VERY HELPFULL! Complete Case List For Tort

TORT LAW CASE LIST
WHAT IS A TORT?
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 – statute imposes strict liability for defective
products which cause personal injury and damage to private property
Bradford Corp v Pickles (1895) – D did not commit a tort because although the
corporation suffered damage, it had not been able to establish a right to the flow of water
which was diminished by D´s drainage work
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd (1981) – second event was brought about by natural
causes, Ds were liable for the reduced earning capacity up to the time of the onset of the
disease
Nettleship v Weston (1971) – injuries arising from car accidents (broken kneecap) are
likely to be compensated for
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA (1998) – death of a child was the result of a doctor´s
failure to attend – medical mishaps are likely to be compensated for
Wheat v Lacon (1966) – injuries occurring on premises are likely to be compensated
MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board (1999) – Lord Millet: Placing monetary value on
the birth of a normal and healthy child is as difficult and unrealistic as it is distasteful. The
law must take the birth of a normal, healthy baby to be a blessing, not a detriment.
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2004) – HOL held that no exception
to MacFarlane principle is justified, even where parent was disabled, no recovery costs
were allowed
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) – claims for emotional and
psychiatric injury are difficult, this case concerns the amount of claims brought by victims
of the Hillsborough disaster demonstrates the danger of floodgates argument
Page v Smith (1966) – Lord Lloyd: The test for primary victims is whether the D can
reasonably foresee that his conduct will expose the plaintiff to the risk of personal injury”
Grieves v FT Everard and Sons Ltd (2007) – psychiatric harm was caused by C´s fear
he might contract asbestos-related disease, this fear was not per se actionable
D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England (1989) – damage is to make
a thing worse, defect is to create a bad thing (recoverable only if it causes damage to
other property)
Anns v Merton LBC (1978) – imminent risk of injury constituted material physical
damage and was recoverable
Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991) – HOL overruled Anns; defect in property which
causes damage to itself is not damage for the purposes of the law, damage must be to
other property
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (1973) – pure economic loss is not
recoverable, only economic loss that occurred consequentially upon physical injury or
damage
MODERN INFLUENCES ON TORT LAW
The Compensation Act 2006 – this statute reigns in the compensation culture
The Human Rights Act 1998
Majrowski v Guy´s and St Thomas´s NHS Trust (2006) – employer might be
vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed on its employee if, in all the
circumstances of the case, the test of fairness and justice was met
Perry v Harries (2008) – it was impractical for parents to keep children under constant
surveillance or even supervision and it would not be in the public interest for the law to
impose a duty upon to do so
Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd (2011) – CA held that a ´reasonable´ walk
over the pitch was sufficient and noted that games of rugby are no more than games and
desirable activities
Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004) – Baroness Hale: the HRA 1998 dies bit create new
actions between private individuals but it creates actions on grounds where public
authority does not act compatibly with both parties´ Convention rights
Wainwright v Home Office (2004) – as public authorities themselves, courts have to
take account of human rights principles as well
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust (2012) – Diocesan Trust could be
vicariously liable for acts of sexual abuse committed by a parish priest in the diocese,
despite the Trust not being a legal entity, the charitable trust must act in accordance with
domestic law
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurances (1968)
– the economic reality test was applied, it was found that the lorry owners were unlikely
to be acting as agents or employees of the company but were, in reality, independent
contractors working under a contract for services
Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) – Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors
who were employed by it on contracts of service. The test to be used concerns the extent
to which the employer can control how the individual does the job.
Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v Macdonald & Evans (1952) – Denning LJ described
the difference between a contract of service and a contract for services. “It is often easy
to recognise a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say where the
difference lies. A ship´s master, a chauffeur, and a reporter on the staff of a newspaper
are all employed under a contract, of service; but a ship´s pilot, a taximan, and a
newspaper contributor are employed under a contract for services.”
Various Claimants v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools (2013) –
UKSC held that it is possible for unincorporated associations (such as the Ds) to be
vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by its members
Cox v Ministry of Justice (2014) – C, a catering manager in a prison suffered injury as
a result of negligence of a prisoner performing paid work. CA held that the relationship
between C and D was akin to employment.
Morsey Docks v Coggins & Griffith Ltd (1947) – a mobile crane was hired with a driver
who negligently injured C, the more complicated it is, the more likely the main employer
will remain liable + factors who pays the employee´s insurance and duration are relevant
Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd (2006) – CA held it is possible for 2 separate
employers to be vicariously liable for the tort of 1 employee = dual vicarious liability
ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965) – in defiance of his employer´s orders and statutory safety
measures, the C went to test some detonators without taking the required safety
measures = commitment of tort is a must
Sir John Salmond´s test – A master is liable even for acts which he has not authorised,
provide that they are so connected with acts which he has authorised that they may be
rightly regarded as modes – although improper modes – of doing them.
An act will be in the course of employment under the test if it is
(a) a wrongful act authorised by the employer, or
(b) a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by employer.
Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942) – tanker
driver who, while delivering petrol, lit a cigarette and carelessly discarded a match which
caused a fire – this was held to be done within the course of his employment
General Engineering Services v Kingston and St Andrew Corp (1989) – firemen took
5 times long to drive to a scene of a fire, this was held as a wrongful and unauthorised
act is outside the course of employment
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd (2001) – proper approach to the course of employment is no
longer to ask the question whether the acts were modes of doing authorised acts in the
course of employment (all pre-2001 should be reconsidered)
➔ in this case a warden of a residential school for children (pastor) was liable for
sexual assaults and the local authority was held vicariously liable (they selected
him)
Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900) – employer of a bus conductor who, in
the absence of the driver, negligently drove the bus himself, was held not liable
Storey v Ashton (1869) – employer was not liable for injuries caused by employees
because at the time of the accident, the driver was not acting in the course of
employment (they departed from their duties), he was on a new and independent journey
(to visit relatives)
Smith v Stages (1989) – an employee travelling in the employer´s time from home to a
workplace other than the regular workplace or between workplaces will be within the
course of employment
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) – a bus driver was instructed not to
race with or obstruct the buses of rival companies – he disobeyed and caused accident –
employers were still liable because it was simply an improper method of performing duty
Rose v Plenty (1976) – milkman employed a 13y.o. despite employer´s express
prohibitions – employers were still held liable because the milkman was acting for the
master´s purposes, business and benefit
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd (1965) – employer was held vicariously liable for the
theft (criminal act) because the employee´s act constituted an unlawful mode of his job
Poland v Parr & Sons (1927) – company was held liable for an employee who injured a
boy who was trying to steal sugar of his firm´s lorry
Warren v Henlys Ltd (1948) – a garage attendant, as an act of personal vengeance,
assaulted a customer of the garage – employers were not liable (assault was personal
and outside the scope of employment)
Lloyd v Grace (1912) – agent acted with dishonest purpose for his own ends, his act
was of the class of acts which fall within the ordinary business of solicitors
Mattis v Pollock (2003) – bouncer stabbed C who was visiting D´s club, despite the act
being of personal revenge, Ds were held liable since they should have known about his
aggressive behaviour
Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocese Trustees (2010) – priest was
guilty of sexual abuse and the Archdiocese was held vicariously liable for him
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd (1957) – HOL held that employees are
obliged by their contract of employment to indemnify their employer against any liability
which results from the employee´s responsibility for damage caused
NEGLIGENCE: BASIC PRINCIPLES
Hills v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) – police failed to apprehend the
notorious mass-murderer before the victim was killed; HOL held there was not sufficient
proximity between the police and the victim
Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2005) – police treated a victim of
a racial crime as a suspect and he then suffered psychiatric damage, police was not held
liable; converting ethical values into enforceable legal duties would be going too far
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) – HOL tried unifying differing duties of care into a
unified relationship between C and D where duty is imposed on the D to avoid causing
injury to C
Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co v McMullan (1934) – Lord Wright introduced a traditional
tripartite definition: negligence contains a complex concept of duty, breach and damage.
This is now accompanied by the element of causation.
Woodland v Swimming Association (2013) – Baroness Hale: common law is a
dynamic instrument, development is always attached to a risk of uncertainty, thus
development must be approached with caution and incrementally.
NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE

Woodland v Swimming Association (2013) – independent contractors failed to ensure
safety of a 10 y.o. girl at a swimming lesson.
➔ Lord Sumption set out a 5-stage for determining when a fixed duty applied:
1. Subject of the duty is a child, patient or other vulnerable person, dependent on
the D´s protection from harm
2. There must be a relationship of control between D and C which exists
independently of the acts from which the allegations of negligence arise.
3. C must have no control over how D performs their obligations/functions.
4. D must have delegated to a 3rd party functions D has a legal duty to perform.
5. 3rd party is negligent in performance of function D has a legal duty to perform.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) – manufacturer of goods which are intended to reach
the ultimate consumer without opportunity for intermediate inspection owes a duty to
ensure that the product does not cause injury
➔ Lord Atkin´s neighbour principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts
or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injury your
neighbour.
Sutradhar v NERC (2006) – D were required to test the water for minerals harmful to
fish, C contracted an illness from drinking the water polluted with arsenic – HOL held
there was no relationship of proximity, D´s duty was not to test the water for it to be
drinkable
Anns v Merton LBC (1978) – imminent risk of injury constituted material physical
damage and was recoverable
Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991) –overruled Anns; defect in property which causing
damage to itself is not damage for purposes of the law, damage must be to other
property
Customs and Excise Comsnr v Barclays Bank plc (2006) – bank was required by law
to comply with the freezing order, no assumption of responsibility was required
Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

1. Injury or loss must be reasonably foreseeable by the D.
2. At the time of injury, there was a relationship of proximity between C and D.
3. It is just, fair and reasonable for D to be held to owe a duty of care to the C.
March Rich & Co v Bishop Rock Marina Co Ltd (1995) – classification societies were
independent, non-profit making entities working for the sole purpose of collective welfare
and it would be against public policy to hold them to a duty to the cargo owners
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001) – boxer suffered brain damage – he
consented to a boxing match and injuries related to it but he did not consent to not
having proper medical staff prepared (D´s negligence)
Bourhill v Young (1943) – C heard, but did not see, a crash caused by D motorcyclist
negligence – C failed to establish existence of duty of care – she was unforeseeable
victim
Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence (1996) – serviceman owes no duty of care to his fellow
servicemen in battle conditions, since as a matter of common sense and public policy it
would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose such duty
Smith v MOD (2014) – soldiers were fired at by other coalition forces, D was found liable
and owing a duty of care to the soldiers, since they were within the jurisdiction - the
doctrine of combat immunity will be given a narrow definition in application, restricting it
to acts of war applying only to actual or imminent armed conflict and not to failures at the
earlier (safer) stage of planning and preparation for active operations against the enemy
Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union Ltd (2003) – referee and a player have
sufficient proximity, it was foreseeable that if the referee did not enforce the rules there
would be injury – it was just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care
Rondel v Worsley (1969) – case setting out public policy reasons for advocates´
immunity from liability for the negligent conduct of a case in court
Arthur JS Hall v Simons (2002) – HOL overruled Rondel, in contemporary conditions
there are no policy reasons sufficient to justify this immunity and it should be abolished
Moy v Pettman Smith (2005) – advice given by the barrister was held to fall within the
range of that to be expected of a reasonably competent counsel of her seniority and
experience – the advice was urgent and under pressure – she was not liable
MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board (1999) – where child is healthy and is being raised
in a loving family, no compensation will be allowed for a negligently performed
sterilisation
Parkinson v St James University Hospital NHS Trust (2002) – a disabled child was
born after a failed sterilisation of the mother she was permitted recovery for the extra
costs of maintaining a disabled child by CA
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2004) – HOL held that neither extra
costs related to the disability of the mother nor the general costs for raising a healthy
child should be reimbursed
Wilsons & Clyde Coal Ltd v English (1938) – established that an employer has a duty
to take reasonable care to ensure that their employee is not made unsafe by reason of
unsafe premises, unsafe equipment or incompetent co-workers
Walker v Northumberland CC (1995) – employer was liable in negligence for work
stress which induced nervous breakdown – supportive care should have been provided
LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS

Stowin v Wise (1996) – HOL held that the local authority owed no duty of care to road
users for failure to exercise its powers to take positive steps to remove the bank
➔ Lord Hoffmann: There are political, moral and economic reasons for not
imposing a positive duty to act.
The Ogopogo (1971) – CAN – D invited C onto his yacht, C fell overboard – D was not a
mere bystander, by inviting C, D created a relationship that attaches positive duties to
see harm does not befall the claimant
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC (2001) – educational psychologist, employed by the local
authority, was under a duty of care for failing to diagnose Cs dyslexia; assumption of
responsibility is not necessary when duty of care is imposed by the law
Barrett v MOD (1995) – duty officer assumed responsibility for a drunk soldier when he
arranged for him to be taken to his room (he died of choking on own vomit)
Goldman v Hargrave (1967) – D was negligent for failing to take adequate precautions
to extinguish the burning tree in the face of foreseeable risk of damaging close
neighbours
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co (1970) – HOL held that a duty of care was owed on the
grounds that the relationship between the Home Office and the borstal boys and the
relationship between the Home Office and the yacht owners was sufficiently proximate to
give rise to a duty of care
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis (1955) – HOL held parents and teachers responsible for
the behaviour of children and Ds were under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent
child from running into a busy road and causing an accident
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) – UKSC held the HA to owe a
duty of care to a patient known to be at risk of suicide
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987) – Lord Goff: Ds who left a cinema
unattended and then occupied with vandals who caused negligently fire were not liable
for the vandals´ action (public policy reasons + unforeseeability)
Mitchell v Glasgow CC (2009) – HOL held that liability for criminal acts of a third party
would arise only where the person who was said to be under that duty had by their words
or conduct assumed responsibility for the person who was at risk
Reeves v Comsnr of Police of the Metropolis (2000) – D was liable for the prisoner
who committed suicide by 50%
➔ the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Jebson v MOD (2000) – C soldier suffered severe injuries after a drunk night when he
climbed on the roof of a lorry which was driven by D – HOL held it was foreseeable that
injury would occur and that D were liable
BREACH OF DUTY
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) – Baron Alderson: Negligence is the
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
➔ Breach of duty inquiry 2-stage test:
1. Question of law – what was the standard D´s conduct should have reached.
2. Question of fact – were any factors relevant present and how far was D´s level
of care
Glasgow Corp v Muir (1943) – Lord Macmillan: The standard of foresight of a
reasonable man is an impersonal test. It is an objective test.
Nettleship v Weston (1971) – Lord Denning: a learner driver may be doing his best but
his incompetent best is not good enough. – a learner driver has the same standard as
any other driver and that is “the reasonable driver test”
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) – the test for Ds possessing
a special skill is that the professional will not be guilty of negligence, if he acts in
accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of men skilled in that art
Roe v MOH (1954) – anaesthetic caused C to be paralysed, it contained micro cracks
which were not detectable with human eye – nobody knew at the time that it could be
contaminated in this way and it was normal procedure of storage – not liable
Moy v Pettman Smith (2005) – advice given by the barrister was held to fall within the
range of that to be expected of a reasonably competent counsel of her seniority and
experience – the advice was urgent and under pressure – she was not liable
Phillips v Whiteley (1938) – jeweller cannot be expected to take the same steps as a
surgeon would – the standard of care was not surgical but of a reasonable jeweller
Shakoor v Situ (2000) – as long as the herbalist does not prescribe prohibited or
regulated substances under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933/the Medicines Act
1968/the Abortion Act 1967, so long as the herbalist takes steps to keep abreast of
pertinent information in orthodox medical journals, his standard of care is of a reasonable
herbalist
Wilsher v Essex Area HA (1988) – junior doctor owes same standard as a qualified
doctor
Mullin v Richards (1998) – two 15y.o. girls were fencing with rulers, the bar of standard
of care was set as for a reasonable 15y.o. – injury was not foreseeable, D not liable
Bolton v Stone (1951) – it was rare for balls to fly out of the ground, Ds were not liable
for an occasioned injury because in the circumstances it was reasonable to ignore such
a small risk – risk of such injury was foreseeable, but the likelihood was very small
Miller v Jackson (1977) – cricket balls were flying out on more numerous occasions, Ds
were then held liable, since damage was both foreseeable and likely to occur
Paris v Stepney BC (1951) – worker who was blind on one eye suffered injury leaving
him completely blind; the risk of serious injury way higher than of two-eyed employee, Ds
were liable for not providing goggles
Latimer v AEC (1953) – HOL held Ds not liable for C who slipped on a slippery floor of a
factory where sawdust was spread over the floor but not everywhere – they acted as a
reasonable employer would
Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954) – firemen were not negligent when they resorted to
negligent measures in an emergency situation where they needed to save a life or a limb
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA (1998) – HOL held a doctor who failed to attend a 2y.o.
