Ashurst and Davies Arnold Cooper (DAC) have lost their bid to stave off £750m in claims against Buncefield operators Total.
lit
Sitting in the High Court today Mr Justice David Steel found Total vicariously liable for all damages spinning out of the 2005 Buncefield explosion, which the court found was caused by the negligence of a Total employee.
The judge also found that Total’s head office staff had contributed to the explosion by failing to put in place an adequate system for preventing the overfilling of the fuel tanks that exploded.
It marks a major victory for Herbert Smith and Jonathan Sumption QC of Brick Court Chambers, who represented joint defendant Chevron in its quest to hold Total liable. Chevron would have been liable for 40 per cent of damages if it had lost the case.
As it stands, the company can claim damages and quantum against Total, which is likely to faces a damages bill of around £1bn.
The depot was jointly run by Total and Chevron by a venture called Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL). Herbert Smith partners Ted Greeno and Caroline Kehoe argued through Sumption that Total had taken responsibility for maintaining the site and therefore should be held liable for negligence.
Ashurst partner Mark Elvy and DAC partner Nick Young instructed Lord Grabiner QC of One Essex Court and Andrew Bartlett QC of Crown Office Chambers for Total Downstream UK and Total UK.
Kennedys acted as lead counsel for the insurers of residents affected outside the perimeter of Buncefield. The firm, which instructed Jonathan Gaisman QC of 7 Kings Bench Walk, scored a major victory against the oil companies in April 2008 when the defendants admitted negligence and conceded liability.
Victory yet again.
You have to understand that Slaughters this year have experienced a massive upsurge in their applications following the banking crisis, as many non-law students who were intent on going into investment banking have had a last minute change of heart and are now clogging up the magic circle’s training contract application system. This does make it more difficult for firms to distinguish those non-law students with a genuine intention and passion for the law from IB defectors. It seems only fair to, at this stage, limit (at least temporarily) the amount of non-law applications to be considered, both practically speaking, in order to deal with the deluge and give adequate care and time to assess each applications, and also out of fairness to law graduates who by virtue of their undergraduate degrees have clearly proven their commitment to law, before the credit crunch made banking an unpopular option. Hardly discriminatory I feel, and very fair. And this opinion is coming from a non-law graduate who has made it into the magic circle for the 2009 intake!
the rise of the mouthpiece
Is an LLM a nice academic exercise? Yes. Will it make you a better lawyer in the real world? No. BTW I happily drank heavily throughout my Masters and came out with a distinction so anyone who can’t hack it is clearly not really masters material. What everyone here needs to realise is that both a law degree and the GDL are so far removed from every day life as a lawyer that the differences are irrelevant.
PS I completely agree with Anonymous (18.02) below – read the article, use some of those analytical skills you are all so desperate to demonstrate and realise that you’ve completely missed the point. The “IP lawyer” below may well have a good job – good on him – but he could have got there with just one degree if he was any good.
Herbert Smith
Those people who state the opinion that the GDL is in some way a poor relation to an LLB seem to be missing the fact that if a non-law graduate completes the GDL and the LPC with the College of Law (there may also be others that I am not aware of), they are awarded an LLB. Are these people suggesting that an LLB from the College of Law is in some way inferior? I suspect the Privy Council would disagree.
Herbies and Sumption seal victory in Buncefield case
The reality is, that these the lawyers who would be doing this will be doing exactly the same work over 5 days or more for 80% of the current wages.
Nobody will be taking a full day off and anyone who does will be in the redundancy line. The firms all know this . It’s simply publicity….