Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
It is not my wish to enter into a debate on the merits of common law and case law versus codification, although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a long-term ambition, as most Governments do, to codify the law properly. What I am trying to say about clauses 1 and 2 is that they seek to clarify the situation so that people feel comfortable with the activities in which they participate. It does not reduce the protection available to claimants. It will be open to the courts, as now, to decide, for example, whether the terms in which an apology is given amount to an admission of liability in the circumstances of an individual case.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c422
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Consumers Accountability Courts Companies Advisory services Fees and charges Liability Exemptions Legal opinion Marketing Negligence Voluntary organisations Regulation Trade unions Voluntary work Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:57:42 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328889
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328889
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_328889