|
XML SAMPLE:
United Kingdom Statutory Instruments &
Scottish Case Laws
<DOC>
<P>
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
</P>
<P>
<YEAR>1975</YEAR> <NUMBER>No. 976</NUMBER>
</P>
<SUBJECT>
<P>
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
</P>
</SUBJECT>
<TITLE>
<P>
The Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue
Duties)
(Greece) Order 1975
</P>
</TITLE>
<MADE>
<P>
Made
</P>
<P>
9th June 1975
</P>
</MADE>
<LAID>
<P>
Laid before the House of Commons
</P>
<P>
10th June 1975
</P>
</LAID>
<COME>
<P>
Coming into Operation
</P>
<P>
1st July 1975
</P>
</COME>
<TEXT>
<P>
The Treasury, by virtue of the powers conferred
upon them by section 1(4), (5) and (6) of the
Finance Act 1973(a), and of all other powers
enabling them in that behalf, hereby make the
following Order:—
</P>
<P>
1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the
Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties)
(Greece) Order 1975 and shall come into
operation on 1st July 1975.
</P>
<P>
(2) The Interpretation Act 1889(b) shall apply
for the interpretation of this Order as it
applies for the interpretation of an Act of
Parliament.
</P>
<P>
2. In this Order "Principal Order" means the
Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties)
(General) Order 1974(c); and any description of
goods in this Order shall be interpreted and
applied in accordance with the Interpretative
Rules of the Customs Tariff 1959.
</P>
<P>
3.—(1) The substitution by or under this
Order of a rate of drawback for a rate
previously in force shall apply only in relation
to goods in respect of which duty at the
corresponding rate has been paid.
</P>
<P>
(2) The provisions of Article 4 of this Order
shall be without prejudice to any claim to
drawback on goods imported before this Order
comes into operation.
</P>
<P>
4. The Principal Order shall be amended by
deleting the word "Greece" in Article 19.
</P>
<P>
5.—(1) This Article applies to goods
which, under the provisions of the Agreement
signed on 9th July 1961(d) and the Interim
Agreement signed on 28th April 1975(e) between
the European Economic Community and Greece, are
to be regarded as produced or in free
circulation in Greece.
<P>
(c) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), a statement of
new terms and conditions of employment may be
served before the specified date.
</P>
<FOOTNOTE>
<P>
(a) 1889 c. 63.
</P>
</FOOTNOTE>
<P>
(d) If after service upon a person of a
statement of new terms and conditions of
employment a question is referred to the
tribunal in respect of such person under
paragraph (2), the statement shall cease to have
effect, sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph
shall have effect as if the statement had not
been served, and no new statement shall be
served until the decision on the question has
been notified.
</P>
<P>
(4) A written statement given in accordance with
section 4(1) of the Contracts of Employment Act
1972(a) shall not be regarded as a statement of
new terms and conditions of employment for the
purposes of paragraph (3) unless the statement
so indicates.
</P>
<P>
(5) Any extension of service under section 7(1)
of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1937
effective on the specified date in relation to a
person transferred by paragraph (1) shall
continue to have effect as if it had been made
by the Council to whose employment he is
transferred as aforesaid.
</P>
<P>
(6)(a) Any determination made by the tribunal as
provided under paragraph (2) or (3)(a)(ii) shall
be made in accordance with the Industrial
Tribunals (Labour Relations) Regulations
1974(b), and this order, and in respect of any
hearing of the tribunal for purposes of any such
determination a person or persons may be
appointed to sit with the tribunal as assessor
or assessors.
</P>
<P>
(b) Any determination of the tribunal as
mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above shall,
subject to any modification that may be required
in consequence of any appeal from that
determination on a point of law, be given effect
to by the Council or the managers as the case
may be.
</P>
<P>
(c) The Council shall inform everyone who is
employed by the managers on 30th June 1975 of
his right to make reference to the tribunal
under paragraph (2) and shall inform every
employee transferred by this order of his right
to make reference to the tribunal under
paragraph (3)(a)(ii) and shall at the same time
give them the address to which the reference may
be made, and with respect to a reference under
paragraph (2) the Council shall inform the
employee not later than 15th July 1975 that he
must make reference to the tribunal not later
than 15th August 1975, and with respect to a
reference under paragraph (3)(a)(ii) the Council
may inform the employee of his said right by
means of an insertion in the statement in
writing to be served under paragraph (3)(a).
</P>
<P>
Superannuation
</P>
<P>
5.—(1) The admission agreement made by or
on behalf of the managers and the Council of the
Administrative County of Cheshire on 12th
October 1956: and approved by the Minister of
Housing and Local Government on 25th October
1956 and by virtue of regulation 10(2) of the
Local Government Superannuation (Miscellaneous
Provisions) (No. 2) Regulations 1973(c) having
effect as if made by or on behalf of the
managers and the Council shall cease to have
effect on the specified date but without
prejudice to accrued rights or any liabilities
thereunder.
</P>
<P>
(2) Any liabilities of the managers arising out
of the agreement referred to in the last
preceding paragraph shall become the liability
of the Council with effect from the specified
date.
</P>
<P>
(3) Where at any time before the specified date
a gratuity or allowance by way of periodical
payments or an annuity—
</P>
<FOOTNOTE>
<P>
(a) 1972 c. 53.
</P>
<P>
(b) S.I. 1974/1386 (1974 II, p. 5330).
</P>
<P>
(c) S.I. 1973/1996 (1973 III, p. 6872).
</P>
</FOOTNOTE>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css"
href="slr.css"?>
<doc>
<docheader year="1999" series="SC" page="55" />
<name>
McNULTY v MARSHALLS FOOD GROUP LTD
</name>
<caseno>
No 20
</caseno>
<court>OUTER HOUSE</court>
<date>23 October 1998</date>
<judges>
Lord Macfadyen
</judges>
<fullnames>
<party>James McNulty</party>,
<status>Pursuer</status> - <counsel>Paton, QC, P
M Stuart</counsel>
<party>Marshalls Food Group Limited</party>,
<status>Defenders</status> -
<counsel>Mackinnon</counsel>
</fullnames>
<catchwords>
Scottish Case Laws
<subject1>Reparation</subject1> -
<subject2>Damages</subject2> - Personal injuries
or death - Measure of damages - Future loss of
earnings - Appropriate multiplier - Appropriate
use of Ogden Tables
</para>
<para>
<subject1>Reparation</subject1> -
<subject2>Damages</subject2> - Personal injuries
or death - Measure of damages - Back and neck
</para>
</catchwords>
<headnote>
<para>
On 15 March 1995 the pursuer was struck on the
back and neck by boxes falling from a pallet
truck during unloading operations in the course
of his employment with the defenders. He brought
an action of damages against his former
employers in which liability was admitted. The
cause came to proof on quantum before the Lord
Ordinary (Lord Macfadyen). The major point in
issue was whether the main disabling condition
from which the pursuer was subsequently
diagnosed as suffering, being a lumbar disc
prolapse, had been caused by the accident. The
pursuer had remained absent from work for nine
weeks after the accident with predominant pain
in his neck and "not severe' pain in his back.
On 17 May 1995 a doctor recorded that the
pursuer was "pain free' and he returned to work.
A decrease in neck pain ensued after returning
to work, but an increase in back pain. To
alleviate that pain the pursuer used
painkillers, including some prescribed for his
wife. He did not revert to his doctor. Pain
increased and by October 1995 he was unable to
sleep. On 30 October 1995 the pursuer's doctor
recorded that he had low back pain, left sciatic
radiation with limitation of spinal flexion. He
had sustained a disc prolapse and underwent a
discectomy on 13 August 1997. Although his
condition improved substantially, the pursuer
continued to suffer back pain which limited his
activities and caused him to be unable to walk
or stand for long periods or to bend or lift
weights.
