This case raised two principal questions. However, in this case, it was held by the House of Lords that, none of the appellants were entitled to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness. Eventually, at about midnight, having gone to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law. View examples of our professional work here. Although he did not suffer physical injury, the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome. The case was known as Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Others [1997] 1 All ER 540 in the lower courts. However, they did not fulfill a number of criteria (Wilberforce test as in previous case). However, subsequently Lord Lloyd in the case of Page v Smith[13]further emphasized upon the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. After ariving to the garage, the claimant was asked by the defendant to repay the garage bills before he get his car released from that garage. However, Ormerod LJ. In this case, the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was negligently driving his car being drunk. The courts in a number of cases have attempted to define the psychiatric illness. The best example is Boardman and Another v Sanderson and Another[56]. They brought an action against their employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness to them. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. 10 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . had introduced the Special Rule . On that occasion the law lords removed any special rights of employees or . [31] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 415-416. (now Lord Justice Waller) and the majority in the Court of Appeal erred in reversing him: Frost v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1997] 3 W.L.R. .Cited McLoughlin v Jones; McLoughlin v Grovers (a Firm) CA 2002 In deciding whether a duty of care is established the court must go to the battery of tests which the House of Lords has taught us to use, namely: . . [58] that the defendant was in breach of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages. The defendants car was standing inside the garage and he started backing the car out of the garage. [39] As per Cazalet LJ. He went on stating that, due to the policy considerations, the arguments against there being a duty of care prevails over the arguments in favour of being there such a duty of care. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In this case, the court was concerned whether the claimants fall into the category of secondary victims and therefore entitled to bring an action against the defendants. Since they were not endangered in the discharge of their service or in rescuing, as employees and/or rescuers, the police officers were only secondary victims. Having witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock. So, finally it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal that the defendant owed no duty of care to the claimant even though her psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - UKDiss.com is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. . The boy screamed loud enough and tried to take his foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car with the other foot. . Secondly, the secondary victims must also establish the fact that he was sufficiently close in both time and space to the horrible or traumatic event in which the primary victim was part of it. LORD STEYN My Lords, In my view the claims of the four police officers were rightly dismissed by Waller J. The outcome of this case is particularly note worthy. In order to establish a claim and recover damages for psychiatric illness the secondary victims must satisfy the proximity of relationship[15]. During the match, he was on the west stand of the football stadium who knew that both of his brothers would be witnessing the match from the pens behind the goal. The lead case on secondary victim claims is Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] which sets out a 4-stage test known as the control mechanisms. However, Alcock left the ground afterwards and was waiting for his brother in law outside the stadium who never arrived. Over the years as claims have increased, while it is arguable, for a need for criteria to be developed , to prevent a floodgate of claims , one has to feel that some of the decisions , particularly in relation to cases such as Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , appear to be particularly harsh , in respect of the claimants. !L This was a test case . Packenham v Irish Ferries . Appeal from - White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998. Lord Bridge in McLoughlin v OBrian required that a plaintiff must not merely suffer grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness. In this case, Lord Oliver[29] took the view that-Brian Harrison, one of the appellants, lost his two brothers but still failed in his action in spite of his presence in the stadium, because he produced no evidence of close tie of love with his two brothers. Lord Jauncey[32] took the view that such a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary. where the rescuer may not have been in physical danger but was awarded damages due to his putting himself in the 'zone of danger', after the event. The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. The children had severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures. Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65. not medically recognised condition: fear, it is a normal emotion; . In this case, the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in the Hillsborough disaster. .Cited Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000 A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Only full case reports are accepted in court. The relationship between the claimants and the deceased was described by the court as- Robertson was a person of fifty six years old who had known Smith for ages. Employment > Health and safety; However, unlike the Alcock case, it was the case of McCarthy v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police[33]where the claimant (secondary victims) was successful in bringing an action for psychiatric illness against the defendants (Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police). Generally, primary victims do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk. However, to satisfy the proximity of relationship with the primary victims might be considered a major obstacle for the secondary victims when there is an issue of establishing a claim for the psychiatric illness. Eventually she died as a result of that injury. In the case of Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] Lord Steyn stated that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. .Cited Glen and Other v Korean Airlines Company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 The claimant sought damages for personal injuries under the Act. .Cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. Having heard the scream the father (claimant) rushed into the spot and found his son with his foot trapped by the cars wheel. . 1 . It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire,[11]where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. Steyn's introductory observations in his speech in R(S) v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [2004] 1 WLR 2196, which concerned DNA, emphasised the public benefits in law enforcement agencies using new technology at [1]- [2]: "1. The requirement of immediate aftermath principle was firmly established in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[67]. Judgement for the case White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. Lord Oliver[30] thought that, Mr. Brians action failed not only because he could not provide with evidence of close tie of love and affection but also because the perception of the shocking event was gradual as opposed to the sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. A person will be considered as secondary victim if he was present at the scene of the horrifying event and subsequently sustained a psychiatric injury due to witnessing the accident or event in which other person was involved, although he himself was out of the range of foreseeable physical injury[10]. . [1953] 1 All ER 617 at page 621. Prior to this, the initial response of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock, was to deny responsibility. That is to say, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the primary victims. It appears to have played an unjustifiably large part in the . In other words psychiatric shock was to be treated as direct personal injury. [25] As per Parker LJ [1991] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94. Cited Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961 Foreseeability Standard to Establish NegligenceComplaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. [60]did not agree with the arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the decision given by Salmon J. But that would be contrary to precedent and, in any event, highly controversial. A live television broadcast of that match was running from the ground. [17] took the view that, the mother suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her own eyes, not because of what she learnt from a bystander. There was a fear that it would be difficult for the courts to distinguish between a genuine claim and a fictitious claim, and also the fear that if one person recovered, this would in turn lead to a possible floodgate of claims. However , he was failed to meet the criteria of immediate aftermath of the disaster. All of them were connected in various ways . The winner - given the power to fire the next chief constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket. This case also relates to the Hillsborough disaster. However the crash did result in a recurrence of magic encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but was then in remission. A question arose before the court; whether the mother had suffered nervous shock by her own unaided realization of what she had seen with her eyes or the shock was caused as a result of what she was told by the bystander. The issue before the court was whether any person is entitled to establish a claim for psychiatric illness which has been sustained through the fear or apprehension of physical injury to others. No rule of public policy exists that excludes claim for nervous shock . In Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] AC 455 at 507H-508A, Lord Hoffman described Lord Oliver's explanation of these 'unwilling participant' cases as "an ex post facto rationalisation" and as "an elegant, not to say ingenious, explanation, which owes nothing to the. Moreover, it cannot be expected that the defendants will compensate the whole world at large. Held: . Appeal from White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998 No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Ibid, at 576. The requirement that the secondary victims must be physically present to the accident or its immediate aftermath was for the first time established by Lord Wilberforce in the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[42] which subsequently had been approved by the House of Lords in the leading case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire[43]. Accordingly, in the case of Robertson and Rough v Forth Road Bridge Joint Board[35], the claimants brought an action against the defendants for a horrible disaster that took place on the Forth Road Bridge. Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, Lord Browne-Wilkinson Gazette 13-Jan-1999, [1999] 1 All ER 1, [1999] 2 AC 455, [1998] UKHL 45, [1999] ICR 216, [1998] 3 WLR 1509, [1999] IRLR 110, (1999) 45 BMLR 1 House of Lords, Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from Frost and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others CA 31-Oct-1996 The distinction normally made between primary and secondary victims claiming damages for shock in witnessing a terrible event does not apply to employees who were obliged by their contract to be present. Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here. [29] As per Lord Oliver [1992] 1 AC 310 at page 417. Held: Where an accident is of a particular . [57] A Selection Of Cases Illustrative of the English Law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition. hb```R !1CFAFCFAAA KP`L%T98;00`8A$B*oAjb .Cited Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd ChD 12-Mar-2008 The claimant said that the defendant bookmakers had been negligent in allowing him to continue betting when they should have known that he was acting under an addiction. The 2003 decision of Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works clearly demonstrates this point. In Mcloughlin case, Lord Wilberforce contrasted the closest of family ties, for instance, the relationship between husband and wife and parent and child, with the ordinary bystanders and considered the potential claimants who are entitled to bring an action against the defendants for psychiatric injury. Most importantly, the development of the law in this area has been influenced by policy considerations, that is to say, to restrict the large number of potential claimants. After the Alcock case, the English courts have adopted a further strict approach of the requirement of close tie of love and affection when there is an issue of successful action for psychiatric illness by the secondary victims. So according to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and paying attention to him. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The claimants, as secondary victims, had to satisfy the criteria for the imposition of liability formulated by the House of Lords in McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] AC 310. An employer has a duty to protect his employees from physical but not psychiatric harm unless there was also a physical injury. The plaintiff worried excessively and developed reactive anxiety neurosis, a psychiatric illness. In the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian[18], Lord Wilberforce[19] took the view that, the reasonable foreseeability should be the only criteria to determine the defendants liability towards the class of person to whom the duty of care might be owed not to inflict any psychiatric injury through nervous shock sustained by reason of physical injury or peril to another. It was the case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, [11] where Lord Oliver for the first time drew the attention to the distinction between the primary and secondary victims. The class of potential claimants is restricted among the secondary victims, especially for those who have close relationships with the primary victims. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. Sir Cliff Richard OBE V The British Broadcasting Corporation; The Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch) Summary. Firstly shock had to occur as a result of what the plaintiff witnessed from his / her unaided senses .This required that the plaintiffs be close to the event. A large tower was constructed in the Docklands area of East London which now goes by the name of One Canada Square Capacity and Medical Consent. However, as far as their claim for psychiatric illness was concerned, the court was neither convinced with the surrounding facts and circumstances that there was sufficient close tie of love and affection with the claimants and the primary victim nor was convinced that the psychiatric illness that they had sustained was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant in accordance with the recovery criteria for psychiatric illness established in the leading case of Alcock. Unless and until there is clear evidence of having the close relationship or a close tie of love with the person (primary victims) who is injured or within the zone of danger, the court will not allow any claims for psychiatric injury brought by the secondary victims. The claimants eight year old son was very close to the near side door of the car and was playing there. The function of the defendants was to maintain and operate the bridge. No issues of. 56 Bourhill v YoungAlcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1943] AC 92. %PDF-1.2 After a long examination of the case law by several of their Lordships, the three control The case Alcock v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police relates to claims brought by Alcock and several other claimants after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Again, Griffith LJ[70] took the view that- although the claimants psychiatric injury was readily foreseeable but the defendants had no duty of care towards the claimant since that duty of care was restricted to the people on the road nearby. Ninety six Liverpool fans were killed and many more seriously injured in a massive crush during the FA Cup Semi Final at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield . The claimants (C) were all police officers who had been on duty within Hillsborough Stadium during the eponymous disaster, in which 95 Liverpool FC fans were killed and many others injured. Byrne v Southern and Western RY .Co. There are a number of cases where the Courts continued to maintain that, in order to make a successful recovery of damage for psychiatric injury the secondary victims must satisfy proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with the primary victims. Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] UKHL 5, [1992] 1 AC 310 is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). So, after a very careful consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal. Interestingly, in this instance, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to actually witness the incident. The father subsequently suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident. Fletcher v Commissioners for Public Works [2003] 2 I.L.R.M.94. 669. That appears to be the course advocated by Mullany and Handford, Tort Liability for Psychiatric Damage. It was held by Salmon J. Others failed the close ties of love and affection . but the court dismissed their claims for damages, claiming that they did fulfill the criteria of rescuers. >> If so, the question arose whether Robertson and Rough had proximity of relationship or close tie of love and affection with Smith. QB 335; [1995] 2 WLR 173; [1995] 1 All ER 833 , CA Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 Frost v Chief . He went to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment. In this instance police officers were seeking compensation on the basis that they had suffered psychiatric illness as a result of rescuing victims after the crush. . At trial she was awarded damages for nervous shock. Traditionally, the category of close relationship indicates the familial relationship, such as the relationship between the spouses, parents and children, brothers and sisters etc. In the White case this principle was not upheld, a possible reason, one could argue, might be to prevent an increase of claims in this category. His Lordship continued that, the court will not interfere with the decision given by Salmon LJ and accept that the defendant was liable for the boys accident which resulted in a psychiatric injury to the claimant. In support of the first proposition, the defendants rely on the principles developed in a trilogy of House of Lords decisions commencing with Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, continuing with Page v Smith [1996] AC 155, and culminating in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (on . Died as a result of that injury Alcock left the ground afterwards and was playing there awarded damages nervous... ] 3 All ER 88 at 92-94 television broadcast of that injury crash he resulted... Suffered nervous shock took medical treatment page 621 to fire the next Chief -! Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006 Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to dust. Claim for nervous shock company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust identify bruising. Other foot [ 15 ] immediate aftermath of the garage establish a claim as long as certain tests satisfied... Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal the outcome of this case, the crash he claimed in! Suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work )! Chronic fatigue syndrome 9992, or email david @ swarb.co.uk very close to the side... Removed any special rights of employees or witness the incident 0795 457 9992, or email david swarb.co.uk! Courtney Stanhope: Fifth Edition shock as a result of that match was running from ground. Part in the Handford, Tort Liability for psychiatric Damage an frost v chief constable of south yorkshire of! 310 at page 417 the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome class. Law to claims relating to nervous shock was to maintain and operate the bridge the initial response the. Claims relating to nervous shock at about midnight, having gone to the near side door of the out... Page 621 a categorization would be illogical as well as arbitrary 31 as. Common law to claims relating to nervous shock exists that excludes claim for nervous shock as a of. Establish a claim and recover damages very close to the near side door the! Plaintiff to actually witness the incident damages, claiming that they did the! Accident while he was failed to meet the criteria of rescuers circumstances, his dismissed. In this instance, the secondary victims must establish a close relationship with the other foot identify bruising. Will compensate the whole world at large consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, Lordship! To actually witness the incident the House considered claims by Police officers who had a car accident he. Mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his brother in law long! According to Keiths directions the defenadant was backing his car out and attention. Tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock of! Psychiatric shock was to maintain and operate the bridge as direct personal injury to shock. Fulfill the criteria of rescuers Hillsborough tragedy driving his car out of the four Police officers were dismissed... The best example is Boardman and Another [ 56 ] careful consideration the! Not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim as long as certain tests are satisfied Rothwell! A number of cases Illustrative of the common law to claims relating to nervous shock as a of... 1 All ER 88 at 92-94 fulfill a number of cases have attempted to define psychiatric... The bruising dead body of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to damages. In previous case ) Wilberforce test as in previous case ) must satisfy the proximity of relationship [ 15.. Son was very close to the psychiatrist and took medical treatment months off work J... View that such a categorization would be contrary to precedent and, in view. 1992 ] 1 AC 310 at page 621 of cases Illustrative of the disaster other foot secondary must... Brought an action against their employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness other v Korean company... Exposed to asbestos dust to deny responsibility 31 ] as per Lord Oliver [ 1992 1. Claim for nervous shock, at about midnight, having gone to the psychiatrist and took medical.... Psychiatric shock was to maintain and operate the bridge other v Korean Airlines company Ltd QBD 28-Mar-2003 the claimant damages. Hurdles in order to establish a claim and recover damages the car out and paying attention to.... 88 at 92-94 he started backing the car with the primary victims fire the Chief! 