Compensation Bill [HL]

This has been a very helpful debate, but I must rise to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The Minister cited the case of Jayes v IMI, when the court of appeal in 1985 supported the argument that a worker could be found 100 per cent contributory negligent. As the Minister knows, I am very well served by a range of talent, and one of the brightest and best solicitors I know—Paula Jefferson—has just passed me a note to say that would I point out to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that Jayes has been overruled. The case of Anderson v Newham College of Further Education in 2002 reviewed all the cases and found that whether the claim is in negligence or breach of statutory duty, under the existing law there cannot be 100 per cent contributory negligence. In Boyle v Kodak, the House of Lords held that to escape a statutory duty, a defendant had to establish that the claimant was wholly to blame and that there could be no question of contributory negligence. The Court of Appeal, in the case that I previously cited, went on to say that the judgment in Jayes did not consider Boyle and should not therefore be followed by judges at first instance. I hope that that assists the Minister, who may wish to respond.