itiba

The Costs and Case Management Conference was heard this afternoon before HHJ Saunders.

The judge said this was a "moderate to severe brain injury case" and despite the claimant having gone back to work, there is a "suggestion his life has been affected by quite a nasty incident".

The Judge approved an increase of the value of the claim up to £150,000k following recent medical evidence and he agreed the following costs budgets:

Claimants: £182,515.12

Defendants: £104,955.97

The case details for the HSE litigation is here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/case/case_details.asp?SF=CN&SV=4486939And the breach listed here: https://resources.hse.gov.uk/convictions-history/breach/breach_details.asp?SF=BID&SV=4486939001

No real detail though. Does show £2k fine and £2.5k costs

As reported by the Metro

A drama teacher is suing one of the UK's top all-girls schools after breaking his neck falling 12ft off a ladder while adjusting theatre lights.

The School's barrister says "Any training which the claimant did not receive but should have received would only have dealt with matters of which the claimant was already aware, by reason of common sense and experience." Reported that the matter is going to trial so I'll keep an eye out and post how to obtain a link to watch remotely the day before.

County Court at Central London

Case F01YM039 Mr Harry Wilkinson v Queen Elizabeth's Girls School

I recall the Aggreko incident during the Olympics covered here - https://www.lsionlin...-safety--huwmd6

_

There's a huge golf between the management tool purporting to be H+S in some workplaces and the actual requirements set out by H+S legislation.

_

The budgets and numbers of H+S inspectors have also been slashed over the years- so there's roughly one inspector for every 63,500 people, contrast that with one doctor for every 229 people, or one police officer for every 529 people and you'll see how rare they actually are.

Well I note in Nov 2020 "FOURTH DROVE LIMITED" was incorporated with Company number 13003533. Purporting to have a purpose of "Operation of warehousing and storage facilities for land transport activities"

Both directors are common with Le Maitre - Ms Karen Cornacchia and Mr Richard Wilson

Nothing should be inferred from this statement of fact

Most of the negatives we now have, I don't think I was aware of - I don't know why.

 

I like to think I make a reasonable effort to keep up with politics and current affairs. But I don't remember hearing any concerns about the Irish border situation until after the referendum.

"The public only pays attention to a tiny subset of issues that politicians and the media bang on about."..."Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way" - Dominic Cummings Blog

Don't be so silly.

Yawn

As with anything it depends on the proposed end user. If it's for professional use then they'll be an expectation of Skypanels or Gemini's as a 2x1 soft light rather than some shonky knockoff. A £4000 Skypanel S60 will go out for £150/day

I've just seen "some of what's going on is essentially product photography". Photography lighting is completely different and is mainly strobe based (ie for flashes) - https://broncolor.swiss/products

Just to explain that often with fashion or product commercials you'll often have two completely different teams for 'video' and 'photography' lighting using different lights from different companies etc.

 

(1) However, if your car has an expired MOT when you crash, you can expect your insurers to leverage that.

 

(2) The problem that Tom's referring to with his tents is that the law of the land (as it now stands) doesn't automatically provide recognition for the tests and calculations that have been done by continental countries. Brexit has not changed the laws of physics, so the tents are as safe as they were before. But an insurer can now claim that there is no valid test or certification in place, which in the strictest legal sense would be correct.

 

(3) The insurers are obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders, not their policyholders, so if they can avoid paying out, they will.

(1) That's because there's a material difference between the following two questions:a - At the time of the insurable event was there a valid MOT certificate?b - At the time of the insurable event would the brakes have complied with an MOT?

Ignoring that an MOT is a statuary mandated test were an insurable event to occur where a vehicle were to answer yes to A and no to B then the issue returns to 'how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim'. In which the burden of proof rears it's head.

(2) if the insurers name a specific test or standard then yes. We are talking about the grey area where such a test or standard isn't named. This results in the burden of proof applying to any claim.

(3) The best of interest of shareholders would also include complying with regulatory standards

how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim" which is not and never has been in the way described.

