header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 November 2015 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7675 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Sorry, not sorry

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7675_regan

Sorry seems to be the hardest word, observes Dominic Regan

What are the legal ramifications, if any, of saying sorry?

The ghastly Thomas Cook fiasco highlighted the problem. Despite subsequent grandiose gestures the senior company representative at the inquest into the death of two young children on holiday refused to apologise for what had happened. One school of thought was that this was driven by the belief that such an utterance would equate to a binding admission of liability. Since the claims had already been settled for the pittance which English law dictates correct, that does not stand up.

Compensation Act

However, even if liability was a live issue, the law is clear. Section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 is unequivocal: “An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty.” Many of us thought at the time that the 2006 Act was hollow for it merely restated what was widely accepted to be the pre-existing law. This was in the

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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

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

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
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
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
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
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
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
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll