Monday, 30 July 2012


1.  Read the terms and conditions of any Travel Contract or Agreement signed by you.
2.  Double check if there are any exclusion clauses.
3.  Establish whether excursions are purchased within your package holiday or not.
4.  Make a note of conversations with Travel Operators, Reps etc this could be vital.
5.  Does the country you are holidaying  in come under the Rome Convention.
6.  Have you got adequate insurance, make sure you read the terms and conditions of your insurance, are there any exclusion clauses.
7.  If you are provided with a contract in respect of your excursion, read the small print.
8.  Remember some countries like Ecuador are exciting but you may only be able to bring a claim in the Court of the country where you have sustained an injury through someone else's negligent behaviour.  You need to ensure that you are aware of the limitation periods in those countries and you need to consider the fact that you may have to instruct lawyers in that country.  
UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT SECTION 7(1) ANY PERSON WHO IS  is on any premises as a trespasser after having
entered as such is guilty of an offence if he fails to leave those
premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of-

(a) a disp...laced residential occupier of the premises ; or
(b) an individual who is a protected intending occupier of
the premises by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection
(4) below.

(2) For the purposes of this section an individual is a protected
intending occupier of any premises at any time if at that

(a) he has in those premises a freehold interest or a leasehold
interest with not less than 21 years still to run
and he acquired that interest as a purchaser for money
or money's worth ; and
(b) he requires the premises for his own occupation as a
residence ; and
(c) he is excluded from occupation of the premises by a
person who entered them, or any access to them, as a
trespasser ; and
(d) he or a person acting on his behalf holds a written
(i) which specifies his interest in the premises ; and
(ii) which states that he requires the premises for
occupation as a residence for himself ; and
(iii) with respect to which the requirements in


The position is set out clearly below in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.


6.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any violence for person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence securing entry.

PART II for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence, provided that-

(a) there is someone present on those premises at the time
who is opposed to the entry which the violence is intended to secure ; and

(b) the person using or threatening the violence knows that
that is the case.

To read the rest of this section of the Criminal Law Act 1977 please go to.

Friday, 27 July 2012

List of Countries in the Berne Convention

  • Albania
  • Algeria
  • Andorra
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Argentina
  • Armenia
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Bahamas
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belarus
  • Belgium
  • Belize
  • Benin
  • Bhutan
  • Bolivia
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Botswana
  • Brazil
  • Brunei
  • Bulgaria
  • Burkina Faso
  • Cameroon
  • Canada
  • Cape Verde
  • Central African Republic
  • Chad
  • Chile
  • China
  • Colombia
  • Comoros
  • Congo
  • CostaRica
  • Coted Ivoire
  • Croatia
  • Cuba
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Djibouti
  • Dominica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt
  • El Salvador
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Estonia
  • Fiji
  • Finland
  • France
  • Gabon
  • Gambia
  • Georgia
  • Germany
  • Ghana
  • Greece
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Guinea
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Guyana
  • Haiti
  • Holy See
  • Honduras
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Jamaica
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kenya
  • Korea
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Latvia
  • Lebanon
  • Lesotho
  • Liberia
  • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Macedonia
  • Madagascar
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Mali
  • Malta
  • Mauritania
  • Mauritius
  • Mexico
  • Micronesia
  • Moldova
  • Monaco
  • Mongolia
  • Morocco
  • Namibia
  • Nepal
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Nicaragua
  • Niger
  • Nigeria
  • Norway
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Qatar
  • Romania
  • Russian Federation
  • Rwanda
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and Grenadines
  • Samoa
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Senegal
  • Serbia and Montenegro
  • Singapore
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • South Africa
  • Spain
  • Sri Lanka
  • Sudan
  • Suriname
  • Swaziland
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Syrian Arab Republic
  • Tajikistan
  • Tanzania, United Republic of
  • Thailand
  • Theformer Yugoslav
  • Togo
  • Tonga
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tunisia
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • United Arab Emirates
  • United Kingdom
  • United States of America
  • Uruguay
  • Uzbekistan
  • Venezuela
  • Vietnam
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Wednesday, 25 July 2012



(1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Having a family barbecue, don't end up paying out for a claim for damage to property or personal injury

Summer is here (well there are vague signs of it) and if you are anything like the people on the Affordable Law For Team you will be getting the barbecue out.
But did you know that £617m of fire damage has been caused as a result of incidents ocurring whilst people were drunk and  in charge of a barbecue.

In  a recent article by Which magazine we are informed that "An overwhelming 80% of drunk barbecuing incidences were caused by men, with the average cost of damage being £383. Although women are less likely to cause such problems, the cost of damage tends to be higher, at around £525."  This is supported by a government study which you can access at

Whether we like it or not when you light up your barbecue you are playing with fire and with the garden being filled with sheds, which may contain gas containers, wooden decking, etc an out of control barbecue or garden fire can cause thousands of pounds worth or property damage and some very nasty personal injuries.

For tips on how to ensure that friends and family are safe when barbecuing please go to and


Wednesday, 4 July 2012

Trampolining is fun but don't get bounced into Court

Trampolines are great fun for children,  but accidents involving trampolines are common and if you invite friends and family around you need to consider their safety and whether you could be liable for any injury  that occurs to them in the course of trampolining on your trampoline.

Research published in the journal Injury Prevention in 2006 found that trampoline-related broken bones accounted for over one in 10 childhood fractures. This supports research by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), which found that 11,500 people in the UK went to hospital after a trampoline-related accident in 2002 – an increase of over 50% over a five-year period.

About 75% of injuries occur when more than one person is on the trampoline, with the person who weighs less being five times more likely to be injured.   Trampolines are not designed for the safe use of toddlers and babies and however there are trampolines that are specially designed for their age range and they should only be allowed on such a trampoline and should always be supervised. Don't forget head injuries can result in a child being permanently mentally impaired and a broken leg etc can lead to an amputation as can be seen in the unfortunate case of Michelle Hatfield

The overriding approach is set out in the case of Perry & Perry v Harris (a minor) [2008] EWCA Civ 907 referred to in our previous blog. 

Each case will need to be considered individually and what will be considers is

1.  was the injury reasonably foreseeable to the reasonable man and
2.  what precautions should the reasonable parent take to guard against them.

This approach is summarised in the final paragraph of Lord Phillips’s judgment, as follows:

‘ a large extent a case of this nature properly turns on first impressions. The factual scenario is a simple one and the photographs give a very clear picture of the bouncy castle. ... The issue is whether a reasonably careful parent could have acted in the same way as the defendant. The case does not turn on expert evidence or special knowledge. Essentially we have had to place ourselves in the shoes of the defendant and consider the adequacy of her conduct from that viewpoint and with the knowledge that she had. Each of us had the same reaction to the facts. The defendant could not be held at fault for the way that she acted. The manner in which she was supervising activities on the bouncy castle ... accorded with the demands of reasonable care for the children using [it]. The accident was a freak and tragic accident. It occurred without fault.’

So what should you do to ensure that

1.  An Accident does not occur in the course of your own or your child's friends etc using your trampoline.
2.  Or alternatively ensuring that your are not liable in the very unfortunate situation that your child or your child's friend's etc are injured.

  • Don't  allow more than one person on the trampoline at the same time.
  • Children under 6 should use trampolines designed for their age range and size, trampolines and don't forget trampolines are not suitable for very young children and toddlers.
  • Always supervise children, don't presume that because older children are around that supervision is not required this is one area that could result in your being found to be liable for injuries sustained by a child using your trampoline.
  • Do not allow children to do somersaults - there are clubs with qualified people to assist children to undertake somersaults in a relatively safe enviroment

  • For further information on the recommended safety practices when allowing your own or other people's children to use your trampoline please go to:-

    This article is provided for information purposes only

    Tuesday, 3 July 2012

    Thinking of hiring a bouncy castle for your child this summer, you may end up with a personal injury claim against you.