 

And yet that is what our insurers are telling us is what they expect to be doing going forward and warn us to take remedial (and expensive) actions so that we don't suffer as a result?

 

And the high court / appeals court business interruption case all came about because of insurance companies grasping at a very very thin straw in the way you keep saying won't happen again.

 

And of course the problem is not that there's a new set of protocols and requirement. The problem is that insurance policies require we comply with legislation standards and protocols that currently aren't defined or clarified, arbited and enforced by testers and regulatory schemes that currently don't exist in a framework of absolutely no one knowing what the actual rules are thus making it, by definition, impossible to fully comply and thus creating a huge grey area that insurance companies will try to exploit if it saves them serious money.

It's regretful the issue of the Business Interruption test case (ie clarifying the parameters of an insurable event that has not occurred in over 100 years) has polluted discussion of how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim (ie insurable events that occur on a day-to-day basis). Two distinct issues that those who can identify nuance will appreciate. Might I suggest a more apt comparison is:"You can't prove your brakes were working when the car crashed"Or"You can't prove that light would pass a PAT test when it caught fire"Which are both examples of statements that could never succeed in a English or Welsh court as a defence to preventing an insurance claim.

........ my consistent point has been "You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe."

Are you perhaps missing the point that however well (some) insurers may have reacted in the past (which as we all know "is another country"), from tonight they have every right to demand adherence to a whole world of "standards" which do not yet exist? Whatever the theory may be, Tom seems to be patiently describing one of the realities of this brave new world.

I accept that insurance companies have "every right to demand adherence to a whole world of "standards"" the area of contention is how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim. Unfortunately the method proposed simple isn't how it works.

It is not a new issue as we've always been able to import items of different standards. Eg an American product or a Chinese product. The courts in this country have never approached such a problem in the proposed bizarre reverse burden of proof way.

We keep swerving off in different directions but I repeat the issue is "how insurance companies approach verification of compliance in the event of a claim" which is not and never has been in the way described.

ITIBA as I'm reading it your point is that "in the long term" it will all work out ok, via courts or ombudsmen. My point (and speaking as someone who's been through some big insurance claims) is that insurers are always looking for loopholes to avoid paying out and the confusion caused by the current situation is giving them a huge extra grey area to point to to, at the very least, delay and complicate claims further.

 

To loop this in to a point I can speak with more authority on - all our tents (and the rigging and lifting equipment within them) are manufactured in Italy and all the structural engineers reports and testing of this highly unusual stuff is done by a couple of companies in northern italy who have become the specialist authority on testing, certifying, design reviewing this very specialist kit. The deal at the moment has no specific clauses confirming that their qualifications / expertise will be recognised in the uk and our insurers have asked us to find UK based companies to recertify everything because, as of next week, we won't have a design review carried out by a recognised, qualified specialist saying that the tent meets appropriate regulations & standards (because their qualification is no longer recognised and nobody knows what precisely the new standards are) and asked for someone UK based to certify that the lifting & rigging parts are to standard as is required as part of our insurance. They have also pointed out we should be getting this UK documentation in place because it also has to be presented as part of an event license for every single job we do and whilst technically the existing paperwork is valid now there is a grey area about exactly what qualifications and safety standards apply and are recognised going forward. If someone wants to stop an event going ahead then that's just the sort of loophole they can exploit to get a license revoked and whilst ultimately in a court case or appeals process someone will decide the paperwork is correct that will all take place many months after the event is cancelled (or at least we've been removed) all because of this grey area that has been created.

 

If our insurers (who are quite pro-active and engaged in our sector) are making these judgements now then I'm quite sure other, bigger, more corporate ones will be making much harsher decisions.

As much as I enjoy these wild detours into new and exciting areas of ramble my consistent point has been "You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe."

You may hate the institutions in this country, and you may hate the processes that exist but please find at least legitimate areas of attack.

Like I said previously: If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/

1) the insurance issue isn't yet resolved- there's ongoing appeals and processes. Even if resolved next week it will be well into March before people start getting paid out. As I said above I don't know any business that can routinely plan for huge amounts of it's income to be held back by a year or more whilst also funding major litigation.

