RUGBY IN SCHOOL – SELECTION OF PLAYERS
Mountford v. Newlands School [2007] EWCA Civ 21
The claimant was involved in a rugby game organised by the defendant. The applicable Junior Rugby Guidelines of the English Rugby Football Schools’ Union, set out that players should not normally be allowed to play outside their age grouping (rule 5). The claimant was in an under-15s game, but was tackled by a boy well over that age, with considerably greater height and weight. The claimant suffered a broken elbow.
The school was held to be liable. Although the word ‘normally’ in the rules gave the school a discretion to allow boys to play in younger age groups, there was no suggestion on the present case that there was any reason for the older boy to do so. Absent any special circumstances, the ‘normal’ rule should apply, and the defendant was therefore in breach of duty for permitting the older boy to play. The purpose of r. 5 was to protect younger boys from injury arising from the superior size and strength of older boys.
SOLICITOR – DUTY TO OPPONENT IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION
Thames Trains v. Adams [2006] EWHC 3291 (QB)
The defendant had made a claim against the claimants for personal injuries arising out of a train accident. The claimants had made payments into court totalling $9.3 million. On 25th February 2005 at 9.45 the defendant’s solicitor telephoned the claimant’s solicitor to say that the defendant needed a total of $10 million. The claimant’s solicitor said that no more money was available. At 10.41 the defendant’s solicitor, acting on instructions, sent the claimant’s solicitor a fax accepting $9.3 million. At 11.40 the claimant’s solicitor telephoned the defendant’s solicitor to offer a further $500,000. The claimant’s solicitor had not received the 10.41 fax, and the defendant’s solicitor did not tell her. The claimant issued proceedings on the grounds of estoppel, mistake and unconscionable conduct by the defendant’s solicitor.
Held: the defendant’s solicitor had not committed any sharp or unethical practice. In the circumstances the 10.41 fax was an offer, not an acceptance, and did not of itself create a binding contract. The defendant’s solicitor was entitled to withdraw that offer at any time, and indeed it had been impliedly rejected by the claimant’s solicitor’s conduct. The defendant’s solicitor was under no duty to draw the 10.41 fax to the attention of the claimant’s solicitor, despite her general duty to act with all frankness in her dealings with opponents.