TVZ AND OTHERS V MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB  EWHC 7 (QB) Eight claimants sought compensation for sexual abuse perpetrated by Barry Bennell (“Bennell”) in the early 1980’s when they were aged between 10 and 14 and playing for football teams coached by Bennell. They say Bennell was working for the defendant (“MCFC”) and that it is liable for his conduct. In each case the Claimant is required to prove that Bennell abused him. Beyond that, the issues were: (1) Whether the claim should be dismissed because it had been brought outside the 3-year time limit for personal injury claims (2) If not, whether MCFC was responsible in law for the abuse (“vicarious liability”) Full report here.
SKX AND MANCHESTER CITY COUNCIL  EWHC 782 (QB) SKX claimed damages against the Defendant for personal injuries arising from childhood sexual abuse. The abuse was carried out in 1989 by the Chief Executive of the privately-run children's home to which the Claimant had been sent at the age of 15, whilst in the Defendant's care. The parties had agreed that there should be a trial of three issues at this stage of the proceedings. These were:(1) Whether the Defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of the abuser (2) Whether the duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant was non-delegable (3) Should the Court exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend time? Full report here.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE BARRY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES V BXB  EWCA Civ 356
In 1984 the claimant, Mrs B and her husband, Mr B, first attended the Kingdom Hall in Barry, South Wales, which was the meeting place of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1986, the claimant was baptised as a Jehovah's Witness. She and her husband became friendly with another couple, Mark and Mary Sewell. Mark Sewell was a ministerial servant, a member of the congregation with special responsibilities. He subsequently became an elder. On 30 April 1990 Mark Sewell raped the claimant in a room in his house. Later in 2014, he was convicted of that crime. At first instance, the trial judge held that the defendant should be vicariously liable for the rape. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Full report here.
DSN V BLACKPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB  EWCA Civ 1352
The Claimant was sexually abused by a football coach whilst on a tour. The proceedings were issued in January 2018, over thirty years after the events in question. At first instance, the trial judge held that the applicable primary limitation period should be disapplied and the action be permitted to proceed pursuant to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. He also held that the Defendant, Blackpool Football Club Ltd ["Blackpool FC"], was vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Roper when he abused the Claimant. The Defendant appealed on the issues of limitation and vicarious liability. Full report here.
AB V CHETHAMS SCHOOL OF MUSIC  EWHC 1419 (QB)
The Claimant was sexually assaulted by her violin teacher and guardian. She sought damages consequent on personal injuries arising out of the alleged sexual assaults, on the basis that the school was vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the teacher. The issue of vicarious liability was contested. Full report here.
WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC V VARIOUS CLAIMANTS  UKSC 12 A senior auditor working for Morrisons published employees’ personal data on the internet. The Claimants sued for breach of data protection, misuse of private information and breach of confidence. Full report here.
BARCLAYS BANK V VARIOUS CLAIMANTS  UKSC 13 The Claimants alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse by a GP hired by the Bank to carry out medical assessments of employees. Full report here.
FZO V LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY  EWCA Civ 180 The Court of Appeal considered an appeal from the trial judge awarding the claimant the sum of £1,121,937.50. The claimant had been abused by a school teacher between 1980 and 1983-4 while at school, and after he had left school up until the age of 21 in 1988. The local authority had accepted that it was vicariously liable for the teacher’s assaults between 1980 and 1982 but not thereafter, alleging that after the claimant left the school he was consenting to the abuse. The grounds of the local authority’s appeal rested on limitation, the issue of consent, vicarious liability and causation. Full report here.
DSN V BLACKPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED  EWHC 595 (QB) The Claimant was sexually abused by a football coach, Frank Roper (now deceased) during a youth football trip to New Zealand in June 1987. The Defendant ("Blackpool FC") was a football club which Frank Roper was associated with at the time damages. There were five issues for the court i) Should the limitation period be extended under the discretion provided by section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980? ii) Was DSN sexually abused by Roper and what was the extent of the assault? iii) Was the Defendant vicariously liable? iv) What was the causation and effect of DSN's psychiatric diagnoses? v) What damages was DSN entitled to? Full report here.
FZO V ADAMS AND HARINGEY  EWHC 3584 (QB) The Claimant claimed damages for personal injury, loss and damage consequent upon sexual abuse and assaults committed upon him by the first defendant, a teacher at Highgate Wood School, Hornsey, London, where he was a pupil from 1980 until 1982 and then again for a short time in 1983/4. These assaults continued after he left the school up until and including 1988. On 13th March 2014, the First Defendant pleaded guilty a number of sexual assaults against the Claimant. A letter of claim was sent to the Second Defendant on the 10th August 2015. The proceedings were commenced against both Defendants on 9th June 2016. The First Defendant admitted that he had "sexual relations" with the Claimant from about September 1980, that such activity constituted an assault and that it was abusive by reason of the claimant's age and his inability to consent to the same. The Second Defendant accepted vicarious liability for the First defendant's Assaults while the claimant was first at the school between 1980 and 1982 but not thereafter. It asserted that after the Claimant left the school there was clear evidence that he was consenting to the activity. Both Defendants raised the limitation defence. There were also issues of vicarious liability, consent, causation and quantum. Full report here.
ARMES V NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL  UKSC 60 In Armes, the UK Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in  EWCA Civ 1139 and decided that a local authority could be vicariously liable for torts committed by foster carers against children in local authority care. They also considered whether there could be the kind of non-delegable duty of care found in the case of Woodland v Essex County Council  UKSC 66. Full report here
COX V MINISTRY OF JUSTICE  UKSC 10 Mrs Cox worked as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea. During the course of her duties, a prisoner attempted to carry two sacks past her, lost his balance, and dropped one of the sacks on to her back, causing her injury. She brought a claim against her employer on the ground that they were vicariously liable for the negligence of the prisoner, which was contested by the Ministry of Justice. At first instance the trial judge found that there was no vicarious liability. That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the matter came before the UK Supreme Court. Full report here
MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC  UKSC The Claimant was a customer in a petrol station, which was owned by the Defendant. He enquired of the staff whether it would be possible to print some documents from a USB stick that he was carrying. He got into an altercation with one of the members of staff, who ordered him out of the premises, followed him to his car, threatened him and then assaulted him. The trial judge concluded that the company was not vicariously liable for the unprovoked assault. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The matter came before the UK Supreme Court, which heard the appeal at the same time as the case of Cox v Ministry of Justice  UKSC 10. Full report here
JL V ARCHBISHOP BOWEN AND THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION 27th May 2015 Manchester County Court Unreported The Claimant was born on the 23rd December 1967. He claimed damages for sexual abuse suffered between 1984 and 1999 at the hands of Father Laundy, a Roman Catholic priest. Father Laundy was ordained as a priest in the First Defendant’s dioceses and worked as a scout chaplain to the 9th Wimbledon Scout Group. He brought a claim in trespass against the Defendants for trespass to the person on the basis that they were vicariously liable for the Defendants’ actions. Full report here.
A V WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY  EWHC 1722 (QB) The Claimant was sexually abused by one Peter Stewart (now deceased) between 1989 and 1994 when she was aged between 4 and 9. He was a ministerial servant in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and was subsequently convicted of abusing another child and a young female relative. Quantum had been agreed subject to liability. There were multiple Defendants but it was also agreed that if the second and/or third Defendants were liable, then the First Defendants would satisfy the judgment. Full report here.
GB v STOKE CITY FC  EWHC 2862
The Claimant was a youth trainee (apprentice footballer) with the First Defendant, Stoke City Football Club Limited
During those seasons, the Second Defendant was employed as a professional footballer by the club and was the
regular first team goalkeeper. The Claimant claimed that on two occasions, once in 1986 and once in 1987, the
Second Defendant was guilty of trespass to his person. The issue was whether the alleged assaults had occurred
and whether the First Defendant as vicariously liable for those assaults. Full report here.
MOHAMUD V WM MORRISON SUPERMARKETS PLC  EWCA Civ 116 On 15th March 2008 the Claimant visited the Defendant’s supermarket and petrol station. After checking the tyre pressures on his car, the Claimant entered the kiosk and asked the Defendant’s employee, if it was possible to print off some documents which were stored on a USB stick which the Claimant was carrying. The employee responded in abusive fashion, including racist language. The Claimant left the kiosk and walked to his vehicle. Full report here.
COX V MINISTRY OF JUSTICE  EWCA Civ 132 On 10 September 2007, while working as the catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, the Claimant was injured in an accident caused by the negligence of a prisoner carrying out paid work under her supervision. The Claimant had four members of staff under her in the staff hierarchy, three civilians and one prison officer. Two of these subordinates would be on duty at any one time. Approximately, twenty prisoners would be assigned each day to kitchen work. Such prisoners would sometimes be regularly engaged in this work. Full report here.
XVW & YZA v GRAVESEND GRAMMAR SCHOOLS FOR GIRLS AND ADVENTURE LIFE SIGNS LTD  EWHC 575 (QB) The Claimants were two students who set off on a school trip to Belize in 2005, and were raped by a local man who was the apparent joint owner of the farm/resort where they had been staying. They sued the school and the second Defendant, a specialist company which helped organise the expedition. Full report here.