boy liable and the following intubation was questionable – it is for the court and not for
doctors to decide the standard of care required in each case
Whitehouse v Jordan (1981) - The Lords found that the doctor's standard of care did
not fall below that of a reasonable doctor in the circumstances and so the baby was
awarded no compensation.
Maynard v West Midlands Regional HA (1984) – case concerned a difficult diagnosis,
HOL held the Ds not been negligent since there as a body of competent opinion
opposing their approach as there was a body of competent opinion agreeing
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors (1985) – HOL held Ds not liable,
surgeon had followed the approved practice of neurosurgeons in not disclosing the risk
of damage to the spinal cord and was not negligent
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) – doctrine of informed consent is
firmly a part of English law, C should have been given advice about the risks involved in
vaginal birth and of the alternative possibility of caesarean section
Chester v Ashar (2004) – HOL held that a doctor who fails to give proper warning to his
patient about a risk inherent in surgery may be found to have caused the injury if risk
materialises, even where surgery is performed without negligence (chance was 1-2%)
Edward Wong Finance Co v Johnson, Stokes and Master (1984) –although
completion of a mortgage in Hong Kong style was almost universally adopted in HK and
was in accordance with a body of professional opinion there, the D´s solicitors were
liable for negligence because there was an obvious risk which could have been guarded
against
Vowles v Evans (2003) – C was injured in a rugby match and had recovered damages
from referee – the relationship was proximate, injury was foreseeable, and if referee
failed to take reasonable care, liability could follow
Qualcast v Haynes (1959) – 38 y.o. was working all his life as a moulder – one day he
splashed some of the metal on his foot and was injured because he decided not to wear
protective spats – Ds not liable because he was experienced and should have guarded
himself
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (2002) – 3Cs contracted mesothelioma and
they were unable to detect which employer exposed each of them to the one fatal fibre –
if Cs could demonstrate that one employer had materially increased the risk of
contracting mesothelioma, they were entitled to claim full compensation from that one
employer
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969) – C
came to hospital with nausea after drinking tea, nurse consulted the casualty doctor by
phone and sent the man home who later on died of arsenical poisoning – the death
would have occurred either way, D then was not liable → test: BUT FOR test
The Ogopogo (1971) – D´s rescue effort was inadequate – it was challenged whether C
would have perished in the cold water also if a competent rescuer could have saved her
Bolitho v City and Hackney HA (1998) – doctor did not attend a 2y.o. patient suffered
respiratory failure and then cardiac arrest, if D intubated the respiratory difficulties would
not have resulted in a cardiac arrest X even if she attended, she would not intubate; her
failure to attend was not a cause of death
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol (1962) – it was held that had the D provided a safety
harness, the steelworker would not have worn it – liability was then not liable for injury
Chester v Ashar (2005) – surgeon advised C to undergo surgery but in breach of duty
failed to advise her of risk – D was liable
Cook v Lewis (1951) – when there are two parties and it is proven that one of their
actions caused harm but it is undeterminable which one it was, both defendants should
be liable
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) – HOL held that causation could not be
established because the employer´s act or omission made a material contribution
McGhee v National Coal Board (1973) – HOL held Ds liable on the ground that it was
sufficient for a C to show that their breach of duty made the risk of injury more probable
although it was uncertain whether it was actual cause = exception to the but for test
Barker v Corus UK Ltd (2006) – C was exposed to asbestos on 3 separate occasions,
twice negligently one by himself, D could still be liable without proof of causation, his
liability could only extend to the relative proportion to which he could have contributed to
the chance of the outcome
Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2009) – C was exposed to asbestos in work and in the
town where she lived, CA allowed her appeal with saying that in mesothelioma cases C
could establish causation by showing that the workplace exposure had materially
increased the risk of developing the disease
Baker v Willoughby (1970) – C´s leg was damaged in a road accident caused by D, he
had to change his job and was shot by robbers and he must have had his leg amputated
– HOL held that the damage was not subsumed in the new tort, but negligent D
continued to be answerable for the damage to the leg
Jobling v Associated Dairies (1982) – C was injured in an industrial accident and
permanently disabled (50% loss of earning capacity) – years later he was found to be
suffering from disabling disease – D was not held liable for losses after the disease
developed
Hotson v East Berkshire HA (1987) – hospital failed to diagnose his injury correctly
which resulted in permanent disability – HOL awarded C nothing in compensation (public
policy)
Gregg v Scott (2005) – misdiagnosis of C´s condition reduced his chances of surviving
from 42% to 25% - HOL still did not allow compensation – liability for loss of chance of a
more favourable outcome should not be introduced into personal injury claims
Chaplin v Hicks (1911) – loss of chance is sometimes allowed in breach of contracts
actions, here C lost a chance to apply for an employment because she did not receive
her invitation for interview – she was awarded 100 pounds
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (1995) – Ds failed to warn C of
