Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].


Compensation Bill [HL]

This has been a useful development triggered by my noble friend Lord Lucas. If I recall the case to which the noble Baroness referred, I would have known it as ““The Wagon Mound””. I am talking a little from memory, but I recall that in that case Lord Reid drew a contrast with Bolton v Stone. The Appellate Committee held that it was not negligent for a cricket club to do nothing about the risk of someone being injured by a cricket ball being hit out of the ground. The difference was that the cricket club was carrying out a lawful and socially useful activity in organising a cricket match and it would have had to stop playing cricket at the ground. That was the difference. My noble friend has caused us to retirer pour mieux sauter for a moment. I translate for the benefit of the noble Baroness: to take a step back to consider how better to proceed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c218GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Children Compensation Courts Accidents Common law Liability Insurance Extracurricular activities Personal injury Negligence Outdoor education Schools Training Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Small claims
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk