header-logo header-logo

Damages

20 March 2015
Issue: 7645 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Milroy (a protected party by Mrs Sharon Maria Milroy, his litigation friend) v British Telecommunications plc [2015] EWHC 532 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 84 (Mar)

While working for the defendant employer British Telecom, the claimant was injured. He brought an action for damages against the defendant alleging, inter alia, breach of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 2306/98) and regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 635/1989). The Queen’s Bench Division held that the breach had been made out and that the claimant was entitled to damages to be assessed, subject to a reduction of one third in respect of contributory negligence.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll