0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Hall v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

15 November 2001
The issues

Procedure – alteration of case at trial.

The facts

Claimant Teacher sued Bolton for personal injuries on the grounds that she had been assaulted by a pupil who had learning difficulties and behaviour problems. There was a policy with regard to the treatment of the pupil but the Claimant alleged that it was inadequate and it amounted to failure to provide her with a safe system of work. During the trial the Claimants Expert had a problem attending. Accordingly the Judge allowed the Local Authority to call the Deputy Head for his Expert Evidence and then allowed the Claimants Expert to continue to finish her oral evidence. At the end of the oral evidence the Judge said that he was unsure what the Claimants case was. He requested written confirmation over an adjournment. The Claimants Council produced a written note, which went into greater detail as to why the Claimants case that the policy with regard to the child was inadequate should be accepted. The Local Authority claimed that this was a new Pleading. The Judge did not accept that argument and the trial continued, the Claimant being successful. The Local Authority appealed on the grounds that the note gave the Claimant an unfair advantage, in particular given the fact that the Claimants Expert was allowed to continue giving oral evidence after the Local Authority had called its own evidence.

The decision

1. The Local Authority could have dealt with the “advantage” that the note had as far as the Claimant was concerned by dealing with it in closing speeches.

2. No application to adduce for the evidence had been made by the Local Authority and it was not clear what evidence the Local Authority would have wanted to call had it been able to seen the note before.

3. The Judge had all the evidence before him. The Court could not interfere with his decision on the basis of a hypothetical scenario.

Appeal Dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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