Compensate Personal Injury Network Conference
Lisa Henderson QC on panel discussing Robertson Review and what’s next for the legal profession.
Full programme including details of other sessions and break out sessions on flyer below.
Ampersand Advocates shortlisted for Chambers of the Year at British Claims Awards 2019
Ampersand is delighted to be shortlisted for Chambers of the Year at the British Claims Awards 2019.
The British Claims Awards champions ‘Claims as a Service’ throughout all lines of insurance and industry. Teams and individuals from insurers, brokers, MGAs, law firms and other specialists will be recognised for their work in improving the claims landscape for customers.
Details of all the 2019 finalists can be viewed here. The winners will be announced at a ceremony taking place on 6th June 2019 in London.
Society of Advocates in Aberdeen Lunchtime seminar: Quantum In Serious Injury Cases
Society of Advocates in Aberdeen event
Ampersand advocates Lisa Henderson QC and Louise Milligan, Advocate on Quantum In Serious Injury Cases.
This session will cover some of the issues that arise in assessing quantum in serious injury cases – such as life expectancy, the Ogden Tables, care and case management costs etc.
See Society of Advocates in Aberdeen’s website for details here.
Teacher and assistant fail in action following injuries caused by pupils at complex needs primary school
SAMANTHA EGAN and DIANE LATTO v GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, [2019] SC EDIN 19
The pursuers were, respectively, a pupil support worker and a class teacher employed by the defenders at an additional support needs primary school. They were assigned to a primary 6 class of pupils. There were initially four pupils in the class all of whom frequently exhibited challenging behaviour, including spitting, scratching and biting. There were four members of staff assigned to the class (the pursuers and two other support workers). The pursuers reported repeated incidents involving the pupils (particularly hair pulling, scratching and spitting). Ultimately both pursuers were injured in incidents involving pupils, and they raised proceedings. SE raised one action and DL raised two actions. The actions were not formally conjoined, but all three actions were heard at a two-week proof diet.
The pursuers argued that the defenders had not provided a safe system of work, and in particular that the school risk assessments paid insufficient regard to transitions of pupils to and from the classroom. They also argued that the staff: pupil ratio was inadequately low. The defenders contended that the system was a reasonable one, and that challenging behaviour by the pupils and consequent risk to staff could never be eliminated.
Sheriff Fife held that the pursuers had failed to prove breach of duty or causation. The issue of transitions had been assessed in the risk assessments, and it could not be said that it had been assessed in an unreasonable way. The head teacher and deputy head had made decisions about staffing levels and it could not be said that the staff: pupil ratios were unreasonable.
James McConnell of Ampersand acted for the defenders. The full decision can be found here.
SAMANTHA EGAN and DIANE LATTO v GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL, [2019] SC EDIN 19
The pursuers were, respectively, a pupil support worker and a class teacher employed by the defenders at an additional support needs primary school. They were assigned to a primary 6 class of pupils. There were initially four pupils in the class all of whom frequently exhibited challenging behaviour, including spitting, scratching and biting. There were four members of staff assigned to the class (the pursuers and two other support workers). The pursuers reported repeated incidents involving the pupils (particularly hair pulling, scratching and spitting). Ultimately both pursuers were injured in incidents involving pupils, and they raised proceedings. SE raised one action and DL raised two actions. The actions were not formally conjoined, but all three actions were heard at a two-week proof diet.
The pursuers argued that the defenders had not provided a safe system of work, and in particular that the school risk assessments paid insufficient regard to transitions of pupils to and from the classroom. They also argued that the staff: pupil ratio was inadequately low. The defenders contended that the system was a reasonable one, and that challenging behaviour by the pupils and consequent risk to staff could never be eliminated.
Sheriff Fife held that the pursuers had failed to prove breach of duty or causation. The issue of transitions had been assessed in the risk assessments, and it could not be said that it had been assessed in an unreasonable way. The head teacher and deputy head had made decisions about staffing levels and it could not be said that the staff: pupil ratios were unreasonable.
James McConnell of Ampersand acted for the defenders. The full decision can be found here.
Faculty of Advocates Debate: Rape complainers should be represented in court
Faculty of Advocates in association with Rape Crisis Scotland
The Faculty and Rape Crisis Scotland are hosting a debate at 6pm on Wednesday, 28 November.
The motion will be “this house believes that prosecution in the public interest cannot deliver justice to rape complainers unless they have independent representation”. The debate will be hosted by the Gordon Jackson QC, Dean of Faculty. Ampersand’s Simon di Rollo QC and Professor Peter Duff, Aberdeen University Law School will speak in favour of the motion; Murdo Macleod QC and Clare Connelly, Advocate, will speak against the motion. The event will attract 1 hour of substantive law CPD.
Tickets are free and can be booked via Eventbrite here.