potential liability that may arise under the transaction, it was completed and risk of
liability became a reality leaving C liable to pay substantial sums – C was entitled to
recover a sum to reflect their loss of a chance of negotiating out of liability
Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company Ltd (1921) – Stevedores caused negligently
and unexpectedly destruction of a ship – there was no requirement that the damage was
foreseeable
The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) – great fire was not foreseeable but it was a direct
consequence of D´s negligent spillage of oil – nevertheless PC held Ds could be liable
only for what could have been reasonably foreseen
Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) – Ds were liable for leaving an open manhole
negligent – two boys went in and his lamp caused a violent explosion – burns were
foreseeable
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co (1964) – asbestos cover was knocked into a
cauldron of liquid, chemical reaction which was unforeseeable at the time, it erupted and
caused P burns – here the damage was not foreseeable
Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000) – it is not necessary to foresee severity of the damage or
the precise manner in which it occurs, it is sufficient that the injury is of the type that
could be foreseen - HOL held council liable for teenagers and kids injured when they
played on an abandoned cabin cruiser
Robinson v Post Office (1974) – D was liable for the negligent grazing of the C´s shin –
C had unforeseeable allergy, hospital administered anti-tetanus allergy shot, to which C
was also allergic – administering proper tests would not detect the allergy (but for test not
satisfied and hospital was not liable) → D was liable, egg shell skull rule applies
Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison (1933) – D´s negligence caused sinking P´s dredger,
he had to hire another one for inflated price – additional costs of hiring the dredger were
held to result from the P´s financial circumstances and were too remote
Lagden v O´Connor (2004) – D´s negligence caused a traffic accident – C was unable
to hire a car and hired on credit – cost of credit was recoverable
Lamb v Camden LBC (1981) – council negligently fractured a water pipe which caused
damage to C´s house, council did not get to fixing the house in 1 year – squatters caused
in the meantime more damage – council was not liable for acts of the squatters
(unforeseeability – new intervening act)
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987) – Lord Goff: Ds who left a cinema
unattended and then occupied with vandals who caused negligently fire were not liable
for the vandals´ action (public policy reasons + unforeseeability)
Al-Kandari v Brown (1988) – CA held that while it might be natural, probable and
foreseeable that police would come to deal with the accident and that there might be risk-
taking, there were so many errors before the C was sent back into the tunnel that the
police inspector´s negligent behaviour was the cause of P´s injuries
McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (1969) – Ds caused P to suffer and injury and
for a short time he occasionally lost control of his leg, Ds were not liable for additional
injury when C deliberately attempted to descend steep staircase without handrail
Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets (1969) – Ds caused P to suffer injury and P had to wear a
surgical collar, that restricted her ability to focus – P tried to go down a staircase, but
here it was not unreasonable
Spencer v Wincanton Holding Ltd (2010) – D caused P injury that left him with
amputated limbs, P tried to fill his car with petrol without wearing his prosthetics or using
sticks – this was not unreasonable, CA held this was not novus actus interveniens
Corr v IBC Vehicles (2008) – HOL held that depression as a result of the accident was
within the compensable damage flowing injury suffered in the employment, the
deceased´s suicide was not entirely unreasonably
Reeves v Comsnr of Police of the Metropolis (2000) – deliberate and informed act of
suicide while of sound mind can amount to a novus actus interveniens but where D is
under a specific duty to guard against the commission of that very act, suicide does not
break the chain of causation
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (1990) – police failed inform the
prison authorities that Kirkham was in suicide risk, he committed suicide – C was
successful
DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Reeves v Comsnr of Police of the Metropolis (2000) – deliberate and informed act of
suicide while of sound mind can amount to a novus actus interveniens but where D is
under a specific duty to guard against the commission of that very act, suicide does not
break the chain of causation
Jones v Boyce (1816) – in situations of emergency, claimants do not have to act
reasonably – C jumped off a coach that looked like it is about to tip over = no CN
Froom v Butcher (1975) – C was not wearing a seatbelt it is a legal obligation = CN
Smith v Finch (2009) – C, cyclist, suffered injury by D´s negligence, there was no law
for requiring helmets but if it were, it would be relevant, nevertheless, D was unable to
show that an approved safety helmet would have prevented C´s serious head injuries or
made them less severe = no CN
Jones v Livox Quarries (1952) – C sat on a tow-bar at a construction site and was
injured when D negligently ran into him, since he put himself in danger and unreasonably
exposed himself to the danger = 20% CN
Yachuk v Oliver Blais co Ltd (1949) – D sold a pint of petrol to a 9y.o. who injured
himself, D was completely liable, the boy could not have reasonably known fully about
the risk attached to the use of petrol = no CN
Gough v Thorne (1966) – 13y.o. girl relied on a nod of a lorry driver on one side and
crossed the road when D from the other side hit her, D was completely liable, 13y.o. girl
acted reasonably as a normal 13y.o. would – Lord Denning: Age is relevant.
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA (CONSENT)

Morris v Murray (1991) – P suggested and aided D to take a flight in an aircraft, they
crashed and were injured = volenti defence applied
Dann v Hamilton (1939) – where C accepts a lift from an obviously inebriated driver,
plea of volenti applies depending on the degree of intoxication – here the ability to drive
was impaired, but not completely diminished – volenti failed
➔ Asquith J: volenti did not apply, unless drunkenness was so extreme and glaring
that accepting a lift would be equivalent to walking on the edge of an unfenced
cliff
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons (1891) – knowledge of the danger does not necessarily
signify consent, C was an employee and notified D (employer) about the dangers and
continued work and injured himself – D was completely liable, C did not accept the risk
ICI Ltd v Shatwell (1965) – two brothers deliberately acted in defiance of the employer´s
express instructions in full knowledge of the risks – the workers were under the statutory
duty not the employer – volenti applied
Condon v Basi (1985) – C suffered a broken leg as a result of a foul tackle in the course
of a game of football, consent to reasonable contact is consent only to non-negligent
behaviour – volenti failed
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control (2001) – boxer suffered brain damage – he
consented to a boxing match and injuries related to it but he did not consent to not
having proper medical staff prepared (D´s negligence) – volenti failed
Baker v Hopkins (1959) – C, doctor, volunteered to go down a well to rescue workmen
trapped down there but he was overcome by fumes and died as result – volenti
inapplicable because public policy reasons, it would be wrong to deter rescue attempts in
need
EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO (ILLEGALITY)

Mental Health Act 1983
Clunis v Camden and Islington HA (1998) – C, who had a history of mental illness,
killed a stranger in a violent attack and he blamed the HA for discharging him – it was
held that C who was convicted of a serious offence could not sue a health authority in
negligence (public policy) – ex turpi applied
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd (2009) – C was a victim of a train crash caused by D´s
negligence and suffered psychological depression which led him to kill a man – he
pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and he brought
a claim against the train company for loss of earnings during time spent in prison – ex
turpi applied
Pitts v Hunt (1991) – having both consumer alcohol, P encouraged D to drive his
motorbike in a reckless and dangerous fashion – ex turpi applied
Joyce v O´Brien (2013) – C was a part of a joint criminal enterprise, they suffered
serious injuries when trying to make a getaway – ex turpi applied
➔ Elias LJ: given the doctrine is of public policy, there should be some discretion,
ex turpi may apply in minor offences
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester (2002) – C attempted to escape an
arrest by jumping off a window - he suffered brain damaged and was paralysed – ex turpi
applied
NEGLIGENCE: PSYCHIATRIC HARM
Victorian Railway Comsnrs v Coultas (1888) – it was held that harm through nervous
shock was not compensatable at all – original traditional approach
Dulieu v White (1901) – pregnant woman was working at a bar when D ran his van and
horses through the window, she was not physically injured, but she was frightened and
this resulted in premature birth of her child – real and immediate fear = recovery allowed
for the first time
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) – case concerning
policemen from Hillsborough disaster suing – Lord Steyn (policy considerations): it is
difficult to draw a distinction between acute grief and psychiatric harm, expanding
uncontrollably the number of claimants is wrong, element of immediacy should be
introduced as a control device everything must be weighed with the right of Ds not to be
overwhelmed with excessive burden of liability
Butchart v Home Office (2006) – C was a prisoner known to be at risk of suicide, he
occupied a cell with another known suicide risk – the cellmate hung himself and C
suffered shock and was allowed to recover damages
Page v Smith (1966) – Lord Lloyd: The test for primary victims is whether the D can
reasonably foresee that his conduct will expose the plaintiff to the risk of personal injury”;
primary victim has to show that they were physically injured or that they were in danger
or reasonably believed themselves to be in danger of physical injury
Bourhill v Young (1943) – C heard, but did not see, a crash caused by D motorcyclist
negligence – C failed to establish existence of duty of care – she was unforeseeable
victim
McLoughlin v O´Brian (1983) – C´s husband and kids were involved in a serious traffic
accident and she came immediately to the hospital where she saw her family suffering
before being treated and cleaned up → severe shock, organic depression and
personality change – recovery was allowed: “the aftermath doctrine”
➔ Lord Wilberforce: Under the aftermath doctrine, one who, from close proximity
comes very soon to the scene, should not be excluded. Test of proximity of sight
and hearing should be applied.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) – people at the stadium, rescue
services at the stadium and family members recognising relatives on TV screen were
suing the negligent police services for the Hillsborough disaster (demonstrating the
number of possible claimants)
➔ Alcock criteria:
✓ A close tie of love and affection, close and loving relationship.
• in case of parent-child, spouses, fiancé-fiancée it is presumed,
in other cases it must be established
✓ Proximity in time and space.
• C must have perceived the events of their aftermath with their
own unaided senses (third party giving information won´t suffice)
✓ The means by which the shock is caused.
• shock must be caused by an immediate sudden impact on their
senses
Sion v Hampstead HA (1994) – father watched his son die for 14 days – requirement of
immediacy was not satisfied and thus the psychiatric damage was not recoverable
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters (2002) – mother watched child die for 48 hours
– requirement of immediacy was satisfied and the psychiatric damage was recoverable
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal (2003) – mother who went to the scene of fatal accident of her
daughter and then seeing her in the mortuary was able to recover – aftermath doctrine
extends to a continuing act composing of different parts given it is uninterrupted
Crystal Taylor v A Novo (UK) (2013) – C´s mother died three weeks after being
seriously injured in workplace, C was there at the time of death not at the time of
accident
➔ C must not have a special sensitivity to shock, the shock must be foreseeable in a
person of reasonable fortitude
Attia v British Gas (1988) – claim concerning psychiatric harm occasioned by watching
her house being burnt down was allowed to be actionable
Greatorex v Greatorex (2000) – father who in firemen services arrived on a scene of his
son´s car accident suffered psychiatric harm and intended to sue his son for it, claim
failed on policy grounds (family members, you cannot sue somebody for hurting
themselves)
Hatton v Sutherland (2002) – employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the
safety of their employees.
