Privacy Policy & Cookies

Road Accident Claims Work Accident Claims Asbestos Exposure Claims Industrial Disease Claims Head and Brain Injury Claims Medical Negligence Claims Surgical Error Claims Travel Accident Claims Military Accident Claims Personal Injury Claims

How much?

FAQ

PI Information

Our PI Lawyers

0800 783 90190800 783 9019
0330 333 56560330 333 5656
Claim OnlineClaim Online
Text CLAIM to 82010 now, standard network rates applyText CLAIM to 82010
Network of offices throughout the UKVisit our UK offices

We'll call you back

Leave your details and we'll call you back between 8am and 8pm Monday to Friday, or between 9am and 5pm on Saturdays.

Name:

Best contact no:

Best contact time:


Home > News > Personal Injury News

3rd February 2006

Our lawyers win victim's case in Court of Appeal

This month lawyers at Clear Answers won an important case in the Court of Appeal for victims of violent attacks. It is a good example of how commitment to the legal rights of victims and a thorough knowledge and original application of the law can help injured people to compensation. Through imaginative use of the law and support through funding our lawyers helped a victim to compensation.

The Financial Times reported :

"A leisure company has been held liable for the actions of a bouncer at one of its nightclubs even though he worked for a separate business that operated on an outsourced basis. After the Court of Appeal decision yesterday, lawyers said it could have big implications for the leisure sector, its insurers and any industry using contract workers. (Their) solicitors said: 'This means that an organisation which employs contract workers may be held responsible for their actions while working on the premises, depending on the level of control they retain'."

The facts:
A firefighter had been beaten by security on the door at a nightclub.
All security staff were hired out to the nightclub by an agency which had gone bankrupt so they were difficult to sue.
The legal question was whether the contracted employees could be considered temporary employees of the nightclub and therefore whether the nightclub could be held responsible by us for their actions.
We said they had enough control over these staff to be responsible for their violent actions and the first court were agreed when the trial was first heard. But the insurers appealed against that decision and tried to escape legal liability through the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with us that the control the nightclub had over the staff was such as to make the bouncers temporary employees of the nightclub and also that it was right that the nightclub take responsibility for their actions.

The case was :
Hawley -v- Luminar Leisure (1), ASE Security Services (2), David Preston Mann (underwriters) (3) CA 24 January 2006

back to news index

print this page