Concurrent Wrongdoers in UK Law
BRB (Residuary) Ltd v Connex South Eastern Ltd
Three reasons were given, first, that it would turn all the usual conventions of civil litigation upside down because D1 would have to call evidence in the possession of the claimant to establish its own liability and D2 would then call D1's witnesses in order raise a doubt about D1's liability; secondly, if the result of the contribution proceedings was that the liability of D2 was established, but that the liability of D1 was not, the defendant making the compromise, D1, would get no contribution although it itself was not to blame and D2, who really was to blame, would have to pay nothing; and thirdly, a defendant might be deterred from compromising claims in which liability was in doubt if their right to contribution was thereby put at risk.
Heaton v AXA Equity & Law Life Assurance Society Plc
The importance of the decision of the House of Lords in Jameson, as it seems to me, is that it shows that A's claim against one concurrent tortfeasor, say C, may be extinguished not only by the satisfaction of a judgment obtained against another concurrent tortfeasor, say B, but also by the payment by B to A of an amount which A and B have agreed shall be accepted in full satisfaction of A's claim.
- The Old and New Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law
- A STEP FORWARD IN FACTUAL CAUSATION
- COOK v. LEWIS RE‐EXAMINED
Replacing Safe Havens with a Safe System
In recent weeks, there has been a major crash in the middle of the financial services electronic highway, and hundreds of millions of people are already feeling the shock from the impact, even if t...
UK Court rules that settlement with a concurrent wrongdoer does not release other wrongdoers unless it satisfies the whole claim
A UK High Court has decided that settlement of a claim for injuries sustained by a sub-contractor on a construction project would only extinguish a further claim against a hospital for alleged negl...
The 'Hunt' For Clarity On Apportionment
......, in order for liability for "damage" to be apportioned to a concurrent wrongdoer, that damage must be "caused" by each concurrent wrongdoer and ... but also held that Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were concurrent wrongdoers for the purposes of Part 4 of the CLA. On that basis, His Honour ......
UK Supreme Court gives boost to creditors: bar on recovery of “reflective loss” relaxed in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd
The rule against reflective loss bars claims against wrongdoers by shareholders of a company (for instance for the diminution in the value of their shareholding) where the shareholder’s loss is mer....... Overview. The rule against reflective loss bars claims against wrongdoers by shareholders of a company (for instance for the diminution in the value ... reflective of the loss suffered by the Companies (which had concurrent claims against him) and it was therefore not open to Marex to claim for ......
COVID-19 UK: Claims Against Construction Professionals ' Foreseeability Of Loss
......is a concurrent claim in contract and in tort, the case of. Hadley v Baxendale provides ...losses. Policy arguments may also be in play. Wrongdoers will no doubt. seek to argue that being expected to pay for remote ......