Latest news with #compensation
The Sun
2 hours ago
- Business
- The Sun
I grew up in poverty – but lifting the 2 child benefit cap for all families is not fair on taxpayers
AS KING Canute found over a thousand years ago, it is quite difficult to stand on a beach and order the tide to recede. Today, it is equally difficult to make the argument that giving families cash is not always the best way of lifting them out of poverty. 2 This is especially true when one particular measure becomes the symbol of whether or not you're on the right side of the debate about child poverty. But as someone who now can afford the comforts of life, I constantly remind myself of my childhood. The grinding poverty that I experienced when my father was killed in a work accident when I was 12 – leaving my mother, who had serious health problems, to fight a long battle for minimal compensation. Having only bread and dripping in the house was, by anyone's standards, a hallmark of absolute poverty. Why on earth would I question, therefore, the morality of reversing a Tory policy introduced eight years ago? This restricts the additional supplement to universal credit – worth over £3,000 a child per year – to just two children. I should know, my friends tell me, that the easiest and quickest way of overcoming the growth in child poverty is to restore the £3.5 billion pounds it would cost to give this additional money for all the children in every family entitled to the credit. It is true that the policy, introduced in 2017, failed its first test. Women did not stop having more than two children even when they were strapped for cash. It is still unclear why. After all, many people have to make a calculation as to how many children they can afford. 2 But one thing must be certain: namely, that if you give parents a relatively substantial additional amount of money for every child they have whilst entitled to benefits, they are likely to have more children. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said as much last week. His argument for restoring the benefit to the third and subsequent children was precisely that we needed to persuade low- income families to have more children. Surely having children that you cannot afford to feed is the legacy of a bygone era? All those earning below £60,000 are entitled to the basic c hild benefit, so the argument is about just over £60 a week extra per child. One difficulty in having a sensible debate about what really works in overcoming intergenerational poverty is the lack of reliable statistics. Some people have claimed, over recent days, that over 50 per cent of children in Manchester and Birmingham live in poverty. I fear that such claims should be treated with scepticism. Those struggling to make ends meet – sometimes having not just one but two jobs – who pay their taxes and national insurance and plan their lives around what can be afforded, have the right to question where their hard-earned wages go. The simple and obvious truth is that child poverty springs from the lack of income of the adults who care for them. Transforming their lives impacts directly on the children in their family. There is a limit to how much money taxpayers are willing to hand over to pay for another family's children. Helping them to help themselves is a different matter. So, what would I do? Firstly, I would ensure that families with a disabled youngster automatically have the entitlement restored. This would self-evidently apply also to multiple births. In both cases, life is not only more difficult, it is also harder to get and keep a job. I would come down like a ton of bricks on absent parents. My mum was a single parent because she was widowed; many others are single in the sense that the other partner has walked away. The Child Maintenance Service should step up efforts to identify and pursue absent parents who do not pay their fair share towards their child. We, the community, have a clear duty to support and assist those in need. To help those where a helping hand will restore them to independence and self-reliance. But there is an obligation on individuals as well as the State, and mutual help starts with individuals taking some responsibility for themselves. Finally, if (and this is where I am in full agreement with colleagues campaigning to dramatically reduce child poverty) we make substantial sums of money available to overcome hardship, then a comprehensive approach to supporting the families must surely be the best way to achieve this. As ever in politics there is a trade off. What you spend on handing over cash is not available to invest in public services: that is the reality. Help from the moment a child is born, not just with childcare but with nurturing and child development. Dedicated backing to gain skills and employment and to taper the withdrawal of help so that it genuinely becomes worthwhile having and keeping a job. A contract between the taxpayer and the individual or household. Government is about difficult choices, that is why Keir Starmer and his colleagues are agonising over what to do next.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. The amount is examined and may be revised every five years. As of 2024 it stands at 151,880 SDR, equivalent to $277,940 Canadian. The plaintiffs had argued that Air Canada's terms and conditions included the phrase: 'There are no financial limits in respect of death or bodily injury of passengers,' suggesting that the airline was opting out of the limit set by the Montreal Convention. However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.' However, 'the court rejected this position, finding that Air Canada had not clearly waived its right to rely on the no-negligence defence.' Specifically, language in the Montreal Convention note that its liability rules 'supersede and prevail over any provisions of this tariff which may be inconsistent.' Meanwhile, Air Canada's own international tariff rules note that, 'except as otherwise provided herein,' the airline 'reserves all defences available.' Said Hennick: 'In the result, the passengers were unsuccessful in establishing that the carrier had waived the Article 21(2) defence for claims exceeding the maximum liability set out in the Montreal Convention.' Hennick noted that the Montreal Convention, aside from its cap on liabilities, is very open-ended when it comes to injury or loss of life while flying. 'The Montreal Convention says the carrier is liable for damages sustained in the case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking,' he said. 'So if you're injured by turbulence, that's considered onboard the aircraft, right? So I would say that would be something that could be compensable.' He added that passengers can sue beyond the limit, 'but if you want to claim it under the Montreal Convention, the benefit of that is all you have to do is prove your injuries.' 'As soon as you start claiming amounts above and beyond that, then they can start putting in defences for negligence. They can start alleging, well, the injury wasn't caused by us, it was caused by a third party, or could have been a result of pre-existing issues, or something other than that. But if you're going to be pursuing the limits under the Montreal Convention, it's a strict liability regime. You just have to show that you're injured on board the aircraft, prove the value of your injuries, and then they'll have to pay it.' One downside, he noted, is that the convention only mentions physical injuries. 'So if it's a purely psychological claim or psychiatric trauma, and you're not physically hurt … you may not be able to recover anything out of the Montreal Convention.' No more instant noodles in economy, says Korean Air Video shows passenger being pulled from overhead bin after turbulent Air Europa flight Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
