William Byfield's Secret E-Diary

Negligence – Duty to take care. The defendant employer had breached its duty of care by failing sufficiently to risk assess the task of cleaning and tipping a tipper truck trailer, and also by failing to implement and enforce safe systems of work in respect of those tasks. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim arising from his injury when cleaning out the trailer within the vicinity of high voltage overhead power lines, but reduced damages by 25% to take account of the claimant's contributory negligence.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The applicant was successful in its application for the authorisation of medical treatment for the first respondent. The first respondent was suffering from sepsis, secondary to a large necrotic infected Grade 4 sacral pressure sore that was unable to heal due to constant contamination by faeces which in turn was caused by incontinence. The Court of Protection permitted the insertion of a colostomy bag to prevent further infection, as any risks associated with the procedure were outweighed by the risk of death in the absence of treatment.

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The traffic authority's duty of securing the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, as set out in s 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, was not given primacy but was a qualified duty which had to be read with the factors in s 122(2) of that Act. Having considered all the relevant factors, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant organisation's application to quash, wholly or in part, the defendant local authority's traffic regulation order on the basis that none of the grounds relied on by the claimant were made out.

Execution – Stay. The appellant company's appeal against a stay of execution failed. The stay had been imposed along with judgment in favour of the appellant, in an action to enforce the decision of an adjudicator in a construction dispute. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had been entitled to come to the view that he had done and, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a stay of execution.

Rates – Non-domestic rates. There was no evidential basis for the judge's factual finding that the appellant's charitable objects had been changed after and in response to a letter, but there was for her conclusion that adverts had appeared in the local press on six occasions and she had given sufficient reasons for rejecting the claimant's evidence. The Administrative Court further held that, in determining that properties had not been used wholly or mainly for charitable purposes with respect to non-domestic rates, the judge had not erred in law.