header-logo header-logo

14 August 2008
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Legal News , Damages
printer mail-detail

£4.3m landmark compensation for injured Man United star

Insurance premiums set to rise after club and player admit liability

A decision to award a former trainee footballer, whose career was ended by a negligent tackle, £4.3m will have wide ranging ramifications for all levels of the game, experts say.

Manchester United trainee Ben Collett suffered a double fracture of the lower leg following a tackle by Middlesbrough’s Gary Smith in a reserve match in May 2003. In court both Middlesbrough and Smith admitted that the tackle was “negligent” leaving Mrs Justice Swift to assess the level of compensation that Collett should receive from Middlesbrough’s insurers.

Richard Hartley QC of Cobden House Chambers in Manchester says the ramifications of the judgment will be felt across all levels of football: “Clubs at both amateur and professional standing will need to examine carefully their third party insurance liability cover as cases like this will inevitably become more commonplace.”

Hartley continues: “Individual professionals, even many Premier League stars, have cover which is inadequate, particularly in light of the judgment. In practical terms we deal with an awful lot of these cases where amateur players lose their earnings because of events that happen on a Sunday morning, but why should they put up with it?”

Greg Rollingson, senior partner at Rollingsons Solicitors, says that proving liability is key to any similar claim.

“To succeed in an action for damages, an injured professional footballer would need to show that, on the balance of probabilities, that his opponent would have known that there was a significant risk that if he tackled in the way he did, the other player would be seriously injured,” he says.

Rollingson continues, “Essentially he would have to show that his opponent had been guilty of dangerous and reckless play to establish liability. Football clubs may now find that their insurance premiums increase in light of this judgment”.

Issue: 7334 / Categories: Legal News , Damages
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll