Uk Supreme Court Court April 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Baker (Respondent) Vs. Quantum Clothing Group Limited (Appellants) and ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
LORD MANCE Introduction This appeal concerns the liability of employers in the knitting industry of Derbyshire and Nottingham for hearing loss shown by employees to have been suffered during the years prior to 1 January 1990, the date when the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1790) came into force. The central issue is whether liability exists at common law and/or under section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961, towards an employee who can establish noise-induced hearing loss resulting from exposure to noise levels between 85 and 90dB(A)lepd. Noise is generated by pressure levels in the air. The loudness of a noise depends on the sound pressure level of the energy producing it, measured in decibels (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic, so that each 3dB increase involves a doubling of the sound energy, even though a hearer will not actually perceive a doubled sound pressure as involving much, if any, increase in sound. Noise is rarely pure, it usually consists of a "broadband" ...
Farstad Supply a/S (Respondent) Vs. Enviroco Limited (Appellant)
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
LORD COLLINS Introduction It is not often that, as in this case, the question of the construction of a charterparty arises in the Chancery Division. The issue between the parties is whether one of them is an "Affiliate" of the charterer for the purposes of provisions in a charterparty by which both the owner and the charterer agreed to indemnify and hold each other harmless (including in the case of the charterer its "Affiliates") in relation to certain liabilities. The charterparty provides (in clause 1): "In this Charter Agreement the following words and expressions shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them except where the context otherwise requires:- a) 'Affiliate' means any subsidiary of the Charterer or a company of which the Charterer [is] a Subsidiary or a company which is another Subsidiary of a company of which the Charterer is a Subsidiary. For the purposes of this definition 'Subsidiary' shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 736 of the Companies Act 1...
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another (R ...
Court: UK Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
LORD MANCE (with whom Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke agree) Introduction In July 1999 Mr Beesley, the second respondent, bought 22 acres of open land in the Green Belt on the outskirts of Northaw, Potters Bar. In October 1999 he applied for and in March 2000 obtained planning permission to construct a hay barn for grazing and haymaking. Upon a further application made in January 2001, this was in October 2001 revoked and in December 2001 replaced by a second planning permission for the same barn, re-sited differently. Each planning permission was subject to the condition that "The building hereby permitted shall be used only for the storage of hay, straw or other agricultural products and shall not be used for any commercial or non agricultural storage purposes". Between January and July 2002, with the assistance of his builder father-in-law, Mr Beesley constructed a building which was to all external appearances the permitted barn, with walls in profiled metal ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›