English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The decision of the House of Lords in  Fairchild  v.  Glenhaven Funeral Services  raises important questions about the compensation of employees for occupational injury. In  Fairchild , the principal issue was whether an employee could recover where he could prove negligently inflicted injury, but, having worked for more than one employer, not the identity of the person who caused the injury. This article considers the issue in the wider context of judicial responses to uncertainty in personal injury litigation. It suggests that  Fairchild  raises issues which are little different from those in other personal injury cases where judges have been prepared to take a pragmatic approach to causation, in order to allow a deserving plaintiff to recover damages.

Judicial approaches to contested causation: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services in context