Civil Justice Council (SCJC) is to prepare court rules on the practicalities of imposable PPOs before Part 2 of the 2019 Act is implemented. It has not yet set any timeframe for completion of this work, meaning that for the time being Scottish Ministers are unable to prepare the required commencement order that would bring Part 2 into force. The lack of impetus in the production by the SCJC of court rules on imposable PPOs is evident from their 2021/22 programme, published as part of its 2020/21 annual report, in which no mention is made of this work.Continue reading