0370 270 6000

Williams v Lewisham Borough Council, Queen's Bench Division, 19 February 2001

2 April 2001
The issues

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

The facts

It was alleged that carbon monoxide had escaped from the gas boiler at the Council house in which the Claimant lived. He claimed for carbon monoxide poisoning

The decision

The claim was dismissed.


It could be a useful case to argue in respect of causation. It was clear in this case that the boiler was defective but it was not established on a balance of probabilities this had led to a build-up of carbon monoxide in a property sufficient to poison the Claimant and could have been disbursed by natural ventilation within the property. The Claimant’s medical history could have been equally consistent with a number of other possible causes such as depression.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up