header-logo header-logo

29 April 2016 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

We love the Smiths

nlj_7696_regan

What’s in a name, asks Dominic Regan

This charming man realised recently that several significant cases involved a party named Smith. Indeed, the Smith population has made a remarkable contribution to our jurisprudence.

The colourful George Carman QC was responsible for a new head of injury damages, thanks to his advocacy in Smith v Manchester Corporation [1974] EWCA Civ 6. Mr Carman lived an exotic life. Let me put it like this; few at the Bar get visits from heavies seeking to recover gambling debts. A Smith award, as it is universally called, is for the risk of handicap in the labour market. Mrs Smith was injured at work and there was a lingering disability. Her employers were benevolent and kept her on at her same rate of pay so no loss was evident. However, what the court recognised was that if she lost that job then, on the open labour market, she would have been a less attractive proposition to a potential employer and it would be harder to secure a new job. This

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll