At the moment, large car insurance companies and some smaller newer firms are introducing Telematic car insurance to their list of products aimed mainly at young drivers. Currently, young drivers (mainly 17-24 year olds) represent 8% of all driving license holders in the U.K but yet, are involved in 30% of all road traffic collisions. This resulted in an ongoing increase in car insurance for young drivers with the average for young men reaching £3,100, whilst young females have an average of £1,800. With Telematic car insurance, young drivers have the opportunity of proving they are safer drivers by having a small telematics box fitted to their cars, which then sends data to a remote satellite and is monitored by the insurance company. This “black box” measures pretty much all driving habits including: speed, distance driven, time of day, braking force etc. Those drivers, who prove to be safer, are rewarded with cheaper policies and perhaps even cash back.

Between 2010 and 2011, Foreign Office figures show that 3,752 Britons were hospitalised abroad and required consular assistance, a third of them had their accident in Spain. Until very recently, Brits who were injured abroad would have had their damages assessed under English law, however this week, senior European judges have ruled that where an accident has taken place within the EU after 11 January 2009, damages will be assessed within the law of the county where the accident occurred. This ruling came in Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA, C-412/10 (2010/C 301/12). In this case Mr. Homawoo, a British national, was left with two broken legs and brain damage when he was hit by a car in the south-west of France back in 2007.

Some issuers of store-branded credit cards may be unable to collect debts run up by some of their defaulting card holders; following a court ruling. Judge Henrietta Manners ruled at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court that Santander could not collect a debt of £5,126 on a Harrods card. She said this was mainly because the store card's terms and conditions were not properly supplied and signed, however its later upgrade to credit card was also not carried out correctly. The Harrods card-holder in question, Diana Mayhew, said she never asked for the upgraded card, issued in 2003.

With all the recent media attention being focused on the FA Cup, the Grand National and perhaps a few other sporting events that I have overlooked, it can be difficult for England’s ‘smaller’ sports to get a look-in. This time of year is also an important time for British ice hockey, which seems to keep a low profile, judging by the number of people who don’t realise that it exists! Perhaps the reason for this is that the sport has had a turbulent history in the UK and is still developing. Arguably the most recent ‘glory days’ were in the 1990s, during the short-lived Superleague era. Manchester locals may remember the Manchester Storm who played in this league out of the Manchester Evening News Arena (formerly the Nynex) and pulled record crowds of well over 10,000. The draw was the fast, skilful, high quality nature of the game, made possible by the high numbers of imports. British players were a rarity rather than the norm, and often did not get much ice time even if they received a contract.

At the end of March a landmark case heard before the Supreme Court ensured that mesothelioma sufferers and victims of other asbestos related illnesses could claim damages from the insurers of the employers that exposed them to asbestos. For sufferers of mesothelioma and asbestosis claiming damages has been fraught with difficulty in the past. The usual rule in negligence cases, that the Claimant must establish on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant’s negligence caused his or her injury or disease, traditionally caused problems for the sufferers of these diseases as it is difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the illness. Especially as in most cases many years have passed since the asbestos exposure by the time the illness is diagnosed. However, in 2006 the House of Lords held that an exception of the rule be made for mesothelioma sufferers in that they only have to prove that the exposure to asbestos contributed the risk that they would suffer mesothelioma to hold their employer liable.