</para>
<para>
<itkeywords>Held</itkeywords> (1) that the
appropriate award for solatium was £20,000; (2)
that past wages fell to be calculated at £15,000
per annum, (3) that the proper approach to
selection of a multiplier for future loss of
earnings was to take the Ogden Tables as the
starting point, and to select the multiplier by
reference to the figures for a rate of return of
3%; (4) that on the evidence it was probable
that the pursuer would not obtain suitable
employment and appropriate to apply a reduced
multiplicand giving eight years at £15,000 and
three years at £9,000; (5) that the pursuer's
wife's claim for services was valued at £2,500;
(6) that the pursuer's brother's claim for
driving him to medical appointments, etc, was
valued at £500; (7) that £3,500 was appropriate
for a claim for loss of services provided by the
pursuer in the household where he did most of
the cooking, domestic maintenance and decoration
for the past and £500 for the future on a
multiplier of 15 giving an award of £7,500; and
(8) total award of £235,125.00 including
interest <itkeywords>pronounced</itkeywords>.
</para>
<para>
<dr>Wells v Wells</dr> [1998] 3 WLR 329
followed; <dr>O'Brien's Curator Bonis v British
Steel plc</dr> 1991 SC 315 not followed.
</para>
</headnote>
<facts>
<para>
<sckeywords>James McNulty</sckeywords> brought
an action of damages against Marshalls Food
Group Limited, his former employers, in respect
of injuries sustained by him on 15 March 1995 in
the course of his employment with them. The
defenders admitted liability.
</para>
<para>
The cause called before the Lord Ordinary
(Macfadyen) for a proof on
<itkeywords>quantum</itkeywords>.
</para>
</facts>
<citationtitle>
Cases referred to:
</citationtitle>
<citation>
<para>
<dr>Bird v Husain Kemp & Kemp</dr>, para
E3Ð007
</para>
<para>
<dr>Bispham v Central Nottingham Health
Authority Kemp & Kemp</dr>, para E3Ð014
</para>
<para>
<dr>Breslin v Britoil plc</dr> 1992 SLT 414
</para>
<para>
<dr>Currie v Kilmarnock & Loudoun District
Council</dr> 1996 SC 55
</para>
<para>
<dr>Dobson, In Re Kemp & Kemp</dr>, para
E3Ð010
</para>
<para>
<dr>Duncan v Scottish Marine Biological
Association</dr> 1992 SLT 554
</para>
<para>
<dr>Finlayson v Lanarkshire Health Board</dr>
1996 SCLR 774
</para>
<para>
<dr>Galbraith v Marley Buildings Ltd</dr> 1984
SLT 155
</para>
<para>
<dr>Gibson v British Coal Corporation</dr> 1990
SLT 714
</para>
<para>
<dr>Girvan v Inverness Farmers Dairy (No 2)</dr>
1998 SLT 21
</para>
<para>
<dr>Hinchcliffe v Hill Kemp & Kemp</dr>,
para E2Ð104
</para>
<para>
<dr>Hunt v Severs</dr> [1994] 2 AC 350
</para>
<para>
<dr>Lang v Fife Health Board</dr> 1990 SLT 626
</para>
<para>
<dr>McIlgrew v Devon County Council Kemp &
Kemp</dr>, para EÐ008
</para>
<para>
<dr>Murphy v MRS (Distribution) Ltd</dr> 1993
SLT 786
</para>
<pageheader name="McNulty v Marshalls" page="56"
/>
<para>
<dr>O'Brien's Curator Bonis v British Steel
plc</dr> 1991 SC 315
</para>
<para>
<dr>Redman v McRae</dr> 1991 SLT 785
</para>
<para>
<dr>Sands v George Waterson & Sons Ltd</dr>
1989 SLT 174
</para>
<para>
<dr>Wells v Wells</dr> [1998] 3 WLR 329
</para>
<para>
<dr>Williamson v G B Papers plc</dr> 1994 SLT
173
</para>
</citation>
<opinion>
<para>
At advising, on 23 October 1998, his Lordship
awarded £235,105 including interest in favour of
the pursuer.
</para>
<para>
<judge>
LORD MACFADYEN'S OPINION</judge> -
</para>
<heading1>Introduction</heading1>
<para>
On 15 March 1995 the pursuer was working in the
course of his employment with the defenders as a
process operator at their factory premises at
Farm Road, Cambuslang. He was unloading pallets
of boxes of chickens from a lorry at the Brine
Room loading bay there. For that purpose he was
using a manual pallet truck. The forks of the
truck were inserted into a pallet, then raised.
