Competitor Gravely Injured During Sporting Event Receives £3 Million Payout

Participants in potentially dangerous sports usually understand the risks they are taking. However, as a High Court case showed, it does not necessarily follow that they are disentitled from receiving compensation in the event of an accident.

The case concerned a young man who came to…

Mar 08, 2021

Pexels alexandr podvalny 345522 1024x681

Participants in potentially dangerous sports usually understand the risks they are taking. However, as a High Court case showed, it does not necessarily follow that they are disentitled from receiving compensation in the event of an accident.

The case concerned a young man who came to grief whilst riding a wheeled vehicle along a rough woodland track as part of an organised event. He went over a hill at about 35 mph before losing control and colliding with a number of logs beside the taped-off track. He suffered a severe brain injury which left him functionally blind, wheelchair dependent and in need of 24-hour care.

Proceedings were launched on his behalf against the event’s organiser on the basis that the presence of unpadded logs beside the track created an unusual and unnecessary risk to competitors. In robustly disputing liability, however, the organiser asserted that he had voluntarily engaged in a sport that carried with it an obvious risk of injury. Competitors had walked the course prior to the event; the track had been inspected and the position of the logs was not considered dangerous.

Following negotiations, however, the organiser agreed to settle his personal injury claim for a £3 million lump sum without making any admission of liability. In approving the compromise, the Court found that it represented a reasonable assessment of litigation risks and was in the man’s best interests.

Sacking Employees for Asserting Their Statutory Rights is Always Unfair

Workers who exercise their entitlement to take a firm stand on their statutory rights may sadly be viewed askance by some employers. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling made plain, dismissing them for doing so is, as a matter of law, automatically unfair. The case concerned an early-years practitioner who worked for a company that ran a pre-school. Various issues had arisen between her and a director of the company in respect of the calculation of her pay, particularly in the context…

Poor Contract Drafting Leaves the Door Wide Open to Employment Disputes

Inept and non-professional drafting of contracts is an open invitation to employment disputes. That was certainly so in a case where a property manager’s contract left substantial room for doubt as to whether he was employed or self-employed. The man was, under the terms of a written contract, for many years engaged by a company to provide site management services in relation to two blocks of flats. He lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings against the company but, in order to succeed in…

‘Cheeky Monkey’ Comment a Racial Slur in a Workplace Context, ET Rules

Comments like ‘cheeky monkey’ may be viewed as entirely innocent in one context but can have racial undertones in another. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in upholding a racial harassment claim brought by a Somali man who was referred to as such by a co-worker. After the man, who worked for a cleaning contractor, lodged proceedings following his dismissal, the ET found on the balance of probabilities that the co-worker had, on separate occasions, called him a cheeky monkey and told…