After it was delayed last year due to the pandemic, 60 big bear sculptures are being brought to life by professional local and international artists. The bears are being placed across the city of Sheffield this summer to form a city trail like no other.
We are sponsoring Lathaniel, the Fabulous Bear, in order to support the Sheffield Children’s Hospital in Sheffield
We are hoping to donate £20,000 by the end of the summer to contribute to the new Cancer and Leukaemia ward at our amazing hospital. Our team, clients and brand ambassadors have all been busy raising money to help reach our target.
The ASD bear has been designed by local artist Ruby Fox.
We will let you know soon the location of our bear. When you find the ASD bear please tick it off on your map or app and if you really like our bear you can donate towards it!
If you want to donate and help us raise our target, please visit
ASD continue with their sponsorship of local under 10s football team, Ecclesall Rangers (Gold). Ralph Clark, from ASD, in what is now their second year of sponsorship, comments: ‘It’s great to see the kids getting outside in what has obviously been a difficult year; seeing them enjoy playing, in a friendly or the league (and in all weather) and watching them individually and as a team improve over the weeks and months
Men, women and even children (unbelievably) are embracing the beauty treatment revolution, whether at home or in a local salon. According to research, in 2017, one in three Britons had received a treatment in either a spa, salon or other treatment area in the past 12 months – although clearly the sector is currently being heavily affected by the global Covid-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic, UK consumers were estimated to spend £8 billion on treatments in spa, salons, and instore treatment by 2021. Meanwhile, the ‘do it yourself’ beauty treatment market is also booming. Home hair dye kits, waxing products, and permanent makeup are rising trends, to name just a few. As such, claims arising from negligent beauty treatment, or from the use of beauty products at home, are becoming more commonplace as the industry grows. But what about regulation?
‘Regulation’ … a person having a non-surgical cosmetic intervention has no more protection and redress than someone buying a ballpoint pen or a toothbrush.’ Non-surgical interventions, which can have major and irreversible adverse impacts on health and wellbeing, are almost entirely unregulated.
Self-regulation was found to have failed, as unscrupulous providers carried on as before. Even worse, Dermal fillers are injections given to smooth the skin and to help get rid of unwanted lines and wrinkles on the face. They can also be injected into the lips and cheeks to enhance them.
The injections contain either collagen, hyaluronic acid, calcium hydroxylapatite, poly-L-lactic acid, or polymethylmethacrylate beads, and can last between three months and two years, depending on which filler you have opted for. Although it is a relatively painless procedure, a local anaesthetic, cream, or injection is often required. A significant number of new products containing hyaluronic acid have become available over the last five or six years, and have proved highly popular.
Common side effects can be swelling, bruising and infection and the filler can move from where it was originally injected, forming lumps. Although rare, there is also the risk that a filler can obstruct a blood vessel. As the British College of Aesthetic Medicine points out on its website: ‘Be wary of new fillers – the regulations at present are not very demanding so a product can be promoted after minimal testing.’ ‘Dermal fillers are a particular cause for concern as anyone can set themselves up as a practitioner, with no requirement for knowledge, training, or previous experience. ‘Nor are there sufficient checks in place with regard to product quality – most dermal fillers have no more controls than a bottle of floor cleaner. There has been explosive growth in this market, driven by a combination of high demand and high profits in an era when all other commercial income is stalling.’
The impact of negligent treatment
There appears to be an urgent need for regulation. Here are just some of the injuries caused by negligent derma filler treatment; but the long-term effects are unknown, with many experts requesting that urgent studies are carried out so that consumers know the risks.
Common derma filler complications:
• Frozen face
• Severe swelling when the products hardened
• Infection
• Scarring
In addition to the physical injuries, significant psychological harm can be caused to a person when a cosmetic treatment goes wrong. The problems associated with psychological damage require extensive investigation and would warrant a standalone research paper. Consideration of psychological injury must form part of any proposed regulation in the future and should be a key consideration when you are assessing new enquiries.
Social media creating pressure
In the Times newspaper on 14 May 2019, Conservative MP Alberto Costa argued that there needed to be more regulation in the sector and made the case for a minimum age requirement. This followed concerns made to him by a constituent. He pointed to research by Save Face, which said that 62% of people find their beauty practitioner through social media.
The BBC reported on a study by the Royal Society for Public Health (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39955295), in which young people rated Instagram as the social media platform with the worst impact on mental health. Celebrities and other influencers sharing images of their perfect bodies, faces and lives can lead to young people turning to cosmetic practitioners. It seems likely they will go to whoever will provide the treatment cheapest – without thinking that a quick and cheap procedure has the potential to create long-term physical and mental health problems.
Beauty salons
Below are some common issues relating to beauty salons.
Insurance
Salons or beauticians often do not have the appropriate public liability cover, if any at all. If they do have insurance, it is often basic, and the treatments offered by the beautician or salon sometimes go beyond their insurance cover.
The onus should be on insurers to investigate what treatments are being provided by their policyholders, with wider ranging insurance being offered as standard to such practitioners. Obviously, regulation making insurance obligatory should be the starting point. Customers must also be encouraged to ask about insurance before they proceed with any treatment, whether in a salon or via a mobile beautician.
Medical history
Some beauty practitioners fail to investigate the customer’s medical history or fail to complete adequate pre-treatment checks or investigations. A simple questionnaire and discussion with the customer beforehand, ideally before the appointment has been booked, could avoid potential injuries.
Training, advertising, and inducements
Other problems include beauticians carrying out treatments without proper training.
Online courses can provide as little a one hours’ worth of training. There maybe no assessment, and participants are presented with a diploma at the end, simply for sitting and watching a video online.
Advertising needs urgent scrutiny. Customers can be tempted by offers such as ‘buy one, get one free’ or time-limited offers. Did someone undergo treatment when the treatment was offered as part of a promotion or were they under time pressure? Needless to say, cosmetic interventions such as Botox or derma filler should not be an impulse purchase and should be researched in advance. Given the huge expansion of the sector and the fact that more horror stories are reaching the media on a weekly basis, damaging a growth sector, action should be taken sooner rather than later by the government. Regulation would also support responsible practitioners who are operating with customer safety at the forefront of their service.
If you have suffered injury following a cosmetic procedure please contact Richard Meggitt, Solicitor for further advice. [email protected]
We are operational and have comprehensive plans to continue to assist existing and new clients. If you wish to make a new enquiry our Solicitors are here to help 9 am to 9 pm. We continue to accept new cases and recommendations through the website, by email and telephone. We are now carrying out meetings ‘face to face’ if requested. The reception is open for new clients and for pre-arranged appointments only.
Richard Meggitt and part of the Serious Injury Team at ASD assisted Mr T of Sheffield who was seriously injured following a road accident.
The client suffered life changing injuries to his leg. Mr T was thrown from his motorbike when a motorist emerged from a traffic calming measure in Parson Cross, Sheffield. The motorist denied liability saying the motorcyclist was not in view when he pulled out, the suggestion being that Mr T was travelling too fast.
The Serious Injury Team secured a settlement of a five figure settlement with the assistant of an accident reconstruction expert. The expert concluded that based on the distance Mr T was thrown from his bike, he was in view when the third party pulled out.
When faced with the expert evidence the insurers for the motorist made a reasonable offer.
Richard Meggitt, Solicitor, confirmed that sometimes accident reconstruction evidence is vital to persuade the insurers for the responsible party to admit liability. This claim was settled in August 2014.
We have developed a new scheme which we believe will have significant advantages over Claims Management Companies and other Solicitors. From the 1st April we will charge the client a success fee, but there will be nothing else to pay; no loans, no insurance premiums and no interest. We will also guarantee that we will never take more than 20% of the client’s damage. In addition we will promise to see new clients in their home and make sure local people are represented by qualified solicitors.
Many people at some point may need to seek legal advice and so call on the services of a firm of solicitors if they have been involved in some sort of accident or incident. Solicitors can provide invaluable help and assistance if you need to take some sort of action or bring a case against the person or party responsible for the accident. One element which is particularly important for many people who need the assistance of a solicitor is to have face to face meetings with their solicitor and even home visits if necessary.
The majority of firms of solicitors now offer services on a no win no fee basis which has proven to be a very popular system. Offering this service makes it possible for the majority of people to use a solicitor regardless of their income. While many firms offer this service, not all of them offer a face to face or home visit service.
Meeting with your solicitor in person can help to give your confidence as well as providing reassurance that everything possible is being done. You might find that it is easier to go through various details and have things explained clearly if you meet a solicitor rather than having to communicate by phone or email. Providing a face to face service makes the whole process more personal and can help to put people at ease if they feel nervous about situation at all. Offering a home visit service can also be an added incentive for some clients. Travelling to a solicitor’s office might be difficult for some people or if you are elderly or have been badly injured in an accident then you might be unable to get there for a meeting. A home visit means that all potential clients can be seen and have their case discussed properly.
If you have been injured in an accident and you want to make a claim then you should be able to go ahead with it regardless of whether you can travel to an office or not. If a firm of solicitors offers a home visit service then this can make the process easier for you remove the stress of having to arrange an appointment at an office and making your way there. Having a solicitor see you in your own home will put you at ease and you will be more likely to relax and be able to provide all of the information that is required. If you contact a solicitor with the intention of making a claim then you want to be certain that they will take your case and having a face to face meeting or home visit will provide the opportunity to clarify what will happen and if the firm can help you to make your claim. Using the services of a solicitor will speed up the process of making a claim and seeking compensation and can help to bring it to a happy conclusion which will allow you to get back to your normal life.