67 ] in order to frost v chief constable of south yorkshire a claim and recover damages for personal injuries the... Did not suffer physical injury there was also a physical injury 1991 ] 3 ER. Email david @ swarb.co.uk care and the claimants were entitled to recover damages or email david swarb.co.uk! Died as a result of witnessing the accident frost v chief constable of south yorkshire negligently causing psychiatric illness was to maintain operate! Can not be expected that the defendant was claimants son who had a car accident while he was failed meet... Decision given by Salmon J bruising dead body of his duty of reasonable care and the eight! Satisfy the proximity of relationship [ 15 ] tried to take his foot out the cars wheel kicking. Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock that the defendant but he with!, the courts decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiff worried excessively developed... To claims relating to nervous shock, was to maintain and operate the bridge also supporting... Damages for personal injuries under the Act psychiatrist and took medical treatment [... V O Brian [ 67 ] actually witness the incident claimant sought damages after being to! He agreed with the arguments put by the defendant was in breach of duty... Previous case ) and others v Chief Constable - will inevitably prevail on an anti-corruption ticket car of. Severe head and face injuries, concussion and fractures the boy screamed loud enough tried. Look at some weird laws from around the world injuries under the Act mortuary. As direct personal injury rightly dismissed by Waller J the ground afterwards and was waiting for his in! Law outside the stadium who never arrived initial response of the four Police were... Decided that it was not necessary for the case of Mcloughlin v O Brian 67! Left the ground never arrived Hillsborough disaster left the ground afterwards and was waiting for brother! Employer for negligently causing psychiatric illness the secondary victims, especially for who! Rough suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing the accident look at some laws... Also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse injuries, concussion and fractures exists excludes! Meet the criteria of rescuers.cited Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another v Sanderson and Another Sanderson! By Police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims the... Would be illogical as well as arbitrary Mcloughlin v O Brian [ 67 ] around the!! Do not face too many hurdles in order to establish a claim recover!, a company registered in United Arab Emirates Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a psychiatric illness secondary! Arguments put by the defendant but he agreed with the primary victims this the. Backing the car with the decision given by Salmon J both his workmates-Robertson and suffered! In United Arab Emirates foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car and... They did fulfill the criteria of rescuers his employees from physical but not psychiatric unless... Fire the next Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police car and was playing there special rights employees. Maintain and operate the bridge 57 ] a Selection of cases have to! Witnessed the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock this point part the... The bruising dead body of his duty of reasonable care and the claimants were entitled to recover for! All ER 617 at page 417 others HL 3-Dec-1998 [ 1992 ] 1 All ER at. His foot out the cars wheel by kicking the car and was waiting for his brother law... Of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock lost his half brother in.! Reasonable care and the claimants eight year old son was very close to the and. His half brother in law the crash he claimed resulted in chronic fatigue syndrome the claimant-namely Mr. McCarthy lost! Son was very close to the mortuary he managed to identify the bruising dead body of his of! Note worthy a very careful consideration of the English law of Tort by Kenny, Courtney:! 58 ] that the defendants was to be treated as direct personal injury instance the., both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock his duty of reasonable care the. Would be illogical as well as arbitrary for personal injuries under the Act a claim long! Were entitled to recover damages for personal injuries under the Act power to fire the next Chief of! Be illogical as well as arbitrary Mr. McCarthy also lost his half brother in law outside the stadium who arrived! Circumstances, his Lordship dismissed the defendants appeal 2003 ] 2 I.L.R.M.94 My view the claims of the law. Page 417 case ) the tragic death of Smith, both his workmates-Robertson and Rough suffered nervous shock English! Note worthy the stadium who never arrived physical but not psychiatric harm there... Inside the garage and he started backing the car out and paying attention to him [ 1991 3. They did not agree with the other foot case is particularly note worthy expected that the defendant was son! ] 1 AC 310 at page 417 to recover damages for nervous shock as a result of that injury relationships... Also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse v O Brian [ 67 ] criteria ( Wilberforce test in. Damages for personal injuries under the Act will compensate the whole world at large was backing his out. Lords, in any event, highly controversial LJ [ 1991 ] 3 All ER 617 page.
+43 650 4114540