The truck was then pulled along the platform of
the lorry to the loading bay. Attached to the
loading bay there was a hinged metal plate which
formed a bridge between the loading bay and the
lorry platform. The pursuer had reached the
stage of unloading the last pallet from the
lorry. As he was manoeuvring the pallet truck
from the lorry onto the loading bay, it stuck,
and came to a sudden halt. Part of the load of
boxes, despite being partly bound in a plastic
wrapper, shot off the pallet truck towards the
pursuer. Although the pursuer, seeing what was
happening, had turned to run out of range of the
projected boxes, he was struck by one of more of
them, and fell. In this action he seeks an award
of damages in respect of the loss, injury and
damage which he has suffered as a result of that
accident. It is unnecessary to examine in more
detail how the accident came to happen, because
the defenders admit liability to make reparation
to the pursuer for such loss, injury and damage.
The proof which I heard was concerned solely
with the identification of the injuries suffered
by the pursuer in the accident and
quantification of the resultant loss.
</para>
<heading1>
The Nature of the Pursuer's Injuries - Lumbar
Disc Prolapse
</heading1>
<para>
The major issue in the case is whether the main
disabling condition from which the pursuer was
subsequently diagnosed as suffering, namely a
prolapse of the intervertebral disc at L5/S1
level, was caused by the accident. I shall
discuss the competing views expressed on that
issue by the four consultant orthopaedic
surgeons who gave evidence in due course, but it
became clear in the course of their evidence
that much would turn on whether and, if so, to
what extent the pursuer had suffered from
symptoms in his lower back between the date of
the accident and the end of October 1995. It is
necessary, therefore, to examine the evidence
about the pursuer's symptoms and complaints from
time to time during that period with some care.
</para>
<para>
According to the pursuer's own evidence, which
was the only direct evidence led about the way
in which the accident happened, he was walking
backwards facing the pallet truck, holding its
handle at about chest height. He was using the
handle not to pull the truck, but to control the
momentum imparted to it by the slope of the
lorry's platform, and also to steer it. The
boxes were piled on the pallet some eight or ten
high, so that the load was about six feet in
height. Each box contained six to eight large
chickens, and was accordingly heavy. When the
truck stuck, the upper six to eight layers of
boxes flew off towards the pursuer. His room for
manoeuvre was limited <itkeywords>inter
alia</itkeywords> by a stairway going down to
one side of the loading bay. To get out of the
way of the boxes, therefore, the pursuer turned
round and attempted to run out of the way. He
was, however, struck on the back below the left
side of his rib cage and on the back of his left
leg just above the knee. He does not know
whether one box or more struck him. He fell to
the floor of the loading bay. He felt a sharp
pain in the back, and his neck and shoulder were
quite painful. In the immediate aftermath he did
not feel well. He was shaking, and experiencing
hot and cold flushes. The neck pain and the
shaking were the dominant features of what he
felt. In cross examination, the pursuer said
that the events of the accident were "more or
less a blur'. He felt pain in his left leg and
below his rib cage on the left side. He knows he
fell, and remembers being on one knee trying to
pick up the boxes. Nothing struck him on the
back of his head or his neck.
</para>
<para>
Shortly after the accident, which happened
between 11.30 pm and midnight, the pursuer was
attended by a first aider, who applied pain
relieving spray. The pursuer's evidence was that
it was applied to his neck, and below his rib
cage on the left side. The first aider did not
give evidence, but his or her records contain
entries relating to the pursuer timed at 12.10
am and 2.00 am, referring to "backache' and the
application of "P[ain] R[elieving] Spray'. The
pursuer had no recollection of a second
application of spray, and thought that he had
gone home by 2.00 am. As Mr Mann, one of the
defenders' medical witnesses, pointed out, those
references to "backache' are inspecific as to
the part of the back affected.
</para>
<para>
Mrs McNulty gave evidence about being awakened
by the pursuer's unexpected return home, and
said that he was shaking and holding the back of
his neck. The next day, he was complaining of
his neck being sore, and arrangements
<pageheader name="McNulty v Marshalls" page="57"
judge="Lord MacFadyen"
|