header-logo header-logo

09 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Apil opposes animal liability reform

Personal Injury

A proposed reform to the law on strict liability for injuries caused by animals has come under fire from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil).
The government is proposing to amend Animals Act 1971, s 2 which imposes strict liability on keepers of animals that cause harm or damage.
Currently, keepers of non-dangerous animals are strictly liable for harm if the animal had known dangerous characteristics shared by other animals within the species.

A House of Lords judgment in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003], in which the owners of a horse which spooked and bolted onto a dual carriageway were held strictly liable for the injuries that resulted, confirmed a broad interpretation of this law. This case is widely believed to have led to a significant increase in insurance premiums for equine and other animal-related rural businesses.

The proposed amendment offers keepers of animals a defence if they can show there was no particular reason to expect the animal to react in that way, and will reduce the number of claims that can be made.

However, John McQuater, president of Apil, said: “Whether it is a dog bite which leaves a child disfigured, or injuries caused by a horse on the road, there will be less protection for victims.

“The fact that the Government is making changes through the back door with little time for parliamentary debate is totally unacceptable.”

Issue: 7377 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll