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.

Company That Labelled Employees as Self-Employed Receives Comeuppance

Many businesses that persist in labelling their employed staff as self-employed have met their comeuppance during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was certainly so in the case of a company that was ordered to pay compensation of more than £50,000 to a woman who was sacked after asserting her colleagues’ employment rights. The company ran a beauty salon at which the woman was engaged to work as PA to the founder and to provide treatments. Her contract was labelled as a consultancy agreement. When the…

Can COVID Scepticism Be a ‘Belief’ Protected Under the Equality Act 2010?

A significant minority of people – often referred to as ‘COVID sceptics’ – firmly believe that measures taken to control the virus are an unwarranted impingement on their personal freedom. The question of whether such beliefs can qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010 was considered in a guideline employment case. The case concerned a warehouse operative who expressed the belief that COVID-19 testing is flawed, that face masks afford no protection against the virus and that…

Time Limits in Employment Cases – Any Delay Could Stymie Your Claim

Time limits are strictly applied in employment cases and any failure to abide by them can place even an otherwise meritorious claim in real jeopardy. That was certainly so in the case of a call centre worker who lodged a sexual harassment complaint a single day later than she should have done. Following a hearing, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that the woman had, on three separate occasions, been sexually harassed by her line manager. He had, amongst other things, pulled her waist during a…