Comments on: Barker -v- Corus: a landmark decision http://www.rerisk.net/2006/05/03/barker-v-corus-a-landmark-decision/ Risk, Re-/Insurance and Future Thinking Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:05:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Barker -v- Corus: to be ‘overturned’? at Re Risk http://www.rerisk.net/2006/05/03/barker-v-corus-a-landmark-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Barker -v- Corus: to be ‘overturned’? at Re Risk Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:28:48 +0000 http://www.rerisk.net/?p=56#comment-163 [...] According to one of my partners, Tony Blair said yesterday that the Govt (yes the same one that took the case to the House of Lords) was looking at “ways to overturn Barker” and hoped to make a further announcement within the next two weeks. [...] [...] According to one of my partners, Tony Blair said yesterday that the Govt (yes the same one that took the case to the House of Lords) was looking at “ways to overturn Barker” and hoped to make a further announcement within the next two weeks. [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Sharples http://www.rerisk.net/2006/05/03/barker-v-corus-a-landmark-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Jonathan Sharples Tue, 16 May 2006 01:31:53 +0000 http://www.rerisk.net/?p=56#comment-67 I'm not sure that this is a 'masterful analysis' as much as it is a 'decent summary', but I am sure that a rogue "not" has found its way into the following excerpt which (mis)quotes Lord Hoffman: "Pointing out that the justification for joint and several liability in cases where the Claimant satisfies the “but for” test is that “if you caused harm, there is no reason why your liability should not be reduced because someone else also caused the same harm”" I’m not sure that this is a ‘masterful analysis’ as much as it is a ‘decent summary’, but I am sure that a rogue “not” has found its way into the following excerpt which (mis)quotes Lord Hoffman:

“Pointing out that the justification for joint and several liability in cases where the Claimant satisfies the “but for” test is that “if you caused harm, there is no reason why your liability should not be reduced because someone else also caused the same harm””

]]>