They are concurrent tortfeasors,
not joint tortfeasors.
A and B were
not joint tortfeasors.
Not exact matches
It is clear that the EAT did
not regard its conclusion as representing a satisfactory state of affairs, particularly where the
joint or concurrent
tortfeasors are at arms» length, eg as in Bullimore v Porthecary Witham Weld [2011] IRLR 18 where an ex-employer gave a damaging reference about the claimant to a prospective employer because the ex-employee had presented a sex discrimination claim against them and the prospective employer withdrew the offer for the same reason, and in circumstances where CLIA 1978 applies to discrimination claims brought in the ordinary courts.
Recently in Illinois, the state supreme court held that a counterclaim for contribution by
joint tortfeasors following an injurious truck accident was rightly dismissed, despite defendants» claims that a prior settlement was
not reached in good faith because the settling defendant's conduct was intentional.
In my view, it would
not be appropriate, as a matter of course, for a
joint tortfeasor found to be minimally responsible for an accident to be ordered to pay costs strictly in accordance with its liability to pay the damages.
Two recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions have cast doubt on previous authority relating to
joint tortfeasors, and provided guidance relevant
not only to discrimination claims but also to tort more generally.