Food Poisoning in UK Law

The statutory prohibitions are designed to protect the insured by seeking to ensure that undesirable persons are not authorised to carry on insurance business and that authorised insurers remain solvent. Good public policy and common sense therefore require that contracts of insurance, even if made by unauthorised insurers, should not be invalidated.

But if it is clear that something has gone wrong with the language, the court can interpret the agreement in context to “get as close as possible” to the meaning which the parties intended: Chartbrook at [23], citing KPMG LLP v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 363, [2007] Bus LR 1336 at 1351 (Carnwath LJ). This is part of the construction exercise, as opposed to a separate process of correcting mistakes, or a summary version of rectification: Chartbrook at [23].

(4) General Clause 5 (regarding the composite nature of the Policy);

1.3. How the Limits and maximum indemnity period apply to multiple insureds and/or multiple premises or locations and/or whether the 2018 Global Master Policy contained any annual aggregate limit for all claims for loss resulting from interruption of or interference with the Business under the Disease Clause.

It does not follow that because references to harassing a person include alarming a person or causing a person distress (s7(2)), any course of conduct which causes alarm or distress therefore amounts to harassment ( Thomas v News Group Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 at [29]). Essentially it involves persistent conduct of a seriously oppressive nature, either physically or mentally, targeted at an individual and resulting in fear or distress ( Thomas v News Group Newspapers at [30]).

On the 30th April 1997 the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Sharma JA, Hamel-Smith JA, Hosein, JA) allowed the defendant's appeal against her conviction. A second ground of appeal relating to the failure by the judge to direct the jury about "the effects" of the evidence of Simon Boodram also succeeded, leading the Court of Appeal to remark that "we were quite concerned that the Appellant may not have received a fair trial".

As to the first problem, I agree with the Master of the Rolls in thinking that the law must be such that, in a factual situation where all have the same actual or imputed knowledge and the contract contains no term limiting the damages recoverable for breach, the amount of damages recoverable does not depend upon whether, as a matter of legal classification, the Plaintiff's cause of action is breach of contract on tort.