header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 May 2009 / Helen Wolstenholme
Issue: 7369 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Accidental malice

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Helen Wolstenholme reports on genuine accidents & deliberate contempt

* * * * * *

April was a good month for defendant personal injury practitioners:

      
      ●     The Court of Appeal gave judgment in favour of the defendant to a personal injury claim in two cases where the key issue was the standard of care owed by one individual to another; and

      
      ●     in an unusual case and the first of its kind, an individual was found to be in contempt of court as a result of false statements which she had made during the course of personal injury proceedings which had been compromised after the disclosure of surveillance evidence.

In Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295, Mrs Orchard appealed against a decision of HHJ Iain Hughes QC, sitting at Poole County Court, dismissing her claim for personal injury against a 13-year-old schoolboy. Mrs Orchard was a lunchtime supervisor at the school, and was injured when the boy was playing tag with another boy and ran backwards into her. The accident

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll