Everett and another v Comojo (UK) Ltd (t/aThe Metropolitan and others) [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2011] EWCA Civ 13, 18 January 2011. Considers the responsibility of a nightclub for injuries caused to guests by another guest. Appellants Everett and Harrison (E) visited as guests a members-only bar where they were subjected to a knife attack by another guest. E had sued the respondent Comojo (UK) Ltd (C) in the CC for damages alleging that C had not taken appropriate steps to protect its guests. CC found for C but E appealed to CA. "Held": CA found that C had a duty of care to its customers but was not in breach in this case.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 152645-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE PUBLICATION Getting to grips with dilapidations | ONLINE PUBLICATION Fairstate Limited v General Enterprise & Management Limited and Atef Sarian | ONLINE PUBLICATION Spring Finance Limited v HS Real Company LLC | ONLINE PUBLICATION Everett and another v Comojo (UK) Ltd (t/aThe Metropolitan and others) | ONLINE PUBLICATION New reports demonstrate the value of local food | ONLINE PUBLICATION Mediation and the courts in Scotland | ONLINE PUBLICATION The Arbitration Act a new beginning in Scotland? |
[2011] EWCA Civ 13, 18 January 2011. Considers the responsibility of a nightclub for injuries caused to guests by another guest. Appellants Everett and Harrison (E) visited as guests a members-only bar where they were subjected to a knife attack by another guest. E had sued the respondent Comojo (UK) Ltd (C) in the CC for damages alleging that C had not taken appropriate steps to protect its guests. CC found for C but E appealed to CA. "Held": CA found that C had a duty of care to its customers but was not in breach in this case.