While it would be impossible to compile a list of every known hazard in the workplace for employers and employees, there are accidents at work which are far more common than others, and are also easily preventable. According to the Health and Safety Executive statistics, in 2009/2010 5.1 million days were lost overall due to workplace injury.
According to Workplace Safety Advice, the highest ranking accidents on their lists were trips, slips and falls, accounting for 4/10 reported incidents. These kinds of accidents are mostly caused by cluttered walkways and communal areas, trailing cables, ice, along with unreported fluid spillages. A vigilant employer in a place of work can check for all these problems, alongside making sure there is always adequate lighting, guard rails and handrails in the workplace. Accident compensation claims for a work related fall or slip could range from hundreds to thousands of pounds depending on the severity of the incident.
Manual handling and lifting accidents are also a big problem and are again easily preventable with training and forethought. Most injuries come from when one person tries to carry an object which is too heavy for them to lift, and/or in an incorrect manner. A load as light of five kilograms can even cause injury if not lifted with the correct techniques. It’s required by law for employers to give out proper training on lifting. There is a large amount of literature available on the government’s Business Link website in regards to lifting practices. Payouts for lifting accidents can go as high as six figures because back and neck injuries can persist over a lifetime so it’s important for employers to put in place the necessary procedures to ensure that their employees don’t suffer an injury.
If you’ve had a workplace accident from manual handling, a fall from height, poor PPE you can make a claim.
For advice as to the value of your claim please call 0114 2678780. You can also mail Richard Meggitt at [email protected], or complete our online form today.
Tim Petts looks at how far Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd [2011] can take us
The basic facts of this personal injury claim are sadly not uncommon, and those with experience in criminal practice (or who read local newspapers) will be all too aware of the possibility of nightclub arguments turning nasty. Robert and Carl go to a London hotel’s nightclub as guests of a member, a dispute breaks out about the group’s behaviour towards a waitress and Cecil, a guest of another member, stabs them with a concealed weapon. He had not been searched on entry. The waitress in question had thought that something might happen between the two groups but had not alerted the doormen, although she was in the middle of discussing the matter with the bar manager. Should the nightclub’s management be held liable for these injuries and, if so, upon what legal basis?
The claim failed at trial and on appeal, showing once again the difficulties in establishing liability in negligence for the criminal actions of third parties. However, the case establishes a general duty on nightclubs to protect guests from reasonably foreseeable harm cause by other guests. Even though the court of Appeal emphasised that the standard to be expected of nightclubs will vary according to the circumstances, and that the court must only expect steps to be taken that are ‘fair, just and reasonable’, this is still a significant development for Claimant’s and Defendant’s alike: not just for nightclub violence, but more generally.
Facts
The violence occurred not in some dodgy nightclub prone to outbreaks of violence, but in the Met Bar in London, which is open to members and their guests, and to guests at the hotel. It had no history of violent incidents. The situation here developed after a waitress called Tania was touched or kicked on the bottom by someone in the group that included Robert and Carl. Tania did not want to complain about this, but one of the club’s regular and valued customers, Sami, was upset on her behalf and said to her that those responsible would apologise to her before the end of the night. Shortly afterwards, Sami signed in as a guest his ‘driver’, Cecil, who was described as having a bodybuilder physique. Tania was worried that Cecil might be sent over to ‘extract an apology’ from the others, and she was in the middle of raising the matter with the bar manager when the assaults occurred. Robert and Carl were getting their coats when Sami forthcoming, Cecil stabbed one of them, then chased the other downstairs before stabbing him. Less than 15 minutes elapsed between Cecil arriving and the violence starting.
By the conclusion of the evidence, the only allegations of negligence left were:
The manager ought to have instructed the doormen to search guests (an allegation rejected by the judge and not appealed); and
Tania ought to have reported her concerns to the doormen not the bar manager, so that they would have been on hand and either prevented or controlled any outbreak of violence.
The judge, and the Court of Appeal, rejected this argument as we. However, it is the discussion of whether the management owed the men any duty of care that makes the decision interesting.
The company providing the doormen was sued but obtained summary judgement in its favour at an early stage; default judgement was obtained against Sami but he could not be found; Cecil was sentenced to life imprisonment for the assault, but had been released by the time of the Court of Appeal decision eight years later and was presumably not worth suing.
Duty of care or not?
The trial judge had accepted the principle of an Australian decision, Chordas v Bryant [1988], where the Federal Court had accepted that a hotel manager had a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable risks of injury arising from actions of another patron. However, he said that no duty arose on the facts: Tania had no duty to do anything about Cecil because the risk of injury was not sufficiently great; she did not know that he had a concealed weapon and there was no history of violence from Sami or his guests, or indeed at the nightclub generally.