 

2) this is just one legal claim that is broad enough that a huge class action could be instigated/funded by a regulatory organisation. (B) Similar (legal) scale cases will be needed to resolve lots of other issues caused by the gray areas now being caused and for which there's not the money or regulatory authorities to intervene.

 

3) To your other point "fire officer says the fire started from an electrical issue on the Foh bar"

To safety elf for the project "was all the equipment on that bar to current Uk regulations?"

"Some of it was, some of it wasn't, the definition of what the uk regulations are changed leaving grey areas so I took a reasonable guess"

"Ok well then we think you've not followed the requirements of yourself insurance policy that all equipment complies with current regs, we won't pay"

 

4) And then, as you point out, because the backlog in courts is currently 3 years it will be a long long time before anyone gets paid out.

 

This is not me being pessimistic - this is exactly what is happening right now with insurance companies and is going to happen again and again because it's their job to not pay out unless the absolute letter of the law says they have to. Now we have piled grey areas into whole swaths of life it's going to happen more often.

1 - The appeals are how any fair legal system should work and indeed works in both ways. The FCA have funded all the legal action on behalf of the insured so far. The FCA have instructed insurance companies to pay out where they can.

2 - "is just one legal claim" - no it's a test case for 21 separate clauses and at least 8 insurance companies. (b) That's why we have the Financial Ombudsman service

3 - As previously stated that's not how the burden of proof works. You will not be able point to a single case in E&W where a claim failed in the circumstances you describe.

If you're interested in how insurance companies deal with fire claims in theatres of an unknown cause I'd point you here: https://www.aviva.co...ea-arts-centre/

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn't yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It's one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it's a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don't know how your business works but ours doesn't have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

 

Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case.

Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree)

 

Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world.

Whilst we were in the eu it was slow. Now we're outside the eu it will be significantly slower. Please tell me how that is an advantage?

I'm sorry you've completely lost me. Perhaps that response was meant for someone else?

The point is, here we are almost a year after the event and the legal claim hasn't yet been settled and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended testing the point. It's one thing to say that /eventually/ you will be legally successful but it's a very different thing to say that individual businesses should prepare thousands of pounds and literally years to find a resolution in the hope that the court will rule in their favour.

 

I don't know how your business works but ours doesn't have the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year in the hope we will ultimately win.

Again we're talking apples and oranges comparing the Arch Insurance case and your proposed "I want a list of every item in your now fire damaged premises and it's corresponding regulatory mark" case.

Well wrt timescale we locked down in March and the trial was heard in July, with the courts 85,000 word judgement handed down some 6 weeks later. I don't consider that slow given the complexity of the task. (Don't look at how long cases take at your local Crown Court if you disagree)

Wrt "the ability to fund six figure speculative legal campaigns on multiple fronts every year" the FCA represented the interests of the insured in this case and indeed paid all their legal costs. Thank you for giving me an example of why our system is widely respected around the world.

Good job our legal system, which incidentally is the envy of the world, doesn't work like that then.

 

I would refer you to the current lengthy, costly and incredibly frustrating court case currently in progress where the insurance industry are trying to claim that a global pandemic and being forced to shut down by the government isn't the sort of thing businesss interruption insurance has to cover because of some highly specific by-the-letter readings of regulations and documents as opposed to the common sense reading of the same texts....

Well that's comparing apples and oranges suffice to say the High Court (sitting as a pseudo court of appeal) rejected most of the insurers key arguments for avoiding indemnity. It will now pass to the Supreme Court and will allow both parties to seek clarity on the law - which is exactly how a world-renowned legal system should work.

As for burden of proof in an insurance claim (vis a vis whether an item of equipment was CE marked or otherwise) the burden would be placed on the insurer to prove that the item was unsafe, not for you to prove that it was.

