header-logo header-logo

London riots: liability is strict

23 May 2014
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Three video firms whose stock was looted or destroyed during the 2011 London riots have won £3m compensation from the Mayor’s office.

The Court of Appeal found that consequential loss was in principle recoverable and held the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime liable under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 for damage to stock held at a Sony warehouse in Enfield.

Under s 2(1) of the 1886 Act, the police are obliged to pay compensation out of a police fund to any person who suffers loss “where a house, shop, or building in a police area has been injured or destroyed, or the property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together”. The Court of Appeal upheld the high court’s finding that liability is strict.

Delivering his judgment, Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Master of the Rolls, said: “Strictly speaking, all that matters for the purposes of the Act is whether the group which attacked the warehouse was riotously and tumultuously assembled at the time they caused the damage.”

Lawrence Abramson, consultant solicitor at Keystone Law, who represented the three video firms, says: “The Riot Act states that the police must compensate businesses for damage caused during riots and so most insurance policies do not include provisions for this type of loss.

My clients desperately need to recover the losses they have incurred as a result of the events in 2011 so I am pleased that Court of Appeal has upheld its decision and that they will receive the compensation they need.”

 

Issue: 7608 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll