Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
Unlike other jurisdictions, courts in the UK have not normally made a distinction between gross negligence and negligence of any other kind (para 54).
In a recent case however where a set of terms and conditions excluded liability for negligence “other than gross negligence or wilful default”, the court held that a distinction does exist and that an (otherwise negligent) failure to exercise proper skill and care might not amount to gross negligence unless there was also (for example) an “indifference to an obvious risk”.
It’s a distinction that may well be seized upon by those drafting contracts for suppliers – being grossly negligent suggests a greater lack of care than mere negligence, and a greater hurdle to be overcome in the event of a claim. From a customer’s perspective it is a distinction worth looking out for if you want to ensure you have a remedy for mere (trivial) negligence on the part of those providing financial or other services and want to ensure you receive the highest standards of care.
The cabinet office has produced a very useful guide to help SMEs considering bidding for government contracts.
View blog
Yesterday’s announcement already seems to be a seminal moment on the road to recovery from the impacts of the pandemic. Here are some of the headline points.
In Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Limited, the Employment Tribunal has considered the implications of dress codes on men.
In a lengthy majority judgment accompanied by two powerful dissenting opinions, the Supreme Court found yesterday that land acquired and held for statutory purposes cannot be registered as a village green where that registration is incompatible with the statutory purpose for which it is held.
Partner and Responsible for In House Lawyers
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up