The nightclub sought to argue that the judge was wrong to accept Chordas, but at the appeal hearing recognised the difficulty of arguing that there was no duty at all on nightclub management in respect of third parties’ actions. Analysing the situation with the threefold test of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] (reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and ‘fair, just and reasonable’) the Court of Appeal considered that all three elements of the test were met and a duty was owed. Alcohol could lead to violence, as the nightclub’s risk assessment noted, and so it was reasonably foreseeable that one guest might assault another. The risk could not be ignored even in a respectable private club such as this. Proximity was satisfied because the nightclub controlled entry and removal and because there was an economic relationship between the nightclub and a paying guest (who is entitled to expect that he will not be unsafe). ‘Fair, just and reasonable’ was met for these reasons and by analogy with the Occupier’s Liability Act 1957; it would be odd, thought the Court of Appeal, if a nightclub was liable for injury caused by a worn carpet but could never be liable for injury caused by a fellow guest known to be dangerous.
However, it stresses that the standard of the duty imposed must also be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. It would depend on the circumstances, for example, was it a nightclub to which offensive weapons were frequently brought? If so, the duty would be likely to include searching on entry. Was it one where violence was common? In such cases, thought the Court of Appeal, liability might be found where violence broke out with nobody on hand to stop it. Sometimes, security personnel would be needed not only at the door but also inside to avoid a breach of duty. Where there was no history of violence, such as at a respectable members-only club, such steps would not normally be necessary, though.
These comments are unlikely to have been much consolation to the nightclub, who were arguing that there needed to be a high degree of foreseeability of injury before liability would attach. This argument was rejected on the basis that given the closeness of relationship between guest and management, no higher degree of foreseeability was required than under the Occupier’s Liability Act.
On the facts of the case, although the Court of Appeal disagreed with the judge and said that a duty was owed, the judge’s conclusion that Tania’s decision to speak to the manager not the doormen was not unreasonable was upheld. No confrontation was imminent; Sami was a valued customer and the intervention of doormen might have caused embarrassment, so discussing the matter with the manager was sensible.
Where next?
The decision takes a major step towards including liability for the actions of third parties as a standard part of the various duties imposed upon an occupier of premises. The foreseeablilty test for the two situations is equated, and arguments for a higher threshold of foreseeability specifically rejected. As well as agreeing that the principle of Chordas applied here as well as in Australia, the Court of Appeal noted that the law in Canada imposes a statutory duty on occupiers in relation to the conduct of third parties in the same way that it imposes a duty in relation to the condition of the premises or activities on the premises. The standard to be expected of occupiers after Everatt will vary, not least because it appears by reference to whether there was a financial relationship between visitor and occupier, which the Court of Appeal clearly took as an important factor.
Factors such as a past history of violence generally at the venue, involvement of a known troublemaker and consumption of alcohol will increase the chances of a claim succeeding.
The implications of Everatt for operators, only of nightclubs but of any other business where paying guests are admitted, are clear. The potential for a negligence claim following non-accidental injury inflicted by a fellow guest has been established. Managers of pubs and clubs, in particular, need to be reviewing their risk assessments and documentation to see whether their practices are sufficient and can be proved to be enforced. Claimant solicitors must not now automatically assume that it will not be possible to establish that the venue management are liable for injuries caused by third parties, since in the wake of Everatt such claims are only going to increase.
Whiplash is a common injury which is caused when the muscles, ligaments and tendons in the neck are overstretched, often as a result of impact experienced in a road traffic accident. This overstretching actually sprains the muscles which can lead the sufferer to experience a lot of pain. If you’ve been injured in a car accident then below are three reasons why you should make a whiplash injury claim.
1. Whiplash can be serious
Many people think whiplash is not a serious injury as it’s a very common injury in road accidents. Although in many cases whiplash can just result in a sore neck for a few days, in some cases the sufferer can experience prolonged pain including headaches and muscle spasms which can last for months or even years. It’s important not to underestimate the effects that whiplash can have so see your doctor after the accident and then make a log of your symptoms and any hospital or doctors visit so you have a clear idea of how the injury is impacting on your life.
2. You could be affected by long term symptoms
As whiplash can become chronic it’s important to consider making a whiplash injury claim as you could potentially suffer from long term symptoms which could affect your lifestyle and even your mental health. As the NHS website states “if you have prolonged pain, you may find it difficult to carry out daily activities and enjoy leisure time. It may also cause problems at work and could lead to anxiety and depression.”
3. Financial help when you need it
Whether you have to take a few days off work or if whiplash impacts on your ability to work long term, you have a right to cover the costs of an accident that you weren’t to blame for by claiming whiplash injury compensation. If the injury does have a major impact on your life then money from a whiplash accident claim will help to cover costs of hospital visits, time away from work and other expenses.
