Proceeding contribution from Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 20 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].
Compensation Bill [HL]
Perhaps I may interject one comment to clear the air a little. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, continues with his vivid case on which the Minister has made some wise observations. In British common law it is crucial that where the House of Lords reaches a decision, that becomes a precedent which all inferior courts must follow. Although there is a plethora of cases, the case of Tomlinson will in future clarify and develop the concept of negligence in the circumstances of interest to the Bill. I hope that it would have led to a different decision in the case mentioned by the noble Earl, although I have not read the facts and who can say?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c263GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Abuse Courts Damages Advertising Evidence Drugs Drunkenness NHS Personal injury Local government finance Public bodies Marketing Negligence Schools Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:00:55 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288720
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288720
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_288720