CATHOLIC CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY V VARIOUS CLAIMANTS AND THE INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS AND OTHERS  UKSC 56 The case concerned claims brought by 170 men in respect of abuse to which they alleged they were subjected at St William’s school between 1958 and 1992. There were two groups of Defendants. The first group consisted of the Middlesbrough Defendants, who took over the management of the school in 1973 and inherited the liabilities of the previous managers. They were held at first instance to be vicariously liable for abuse committed by teachers, which finding was not challenged. Full report here.
WEDDALL V BARCHESTER HEALTHCARE LIMITED WALLBANK V WALLBANK FOX DESIGNS LTD.  EWCA Civ 25 These were two linked cases. In the first case, the Claimant was the deputy manager of a care home operated by the Defendant. He was assaulted by a Senior Health Assistant at the home, who was his junior.The Claimant had called the Assistant to get him to come in to cover for another member of staff, who had gone sick. The Assistant did not react well to the call and later on he rang the home to say that he was resigning. Full report here.
EL V THE CHILDREN’S SOCIETY  EWHC 365 (QB) The Defendant ran a children’s home, where a Mr and Mrs D were housemaster and matron. They had a son X who was 15 when they moved into the home. The Claimant was born in 1944 and he was put into care from May 1949. In mid 2008, he alleged that he had been sexually assaulted by X, who was arrested. X admitted that he had been involved in masturbation with three boys at the home but he denied the most serious of the Claimant’s allegations. In 2010, the Claimant issued proceedings against the Defendant and X. Full report here.
JGE V THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORTSMOUTH ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN TRUST  EWCA Civ 938 The Claimant claimed damages for personal injury that she suffered when she was sexually abused by a priest, during a time when she was resident at the Firs Children’s Home in Hampshire between May 1970 and May 1972. The Claimant was at the time of this hearing 47 years of age.The home was operated and managed by a religious order of nuns, the First Defendants. This hearing was concerned with the preliminary issue of whether the Second Defendant, the Diocese of Portsmouth was responsible for the wrongful acts of the priest. The trial judge had found that the Second Defendant was vicariously liable for those wrongful acts. The Second Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Full report here.
JGE V THE ENGLISH PROVINCE OF OUR LADY OF CHARITY (1) THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORTSMOUTH ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN TRUST  EWHC 2871 (QB) The Claimant claimed damages for personal injury that she suffered when she was sexually abused by a priest, during a time when she was resident at the Firs Children’s Home in Hampshire between May 1970 and May 1972. The Claimant was at the time of this hearing 47 years of age.The home was operated and managed by a religious order of nuns, the First Defendants. Full report here.
MAGA (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND, THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR TO THE SUPREME COURT) V TRUSTEES OF THE BIRMINGHAM ARCHDIOCESE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH  EWCA Civ 256 The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write. Father Clonan had joined the Church in around 1972 and he had put a great deal of energy into starting up a disco, a social club and other clubs for young people. He also ran a number of football teams. He constructed a community centre in the curtilage of the church using his own construction firm. Full report here.
VARIOUS CLAIMANTS V THE CATHOLIC CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS AND THE INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS AND OTHERS  EWCA Civ 1106 This case involved around 150 Claimants who asserted that they were physically and/or sexually abused by staff at a school, St William’s which they attended. There were some 35 Defendants. Only one of the Defendants was an individual alleged to be an abuser and sued personally. All the others were sued in one way or another as representing either the managers of the school (“the Middlesbrough Defendants”) who were emanations of the Catholic diocese of Middlesbrough or the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (also known as the De La Salle Institute) (“the Institute”). Full report here.
BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES INC AND OTHERS V IGROX LIMITED AND ANOTHER  EWCA Civ 1207 In May 2007, the Claimant entered into a contract to convey 627 bars of siolver from London to India. It was put into a container, which had to be fumigated by the Defendant, but one of their employees stole 15 bars of silver. At first instance, the trial judge held that the Defendant was vicariously liable for what had happened. Full report here.
MAGA (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND, THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR TO THE SUPREME COURT) V TRUSTEES OF THE BIRMINGHAM ARCHDIOCESE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH  EWHC 780 (QB) The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write. It was alleged that in 1974, a Father McTernan, Father’s Clonan’s immediate superior was informed by the parents of another boy, M, that M had been abused by Father Clonan, but he had taken no action. Full report here.
