Employers and public liability
Employers’ liability and public liability (EL/PL) claims have undergone unprecedented change in the way they are litigated and managed. We have a large team of lawyers across our national office network who are immersed in the EL/PL market, providing clear and proactive advice that goes beyond claims in order to protect our clients’ reputation and supporting them in managing risk.
We’re equipped to deal with all aspects of litigation, regardless of value or complexity, with a team that includes experienced litigators, in-house advocates, costs specialists and a counter fraud sub-team. This comprehensive offering ensures there is a seamless handling of the full range of EL/PL claims, with particular expertise in managing diverse, complex and high value claims, such as those involving injuries of the upmost severity, bullying, harassment and work-related stress, defamation, equality issues and data breaches. We also have expertise in coordinating immediate responses following major incidents.
Our EL/PL team works with a diverse range of clients across both the public and private sectors leaving us uniquely placed to maximise risk management, lesson learning, audit, leakage reporting, pre and post litigation management learnings, regulatory assistance and counter fraud techniques to the advantage of both sectors.
We work in partnership with our clients and see an integral part of our role as working collaboratively in identifying key risk areas and the implementation of measures to mitigate those risks.
What we do...
- Our clients - we advise commercial insurers, SMEs, brokers and the public sector – such as NHS Resolution, local authorities, public bodies, TPAs, loss adjusters and the Lloyd’s market.
- Specialist advice – from claims investigations and HSE prosecutions through to complex industrial disease litigation and multi-disciplinary major incident responses.
- Claims innovations – BJ Protect, Fraud Arrest, Best Offer are but a small number of the products which we have on offer to drive down the cost of litigation.
- EL/PL claims handlers’ course - ensuring that your junior handlers have sound knowledge and are fully informed in this quickly changing arena.
- Expert legal input throughout your claim – with expertise in technical complex claims including CPRS, Human Rights Act, misfeasance in public office, secondary victims, vascular neuropathy, long-tail and short-tail disease and psychiatric injury and counter fraud defences.
- Recoveries against third parties – our specialist recoveries team advises in complex multi-party actions where contractual indemnities play a key role e.g. the construction industry.
- Policy coverage advice – recognising that coverage is fundamental to any EL/PL claim, our expert team will ensure clear and concise coverage advice is provided at the outset, with standalone advice also provided in relation to insurance coverage disputes.
Featured experience
Non-departmental public body
Advising a non-departmental public body on civil liability, an investigation under section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and numerous claims following extensive flooding.
PL claim brought against a school
Successfully defended a PL claim brought against a school after the claimant, a sixth form pupil, suffered a significant injury while climbing over locked school gates. In an important decision for schools, the court concluded there was no breach of the common law duty of care and that, at the time of the accident, the claimant could not be considered a lawful visitor for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. The claimant had limited permission to enter the premises, but that did not extend to being permitted to climb the gate and therefore any duty of care owed was the lesser duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. That duty was not breached, with the decision emphasising that courts will be slow to impose an unreasonably high burden and that there is not a duty to warn of an obvious risk.
Represented a non-departmental public body
Represented a non-departmental public body following catastrophic injuries sustained by an employee who suffered traumatic amputations to both legs when he was struck by an excavator during the course of his employment. By working collaboratively with the Claimant’s solicitors and engaging rehabilitation support, the Claimant’s outlook was dramatically improved and favourable settlement reached at a joint settlement meeting.
Successful settlement in an EL claim
Achieved a successful settlement in an EL claim brought against our client following life changing spinal and head injuries suffered by a claimant who fell 20 stories through a building side shaft during the course of his employment. His claim was agreed at a value of £7.5m in damages, with a 40% reduction secured for contributory negligence based on German law principles and 70% contributions to the remainder of the claim from two co-defendants for their responsibility as the production company and building site occupiers. This left our client with a net liability of a £1.35m liability, a saving of £6.15m on the claim.
Key contacts
John Appleyard
Partner
James Fawcett
Partner
Matthew Harpin
Partner
Kevin Lawson
Partner
Rachel Lyne
Partner
Joanne Mulvenna
Senior Associate
Joanne Pruden
Partner
Helen Rideout
Partner
Bridget Tatham
Partner
Angela Williams
Legal Director
Victoria Curran
Partner
Testimonials
Without exception, all members of Browne Jacobson’ s PI team are excellent team players. As a result they provide the highest level of service to their clients. The PI team’s knowledge of the law, the market and of their insurer clients’ needs is also second to none.
Very good, and they offer lots of training and seminars on hot topics.
They know the work and the law, as well as their clients' needs inside out.
The firm presents itself impeccably and has admirable capabilities - individuals within the team are clearly immensely knowledgeable.
You may be interested in...
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Opinion
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
Legal Update
Common AI related technology project disputes and how to prevent them
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
Legal Update
The Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) proposed reforms to the Pre-Action Protocols (PAPs) and the possible mandatory ADR gateway. What could this mean for your case?
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Opinion
Job applicant receives settlement due to unlawful age discrimination at interview
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
Published Article
Sole director decisions: Another perspective
Opinion
Covid Rent Arrears: Cinema operators’ appeals dismissed
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.