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

a sorry state of affairs for Thomas Cook as backlash continues

26 May 2015

Thomas Cook is paying a heavy price in the media currently, all because it failed to respect the sensitive nature of the inquest procedure.

Whether, as in the Thomas Cook case, the death occurred abroad or within the UK, the processes of investigating fatal incidents often takes many years. This can mean that emotions explode at and after the inquest process.

The inquest is there to allow the family of the deceased to know the circumstances in which a person met their death. As is often the case with the developing civil jurisdiction in this country, the culture to try to blame someone is permeating into this area. This is in fact not the purpose of an inquest at all.

The adverse publicity in this case flowing from a statement made on behalf of Thomas Cook, which whilst it may have been legally accurate, was so insensitive that it resulted in a whirlwind of adverse publicity and threatened the economic stability of the business concerned.

However, in these austere times, there is no legal aid and possibly no insurance indemnity to cover the payment of legal representation for a business deemed to be an interested party to an inquest.

The one thing that the Thomas Cook backlash shows is that you must prepare for the possibility that there could be blame apportioned towards you. In those circumstances, the cost of having specialist legal representation to respond at the inquest, in a dignified and compassionate way, could be crucial when dealing with this most sensitive of all subjects.

related opinions

IR35 changes - six months and counting...

In his 2018 Autumn Budget, the then Chancellor, Phillip Hammond, announced a significant change to the way liability for IR35 breaches will be dealt with for private sector companies from April 2020.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

SFO fail to secure individual criminal convictions following Deferred Prosecution Agreement

On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.

View blog

Watch this space on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility

The concept of Assumption of Responsibility is on many stakeholders’ minds at the moment following the Supreme Court decision in CN & GN v Poole.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up