A V ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF WELLINGTON AND OTHERS  1 LRC 211 The Claimant was born in 1959. Due to an unstable family background, she was placed at the age of seven in 1968 at an orphanage run by the Sisters of Mercy and educated at a primary school. She alleged physical and emotional abuse whilst she was there. By the end of 1972 attempts were being made to arrange foster care for her. She left the orphanage in May 1973 and she attended a secondary school until 1977 as a boarder. She also lived during that time at a foster home in the school holidays. Full report here.
GRAVIL V CARROLL AND REDRUTH RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB  EWCA Civ 689 On the 29th October 2005, the First Defendant punched the Claimant during the course of a rugby match. Both were semi professionals. The question in the appeal was whether the Second Defendant was vicariously liable for the First Defendant’s tortious assault. As a result of the punch, the assailant had been shown a yellow card by the referee, but following the match the Claimant’s club cited the First Defendant for breaching the rules of rugby. In October 2006, the First Defendant admitted to a disciplinary tribunal that he had struck the Claimant, but denied pre-meditation and said that he had been provoked. Full report here.
X & Y V WANDSWORTH LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL  EWCA Civ 395 A boy aged 11 and a boy aged 14 were subjected to sexual abuse by the same teacher, who was responsible for their pastoral care at the school they both attended. Both suffered serious psychiatric disturbances, and neither brought a claim until after the conviction and sentence of the teacher, by which time they were in their late twenties. The court at first instance held that the claims were statute barred. The Claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the issue of limitation and remitted these cases and two others that they considered to the House of Lords. However they made determinations in these cases on the issue of vicarious liability. Full report here.
MAJROWSKI V GUY’S AND ST THOMAS’ NHS TRUST  UKHL 34 The Defendant employed the Claimant as a clinical auditor co-ordinator. He claimed that his departmental manager bullied and intimidated him. She was rude and abusive to him in front of other staff, as well as being excessively critical of his time keeping and work. He made a formal complaint in of harassment against her on the 20th April 1998, which resulted in a finding that harassment had occurred. On the 7th June 1999, the Defendant was dismissed for reasons unconnected with the harassment. Full report here.
N V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF MERSEYSIDE POLICE  EWHC 3041 (QB) On the 20th April 2003, the Claimant was sexually assaulted by a probationer police constable. She had come out of a night club intoxicated having taken ecstasy. The police constable was off duty, but was wearing his uniform and sitting in a private car. He approached the Claimant and offered to take her to hospital. However he proceeded to take her to his home, where he assaulted her and took films and photographs of her. The police constable was convicted of these offences and imprisoned. Full report here.
HAWLEY V LUMINAR LEISURE LTD & ORS  QBD (Comm Cr) 307 The First Defendant, Luminar Leisure operated a “Chicago Rock Café” club in Southend on Sea. The Second Defendant, ASE provided security services and under their contract with Luminar, they agreed to take out liability insurance against employer and public liability and to indemnify Luminar against any claims. The contract also stated that all stewards provided by ASE were to be employees of ASE. On the 18th August 2000, there was a melee involving a number of customers who had just left the club. Full report here.
VIASYSTEMS (TYNESIDE) LTD V THERMAL TRANSFER (NORTHERN) LIMITED AND OTHERS  EWCA Civ 1151 In July 1998, the Claimant engaged the First Defendants to install air conditioning at their factory. The First Defendant subcontracted the ducting work to the Second Defendants, who in turn subcontracted with the Third Defendant to provide fitters and fitter’s mates. A fitter’s mate employed by the Third Defendant negligently damaged the fire protection sprinkler system causing substantial damage. At the time, they were working under the supervision of an employee of the Second Defendant.Full report here.
BLACKWATER V PLINT  SCC 58 The government of Canada and the United Church of Canada operated an Indian residential school in British Columbia in the 1940’s to the 1960’s. Aboriginal children were taken from their families and subject to corporal punishment. Some were seriously sexually assaulted. A number of students brought actions for damages. The trial judge found that all the claims other than those of a sexual nature were statute barred, but held the government of Canada liable for the assaults on the basis of breach of non-delegable statutory duty. Full report here.
PERCY V BOARD OF NATIONAL MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND  UKHL 73 The Appellant brought a claim for sex discrimination against the Church of Scotland by a former minister of the church. She had been ordained in 1991 and in 1994 was appointed as an associate minister in a Church of Scotland parish in Angus. In 1997 she was alleged to have had an affair with a married elder in the parish. A committee was set up by the church to examine the matter and she was suspended. At a mediation meeting she was counselled to resign as a minister, and in December 1997 she did that. Full report here.
BERNARD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA  UKPC 47 The Claimant was waiting in a queue to use a pay telephone in the Central Sorting Office in Kingston when suddenly a policeman intervened announcing himself as “police.” The Claimant refused and was shot in the head by the policeman. When he recovered consciousness in hospital, he found himself arrested by the same policeman for allegedly assaulting a police officer. The charges were later dropped and the policeman dismissed from the force. No criminal charges were brought against him and he later disappeared. The Claimant sued the Attorney General of Jamaica on the grounds that he was vicariously liable for the policeman’s actions. Full report here.
KLB v BRITISH COLUMBIA  2 SCR 403 The Claimants, KLB, PB, HB and VERB were siblings. Prior to placement in foster care, they lived in extreme poverty. All four were placed in two separate foster care homes with the agreement of their mother. They suffered abuse in both placements. There had been warnings about the first foster mother made to social services and during the placements, infrequent visits were made by social services. In relation to the second set of foster parents, there had also been serious concerns notified to the authorities. Full report here.
MATTIS V POLLOCK (trading as Flamingos Nightclub)  EWCA Civ 887 The Claimant was stabbed in the spine by a doorman, employed by a nightclub as a result of which he was rendered paraplegic. The doorman was later convicted of grievous bodily harm.The doorman had begun employment at Flamingos on about the 17th July 1998 and the incident occurred on the night of the 31st July to the 1st August 1998. Contrary to regulations in force, he was not registered for this purpose by the London Borough of Greenwich and the owner of the nightclub was later convicted for employing the doorman whilst he was unlicensed. Full report here.
DUBAI ALUMINIMUM COMPANY LIMITED V SALAAM  UKHL 48 The Claimant company was induced to pay $50 million between September 1987 and March 1993 under a bogus consultancy agreement with Marc Rich & Co. AG. Several people shared in the proceeds of the fraud, including a Mr Hany Mohamed Salaam who was a client of two successive firms of solicitors, “the Amhurst firm.” It was claimed that the senior partner of this firm dishonestly assisted in the fraud, although he denied any such wrongdoing and there was no finding by any court that he had acted dishonestly. In addition to suing Mr Amhurst, Dubai Aluminium sued the Amhurst firm, on the basis that the firm was vicariously liable in respect of some of Mr Amhurst’s activities although the other partners were personally innocent of any dishonesty. Full report here.
MILLER V MARTIN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STATE OF LOUISIANA AND METHODIST HOME FOR CHILDREN  CC 0670 LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT The Claimant was the mother of two children, CVM who was born in July 1989 and CM, a male who was born in February 1987. She alleged that the Defendants were liable for injuries sustained by her children. From 1994 to 1996, the State of Louisiana was given legal and physical custody of her children, and they were placed in the foster home of the Martins. It was alleged that their foster father sexually abused CVM and physically abused CM, and that the State was negligent in failing to properly screen, investigate, train, supervise and monitor the foster parents, as well as failing to investigate reports of abuse from its foster children. Full report here.
LISTER AND OTHERS V HESLEY HALL LIMITED  UKHL 22 The Claimants were residents of Axeholme House in Doncaster between 1979 and 1982 at the ages of 12 to 15 years. The company that owned the home employed Mr and Mrs Grain as warden and housekeeper to take care of the boys. The warden was responsible for day to day running of Axeholme House and for maintaining discipline. He supervised the boys when they were not at school. He administered pocket money, organised weekend leave, evening activities and supervised other staff. Full report here.
BROOKS V REGINA, 2000 BCSC 735 (CanLII) The Claimant was a foster child in the home of a married couple, Mr and Mrs P from May 1975 to June 1976. She had already been sexually abused by her natural father and after making complaints, she was taken into care by the provincial Ministry of Social Services and immediately placed with Mr and Mrs P. The Claimant claimed that Mrs P was often drunk and had little involvement with her. Full report here.
JACOBI V GRIFFITHS 17TH JUNE 1999 CANADIAN SUPREME COURT The case involved a claim for damages by a brother and sister against the Vernon Boys’ and Girls’ Club for incidents of sexual abuse by one of the Club’s employees. The employee had been employed by the Club as Program Director from 1980 to 1992 and he was encouraged to cultivate positions of trust and respect with the children under his care. One of his victims complained and he was prosecuted. He pleaded guilty to 14 counts of sexual assault. Full report here.
BAZLEY V CURRY 6th OCTOBER 1999 CANADIAN SUPREME COURT The Defendant, a non profit organisation operated two children’s homes for the treatment of emotionally troubled children. It practised total intervention in all aspects of the lives of the children that it cared for. It hired, C, a paedophile to work in one of its homes without knowledge of his background but after undertaking checks. He was dismissed after a complaint was made against him. He was then convicted of 19 counts of sexual abuse, two of which related to the Claimant. The Claimant sued the Defendant and one of the issues was whether the Defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal found that it was. Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.