"Because of the pure breadth and depth of black letter law research and practical guidance that ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø provides, we don't have to rely on counsel as much as perhaps firms that don't use ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø."
KaurMaxwell
Access all documents on Recklessness
Recklessness is unjustified risk taking.
A person acts recklessly with respect to:
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and
it is in the circumstances known to him unreasonable to take the risk. Failure to consider a risk – however obvious it might be – does not give rise to recklessness; but closing one's mind to a risk requires first realising that there is one and is thus equivalent to awareness
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
The subjective test for recklessnessCertain statutory and common law offences allow the prosecution to prove the mens rea on the basis of ‘recklessness’. In essence, recklessness means the taking of an unjustified risk by the accused that leads to unlawful harm or damage.The subjective test for recklessness was reaffirmed by the House of Lords in R v G. Before R v G, there were two tests for recklessness, with the applicable test depending on the substantive offence charged. The two tests were for:•subjective recklessness as established by R v Cunningham. This test required the prosecution to prove that the accused had foreseen the risk themselves•objective recklessness as established by R v Caldwell. This test required the prosecution to prove that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person. The prosecution were not required to prove that the accused themselves foresaw the riskThe House of Lords in R v G held that the objective test could cause unfairness in circumstances where a defendant did not foresee the unlawful consequences...
A person is guilty of attempting to commit an offence if they do an act that is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence, with the intention of committing an offence. An attempt is an offence of specific intent. It requires an intention to commit an offence. The offence itself consists of both a criminal act and a mental state. In each case it is a question of fact whether the accused has gone sufficiently far towards the full offence to have committed the act of the attempt. If the accused has passed the preparatory stage the offence of attempt has been committed and it is no defence that they then withdrew from committing the completed offence.Most attempts at committing criminal offences will be governed by section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (CAA 1981), although some statutory exceptions apply. These include:•burglary under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), and•using a firearm to resist arrest under section 17 of the Firearms Act 1968 (FiA...
Discover our 69 Practice Notes on Recklessness
Litigation, advocacy and ADR policy 1 Introduction 1.1 This document sets out our policy for dealing with litigation and advocacy before any court or tribunal and any form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It reflects duties imposed on us by the court and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) as well as general professional duties. 1.2 Failure to comply with these duties can have serious consequences: 1.2.1 the firm or a member of staff could be in contempt of court, which is ultimately punishable by a fine or even imprisonment; 1.2.2 our reputation could be damaged; 1.2.3 the firm or individuals within the firm could be disciplined by the SRA or another regulator, which could lead to fines, disqualification or other sanctions; 1.2.4 we may receive a formal complaint from our client or another party. 1.3 We have always taken our duties to the court seriously and we will continue to do so. 2 Scope of this policy 2.1 This policy covers: 2.1.1 litigation and advocacy before...
Legal opinion-issuer’s counsel (US IPO) [Firm Letterhead] [[Insert name]] [[Insert name]] [[Insert name]] [c/o [Insert name]] [[Insert name]] Re: [Insert name of matter] Dear [insert text] We have acted as counsel to [insert name of company], a [insert nature of company] (the Company), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), of (i) [insert amount of shares] shares (the Firm Shares) of the Company's common stock, par value $[insert amount] per share (the Common Stock), and (ii) up to an additional [insert number of shares]shares of Common Stock (the Option Shares), pursuant to an overallotment option granted by the Company to the underwriters listed on Schedule I hereto (the Underwriters), and the public offering thereof pursuant to an underwriting agreement, dated [insert date], by and among Company and the Underwriters (the Underwriting Agreement). This opinion is delivered pursuant to Section [insert section number] of the Underwriting Agreement. Capitalised terms not otherwise defined herein...
Dive into our 2 Precedents related to Recklessness
Can you pursue a claim for personal injury against a child as a defendant, either in their own name or against their parent? Child defendants Although a child is responsible for their negligent actions just like any adult, the standard of care is that which can be reasonably expected of a child of the defendant’s age. As noted in Commentary: Liability for children: Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation Service [81]: ‘the general principle is that a parent or schoolmaster is not liable for the conduct of children under their supervision’. However, where the child is very young, it may be that the responsible adult concerned will be responsible for their negligent actions under a primary liability for a lack of supervision and control. See Practice Note: Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims Case law The following case law may assist when considering whether a child’s conduct may have amounted to a breach of the duty of care. In Mullin v Richards it...
What are the implications for a company's directors who have wrongly relied on an audit exemption and filed unaudited accounts? Companies are required to file audited accounts and reports with Companies House unless an exemption applies (such as the small company, subsidiary company or dormant company exemption). Chapter 1, Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) sets out the requirement (and exemptions from the requirement) for audited accounts. See Practice Note: requirement to audit accounts which summarises the statutory provisions relating to the requirement to audit the company’s annual accounts in accordance with the CA 2006 and other legislation. Assuming that the directors of a company relied on an exemption at the time of signing off the accounts (ie, included an audit exemption statement on the company’s balance sheet) and external accountants did not prepare the accounts in question, the directors of the company may be liable to a fine under different provisions of the CA 2006 in relation to incorrectly relying on an...
See the 5 Q&As about Recklessness
This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes an analysis of a High Court decision where an ex-marine was awarded more than £700,000 for noise-induced hearing loss. We also consider a case involving a serious injury from a reckless rugby tackle. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other key cases and news and New Law Journal articles of interest.
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has clarified the meaning of ‘deliberate concealment’ under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). LA 1980, s 32(1)(b) extends the limitation period where a fact has been ‘deliberately concealed’. LA 1980, s 32(2) provides that a ‘deliberate’ breach of duty which is unlikely to be discovered ‘for some time’ amounts to such a deliberate concealment. What has not been clear up until now, however, is exactly what the terms ‘deliberate’, and ‘a breach of duty’ mean under LA 1980. In its recent decision, the Court of Appeal has clarified both points. It held that the word ‘deliberate’ can mean ‘reckless’, and that ‘a breach of duty’ can include ‘any legal wrongdoing’, it does not have to equate to a specific contractual, tortious or fiduciary duty. This decision will mean the evidential burden for claimants seeking to rely on ‘deliberate concealment’ under LA 1980 is much reduced. Written by Harriet Campbell, professional support lawyer at Stephenson Harwood LLP.
Read the latest 3 News articles on Recklessness
**Trials are provided to all ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234