National Post
10 hours ago
- Business
- National Post
Do airlines owe you compensation for turbulence-induced damages? Here's what we found out
Article content This month, two passengers who claimed there should be no upper limit on the amount of compensation Air Canada owes to injured passengers lost their case in an Australian court. Article content Article content The case stems from a July 2019 Air Canada flight from Vancouver to Sydney, Australia. The Canadian Press reported at the time that the flight hit severe turbulence and was forced to divert to Hawaii. Article content Article content Thirty people were sent to hospital, nine in serious condition, some suffering lacerations and injuries to their head, back and neck, emergency first responders in Hawaii said. Article content Article content Mother and daughter Renae and Stephanie Evans claimed they suffered spinal and psychological injuries during the flight. They also claimed that Air Canada, in its general rules, waived an upper limit set by an international treaty called the Montreal Convention. Article content The New South Wales Supreme Court initially ruled in favour of the passengers, a decision which was overturned by that state's Court of Appeal. The High Court then unanimously dismissed the passengers' case. Article content The Montreal Convention (or more formally the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) is an international treaty that was drawn up in 1999 and came into force in 2003. It sets limits for airline liabilities for everything from lost luggage to loss of life. Article content Article content In the case of the latter, it said airlines were liable for up to 100,000 SDR for the bodily injury or death of a passenger. SDR or 'special drawing rights' is an economic unit that can be translated into any local currency; 100,000 SDR is worth about $192,000 Canadian. Article content Article content However, Lawson Hennick, founding lawyer at Hennick Law in Markham, Ont., told National Post that on closer reading of the airline's regulations and the lawsuit, the high court's decision makes sense. Article content 'Article 25 of the Montreal Convention expressly permits carriers to agree to higher or unlimited liability,' he said. 'The court acknowledged this, noting that a carrier can raise or even eliminate the threshold at which the no-negligence defence applies.'
Associated Press
a day ago
- Business
- Associated Press
ROSEN, LEADING INVESTOR RIGHTS COUNSEL, Encourages Avis Budget Group, Inc. Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important Deadline in Securities Class Action
New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - May 30, 2025) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Avis Budget Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAR) between February 16, 2024 and February 10, 2025, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'), of the important June 24, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Avis Budget securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Avis Budget class action, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 24, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Avis Budget crafted and implemented a plan to significantly accelerate its fleet rotation in the fourth quarter of 2024; (2) the foregoing acceleration shortened the useful life of the majority of Avis Budget's vehicles in the Americas segment, thereby reducing their recoverable value; (3) as a result, Avis Budget would be forced to recognize billions of dollars in impairment charges and incur substantial losses; (4) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, have a significant negative impact on Avis Budget's financial results; (5) accordingly, Avis Budget's financial and/or business prospects were overstated; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Avis Budget class action, go to call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: or on Twitter: or on Facebook: Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. ------------------------------- Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 [email protected] To view the source version of this press release, please visit
BBC News
a day ago
- Business
- BBC News
Former Hibs player sues club over training injury from manager
A former Hibernian player is suing the Scottish Premiership club over injuries suffered in a training game involving an for Jake Doyle-Hayes said the midfielder's career had been "greatly restricted" by the ankle issue sustained in a tackle with Lee Johnson in 26, who also played for St Mirren and Aston Villa, raised a compensation action against the club at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday.A Hibs spokesperson said the club was aware of the claim. Doyle-Hayes left the Easter Road side by mutual consent in January and subsequently joined Sligo Rovers in the League of made 69 appearances for the club between 2021 and 2024, but just six of those came in his last two seasons. On his release, the club said that Doyle-Hayes' playing time "had been hampered by injury over the last two seasons".The Republic of Ireland youth international's lawyers said that was down to "horrific injuries" suffered in the incident during the training underwent surgery as a result of the tackle by Johnson in Solicitors, representing Doyle-Hayes, said they could not comment on the figure sought by the player but said the potential loss of earnings was argue that, without the injury, his career would have continued at a higher level. 'Derailed by mismanagement' Joel Shaw, partner at the firm, said the midfielder's career had been "lost" as a result of the said: "The impact of this has greatly restricted his career."These injuries should never have happened and were incurred due to incompetent and incoherent decisions made by his manager."Jake's career has been derailed by mismanagement and ineptitude. A career has been lost to this athlete." Johnson, who previously managed Bristol City and Sunderland, was sacked by Hibs in August was most recently interim manager at Lommel SK in the second tier of Belgian declined to comment when contacted by BBC Scotland News.A Hibs spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the claim, however as an ongoing matter shall not be commenting further at this stage."
