Author: MJM Limited

Cell phoneIn December 2012, I wrote an article on the case of Farnworth v R [2012] Bda LR 44 (151 KB PDF). This particular case provided guidance on the definition of a hand-held device which was in use while driving. Furthermore, it illustrated that the definition of ‘use’ with regards to a hand-held device was quite wide. In Bermuda, the law that guides the use of hand-held devices while driving is regulation 44 of the Motor Car (Construction, Equipment and Use) Regulations 1952 (the “Regulation”). This Regulation has once again come under judicial analysis in the recent case of Lincoln Raynor-Saldana v The Queen [2014] SC (Bda) 58 App (262 KB PDF). This particular case was an appeal from the Magistrate’s Court of Bermuda (Criminal Division) wherein Mr. Raynor-Saldana (the “Appellant”) was convicted for using a hand-held cell phone, namely an iPhone. Mr. Raynor-Saldana was fined $400 and given six (6) demerit points.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the “Board”) is the highest court of appeal for cases from Bermuda to be heard. When a case has reached the Privy Council, the issues to be considered by the Board are typically on points of law. On 8 October 2013, the Board handed down a judgment which will invariably affect all sentences which relate to murder in Bermuda: Selassie (Appellant) and Pearman (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) [2013] UK PC 29 (77 KB PDF).

The recent Supreme Court decision of The Bermuda Ombudsman v Corporation of Hamilton et al (420 KB PDF) [2013] SC (Bda) 72 Civ. which was handed down on 7 October 2013, sheds light on the authority that is vested in the office of the Ombudsman (the “Ombudsman”) and the weight that a summons issued by the Ombudsman has. The Ombudsman is a statutory body whose powers devolve from the Ombudsman Act 2004 (the “Act”).  The Ombudsman’s main jurisdictional function is to investigate maladministration on behalf of a public authority (section 5 of the Act).

As a firm that is committed to the professional development of its attorneys, MJM Limited offers its attorneys an internal professional development program. The program is designed to equip MJM attorneys with knowledge and information about relevant and developing areas of law so that they stay current with legal developments. Presentation topics typically cover the areas of interest and practice of the firm’s attorneys. For this year, internal presentations have been made in the following areas: insurance, telecommunications, corporate meeting and governance procedure, insolvency, employment and the legislative process in Bermuda.

Before an insurance company pays out damages following an accident, one’s claim must be particularised fully. Such a claim will typically include all expenses incurred as a result of the accident, which may include damage to property and expenses for transportation. Hardip Singh v Rashed Yaqubi is a 2012 case wherein Mr. Singh sued Mr. Yaqubi for damages arising out of an accident in central London which involved Mr. Singh’s Rolls Royce. Mr. Singh, through his counsel, argued that the hire of the Rolls Royce was reasonable considering the type of work that he was in and the image that he had to maintain, elements of which included the perception of success.