    Summer is a time when we want to get out in the garden and relax and have fun and what better way of making the kids happy than to hirea bouncy castle and having friends and family round.

    Well we don't want to be a killjoy but we would ask you to be careful otherwise you could end up with your child sustaining a nasty personal injury but with you being unable to bring a claim for personal injuries.

    In the case of Harris v Perry & Perry 2008  Sam Harris, who was 11 years old at the time of the accident, had been playing on a bouncy castle set up in a field behind the home of Catherine and Timothy Perry. The Perrys had hired a bouncy castle and a bungee run for their triplets' birthday party. Sam, who was passing with his father, asked Catherine Perry if he could join in.

    Whilst on the bouncy castle Sam was kicked in the head by a 15-year-old boy doing a somersault. Sam's skull was fractured and he suffered a very serious and traumatic brain injury. As a result, he developed severe behavioural problems and requires round the clock care.

    Initially the High Court agreed that the Defendants had in fact been negligent, however this decision was overturned by the Court Appeal, it was eventually referred to the House of Lords who supported the  Court of Appeal's decision confirming that the defendants were NOT negligent.

    For full details of the case please go to

    This article is for information purposes only and should not be

    Sunday, 1 July 2012

    Addressing the Situation

    Can you be liable if someone injures themselves whilst swimming in your pool - Do you owe a duty of care to yourself?

    You need to appreciate that as an adult you have a duty of care to yourself and if you do not act in a careful manner you may have no claim should you be injured due to acting in a manner in which there is a forseeable risk of injury

    Okay the sun is out it is a glorious day and everyone has been invited round to your pool party.   What could go wrong, well sadly quite a lot as can be seem from the recent case of Grimes v Hawkins [2011] EWHC 2004 (QB) where the
    Defendant owned a house with an indoor swimming pool. On 04.08.06, he went away for the night, leaving his 18-year-old daughter Kylie at home having agreed that  two friends could stay with her that night . In fact, after an evening in a nearby pub, some 20 young people including the Claimant arrived around midnight, having (as the Judge found) been expressly or impliedly invited by Kylie. Kylie gave the Claimant a swimming costumes to the Claimant and some other visitors.

    The pool measured some 30 x 15 feet with a minimum depth of 34.6 in and maximum depth of 67.7 in. There were no  warning signs or depth markers and several people jumped into the pool and began, "bombing" others.  The Claimant jumped in and spent around 30 minutes in the pool, swimming around and chatting while standing in the shallow end. She then dived into the centre of the pool, hit the floor and sustained serious injuries and was eventually diagosed as  tetraplegic.

    The Claimant claimed that the Defendant was negligent and in breach of his duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act because the pool was unsafe for diving so should have been locked to prevent access or alternatively, the Defendant, through his daughter K, ought to have issued an appropriate warning or forbidden diving.

    The Judge held that the Claimant had been allowed to use the pool so, as a lawful visitor, and the Judge agreed that indeed the Defendant had owed her a common law duty of care while she was using the pool however he found that the pool was not unsafe for diving. Though, some people may have   refused permission for the swimming pool to be used, this did not mean that a duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 was owed to the Claimant and that Defendant should have made the  pool inaccessible.

    The Judge said that  adults  made a choice about their behaviour and exercised that choice.    A householder with a private swimming pool should not have to prohibit adults from diving into an ordinary pool whose dimensions and contours could  clearly be seen.    The Judge qualified this statement by saying that it might be a different case where there was some hidden or unexpected hazard but in this instance there was none.

    The Claimant was an adult and had done something that carried an obvious risk. She had chosen to dive when, where and how she did, knowing the risks involved. It would not have been fair, just or reasonable to have imposed a duty of care which required the Defendant to put the pool out of bounds or to have prohibited adults from diving into the pool.

    To read the whole Judgment in this case please go to