Nothing captures the headlines quite like a multi-million pound court action. It all adds to the theatre of the court, doesn’t it? Albeit the parties involved were high profile individuals themselves, one just has to consider the way in which the media treated a certain $100m defamation action as mere popcorn fodder, despite the seriousness of the subject matter.
The tears and cheers of the domestic football season have come to a close. Everyone* has marked their preferred team’s successes/despairs/improvements and begun to seasonal task of scraping together smash from the big jar in the kitchen to go towards the new strip for next season. But don’t worry unduly, for it is thankfully World Cup year and we have a festival of football to tide us over until the next era-defining season…
The case of Mather v Easyjet Airline Company Limited & Another, is an interesting case in which the Outer House of the Court of Session recently had to grapple with issues relating to German law, the Montreal Convention 1999 and pre-litigation admissions of liability.
In the case of Haesel McDonald v Indigo Sun Retail Limited, 2022, the respondent, Haesel McDonald, had been awarded over £240,000 in damages by the All-Scotland Personal Injury Court after it found her hearing loss and tinnitus had been caused in the course of her employment. Indigo Sun Retail Ltd appealed against that decision, arguing that the sheriff had erred in finding it in breach of its common law duty of care and that the sheriff had misinterpreted the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (“the 2005 Regulations”).