Obviously there's going to be a certain amount of grace but I'll bet you if someone buys a load of kit from an EU supplier on 2nd January, installs it in the Royal Albert Hall and it burns down the insurance companies will be leaning more on the side of "your kit doesn't comply with UK regulations and markings so we won't pay" than taking a generous view that you did your best to understand the conflicting government statements.

Good job our legal system, which incidentally is the envy of the world, doesn't work like that then.

Oh yes well that's all a different topic. False claims of union subscription increases aside the question of whether Unions should set pay grades is an interesting one but I'm far too busy to contribute to it to be at a point where I could do it justice.

That's the problem - gross annual earnings are your invoices.

No they are not. Bectu's own rules states "Gross annual earnings shall be defined for this purpose as a member's pre-tax earnings" and if you google pre-tax earning you get:"Pretax earnings is a company's income after all operating expenses, including interest and depreciation, have been deducted from total sales or revenues, but before income taxes have been subtracted."

It's unfortunate that the presumably London living wage admin assistant you spoke to doesn't understand the intricacies of degree level accounting terms but further discussion based on their actual terms and conditions would have no doubt yielded positive results.

I'm out now and haven't missed them at all

Perhaps not directly but we all benefit from the union existing.

I haven't read the rule-book, but the reminder letter still says "Gross Annual Earnings".

Yeah but any term like that is almost always defined somewhere.

That particular definition has been in their hand book which has been in effect since at least 1 January 2017

No it's not correct.

Every few years BECTU will bump you up one subscription band in expectation that you're earning more. It's very easy to e-mail them and inform them otherwise and part of the admin that adults carry out on a daily basis.

Any reasonable person would expect the sending of such a letter from BECTU to happen automatically so we don't have to pay someone sat a desk to do it manually. Unfortunately computers don't know about the sensitivities about the timing of Covid-19 and so when a person received a letter this week they overacted and blasted about it on facebook followed by all the sheep that can't do a basic google search.

BECTU are actually dropping the rates on the lowest three bands by £1.25/month in October 2020 "to reduce the burden on those members on the lowest incomes who are under the most financial pressure, and introduce a stronger element of fairness into the system. This results in reduced subscriptions for approximately 8,700 banded rate members paying by direct debit and up to 1,200 more who pay via the 1% of income scheme."https://bectu.org.uk...snyuvgphffsnyu/

We degrade unions at our peril!

I left because of the way fees are based on your invoice totals and not your profit (which is the self-employed person's income), and they just didn't get it.

And this didn't sound right so I spent a couple of minutes getting the rulebook up available here

On Page 5: "Gross annual earnings shall be defined for this purpose as a member's pre-tax earnings"

If you google pre-tax earning you get:"Pretax earnings is a company's income after all operating expenses, including interest and depreciation, have been deducted from total sales or revenues, but before income taxes have been subtracted"

So yeah that's your profit.

Instead of DMX512 it shall henceforth be referred to as OMG240 when in fault condition.

Will that be compatible with the OMFG400?

Ah cool, some interesting replies.

It'll be triggering an MA2 so either through the remote input socket or through something like this to enable control through the DMX inputsIt needs to be a physical button ideally as it's a much more tactile surface to avoid mis-fires etc.

Tim - did you find something off-the-shelf that did 2 way radio?

At the moment I'm using the flash buttons on a portable 6-way-desk to transmit CRMX although it's a bit of clunky way to do it. Despite being on 2.4gHz it seems rock solid even when we've had issues with wi-fi so ideally it would be on it's own frequency.

Does anyone know if the Power Point remotes use a technology that's different to the one I linked to in my first post - ie more powerful or with error correction?

I'm looking at building a hand held button system to trigger a cue on a lighting desk.

A very rudimentary google has given me something like this which would seem to do the job. The infrastructure at the receiver end is easy for me to sort out so it's more the wireless side of things that I'd like some advice about.

The three main concerns for me would be:- Range- Reliability- Lag

Cost isn't a big issue so I'd be happy to spend more to get something that could be used in a professional context. Has anyone made or used something like this before or got any advice as to the best technology to achieve this?