Walker v Northumberland CC (1995) – employer was held liable for a second work
stress induced nervous breakdown; if a duty of care is established, C must also show
that steps required to deal with it were reasonable in the context, allowing for the
resources available
W v Essex CC (2001) – HOL held Council liable for putting negligently a problem boy in
a foster family despite express concerns of the parents who alongside with their children
suffered substantial psychiatric harm
A v Essex CC (2004) – Council was liable for putting an abuser of other children and not
having told about his history to the new foster family – the claim was actionable
AB v Tameside and Glossop HA (1997) – choice of the telephone as a means of
alerting and re-assuring people, who had received treatment from a health worker later
found to be HIV+ was proper
NEGLIGENCE: PURE ECONOMIC LOSS
& NEGLIGENT STATEMETS
the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin (1973) – damage to the metal was physical damage
and the lost profits on the metal was directly consequential upon it and thus recoverable,
the profits lost due to the blackout constituted pure economic loss and not recoverable
MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board (1999) – where child is healthy and is being raised
in a loving family, no compensation will be allowed for a negligently performed
sterilisation
Parkinson v St James University Hospital NHS Trust (2002) – a disabled child was
born after a failed sterilisation of the mother she was permitted recovery for the extra
costs of maintaining a disabled child by CA
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2004) – HOL held that neither extra
costs related to the disability of the mother nor the general costs for raising a healthy
child should be reimbursed
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) – Ds owed a duty of care to Cs who
would have been liable to them for resulting losses if they had not given advice “without
responsibility on our part” → duty to take care in the advice and information was
established alongside with the extension to purely economic losses
➔ Lord Morris of Borthy-Gest: requirements of existence of a special relationship
1. existence of a relationship based on professional or other skill or expertise
2. a reliance by C on D´s special skill and judgment
3. knowledge/reasonable expectation of knowledge of D, that C relied on D
4. it was reasonable in the circumstances for C to rely on D
5. relationship was close to being contractual
NEGLIGENT STATEMENTS
Chaudhry v Prabhakar (1888) – C asked a friend who had some knowledge of cars to
find a suitable car that had not been involved in an accident – the car recommended was
involved in an accident and poorly repaired; liability was imposed on the D
Smith v Bush (1990) – surveyors owed a duty to the purchaser of a house and not just
to the bank (mortgage purposes), even though the purchaser had been advised about
the desirability of obtaining her own survey but had not done so
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (1995) – managing agents conducted the

financial affairs of the Lloyds Names with a lack of due care leading to enormous
losses – assumption of responsibility applies to all relationships for the provision
of services
Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) – accountants were held liable to
shareholders as owners of the company but not to Cs who launched a take-over
bid for the company on the strength of the accounts
➔ Lord Bridge: D knew that his statement would be communicated to C,
either as an individual or as a member of an identifiable class, specifically
in connection with a particular transaction or transactions of a particular
kind…and that C would be likely relying on it.

→ Caparo duty test:
2. At the time of injury, there was a relationship of proximity between C and
D.
3. It is just, fair and reasonable for D to be held to owe a duty of care to the
C.
James McNoughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson & Co (1991) – when
considering the liability of an auditor in negligence, the fact and nature of any
communications direct between the auditor and potential investor must be allowed for,
Neill J set out a non-exhaustive list of headings to establish liability in determining
whether the threefold test and assumption of responsibility are met:
i. purpose for which the statement was made
ii. purpose for which the statement was communicated
iii. relationship between the advisor, advisee and any relevant party
iv. size of any class to which the advisee belongs
v. state of knowledge of the advisor
vi. reliance by the advisee
Morgan Crucible Co plc v Hill Samuel Bank & Co Ltd (1991) – court laid down the
procedure on a strike out application, on application to strike out a pleading under RSC
Ord.18, r.19(1)(a), no evidence is admissible and since it is only the pleading itself which
is being examined, the court is required to assume that each and every one of the facts
pleaded is true and will be capable of proof at the trial. Court may regard the assumption
as somewhat unrealistic but it has to be made.
Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick (2000) – D accountants had certified accounts for
a firm of solicitors whose dishonest defaults later lead to substantial claims on the
compensation fund set up by the Cs – Law Society who collected funds were clearly
owed a duty of care by the Ds
Ministry of Housing v Sharp (1970) – employee of authority failed to exercise
reasonable skill and care in searching for entries in the local land charges register –
search certificate prepared by clerk negligently failed to record a charge of GBP 1828 –
local authority was liable for the employee´s incompetence
Spring v Guardian Assurance Ltd (1995) – writer of a reference about a former
employee seeking a job was held to owe a duty of care to the employee and not merely
to the prospective employer who relied on it, D was damning and mistakenly alleged that
P was dishonest – P sued in negligence, negligent reference can do harm without
affecting a person´s reputation
McKie v Swindon College (2011) – an unsolicited email containing largely erroneous
and untrue statements sent by the former employer of a lecturer led to his dismissal from
a new job – although the email was not a reference, applying the Caparo test, D was
nevertheless liable for the negligent statement
PERFORMANCE OF A SERVICE
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (1995) – negligence was claimed against agents
who organised the syndicates, agents argued that the matter should be dealt with in
contract law and not in torts, HOL held that agents had assumed a direct responsibility
and duty of care arose
Customs and Excise Comsnrs v Barclays Bank (2006) – Lord Hoffmann: Q was not
whether D had assumed responsibility for the accuracy of a particular statement but a
much more general responsibility for the consequences of their conduct of the
underwriting. To say that managing agents assumed a responsibility to Cs to take care
not to accept unreasonable risks is little different from saying that a manufacturer of
ginger beer assumes a responsibility to consumers to take care to keep snails out of his
bottles.
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods (1998) – Ps entered a K with a company to
franchise a health food store – P´s business was not a success and they sought to prove
that D had personally assumed responsibility for the negligent advice provided by the
company – held: Hedley Byrne principle applies to negligent performance of services too
and can even found a tort duty concurrently with K!
West Bromwich Albion FC v El-Safty (2006) – FC brought action against a consultant
surgeon for financial losses suffered by the club when one of its valuable players was
negligently prescribed treatment by D – CA said it would not be fair, just and reasonable
to impose a duty on ground that such a duty could conflict with the doctor´s primary duty
to care for is patient
White v Jones (1995) – assumption of responsibility by a solicitor towards his clients
was extended to the intended beneficiary of the client´s will who, as the result of the
failure by the solicitor to execute the will before the client´s death was deprived of the
intended legacy – solicitors were liable, solicitors entered a special relationship with
those intended to benefit under it → they owed a duty to act with due expedition and care
on behalf of beneficiaries
Gorham v British Telecommunications plc (2000) (confirmed White v Jones) – C was
sold a personal pension without being advised that D´s occupational pension might be
better for him – it was clear that P intended to create a benefit for his dependant wife and
family and therefore a duty of care was owed to them by the insurance company
SLOGANS OR PRACTICAL GUIDES?
Customs and Excise Comsnrs v Barclays Bank (2006) – no common law duty arose
at the time of ordering a freezing order because Commissioners did not rely on the Ds to
comply with the order
DEFECTIVE PREMISES
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd (1983) – this case was never followed upon! – here
HOL allowed recovery on the ground that the proximity of the relationship between the
parties was so close as to be as good as a contract and C had, to the sub-contractor´s
knowledge, relied on his skill and experience
Anns v Merton LBC (1978) – HOL allowed a claim for the recovery of repair costs
arising from the defective construction of a building – imminent risk of injury was held to
be a valid ground for action
D&F Estates v Church Comsnrs (1983) – there was no contractual relationship, no
damage or harm, no liability – defect which is discovered before damage is done is not
recoverable, defect which is undiscovered and materialises and causes personal injury
or damage to other property, this is recoverable
Murphy v Brentwood (1991) – overruling Anns - Council approved negligent design,
nor builder, nor the Council was liable for purely economic, as opposed to physical,
losses of an occupier of a building he obstructed
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC BODIES
The Human Rights Act 1998
→ Caparo duty test:
2. At the time of injury, there was a relationship of proximity between C and
D.
3. It is just, fair and reasonable for D to be held to owe a duty of care to the
C.
Home Office v Mohammed (2011) – court struck out a C´s action for negligence for
delays in D´s administrative duties – this case illustrates how rarely the courts will be
willing to find a relationship of proximity between the individual and a public body
Connor v Surrey CC (2010) – C (teacher, employee of D) suffered personal injury from
stress after the board of governors (D) failed to protect her from false allegations, Ds
were liable because there was a pre-existing duty of care, i.e. employer´s duty to protect
an employee from injury
Barrett v Enfield LBC (2001) – C was an adult formerly in the care of a local authority
as a child, he brought an action for failure to find an adoptive home or allowing him to go
back to his family which resulted in psychiatric damage – claim was justiciable, D
assumed responsibility to the particular individual
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (1997) – Cs brought confidential
information to police, it was contained in a briefcase which was later stolen from an
unattended car. Cs were threatened and suffered psychiatric injury – police were held to
have assumed responsibility for the Cs, nevertheless Cs lost at trial because police did
not act in breach of their duty
JD v Est Berkshire Community NHS Trust (2005) – where statutory function is
intended to benefit one group of people, there is great reluctance to accept a duty of care
to other groups who may be affected by an erroneous decision – parents wrongly
suspected of physical or sexual abuse cannot recover from health or social authorities
because their professionals do not owe a duty to the parents in making a decision related
to child
Jain v Trent Strategic HA (2009) – Cs´ nursing home business was destroyed by
Authority´s revocation of licence without notice, they were left without a remedy (HRA
action could not be started because the negligent actions preceded 1998)
Smith v MOD (2013) – the doctrine of combat immunity will be given a narrow definition
in application, restricting it to acts of war applying only to actual or imminent armed
conflict and not to failures at the earlier (safer) stage of planning and preparation for
active operations against the enemy
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) – Yorkshire ripper case murdered C´s
daughter and she brought a claim of negligence against police for not taking appropriate
action to prevent her daughter´s death, applying Caparo, harm was foreseeable but there
was insufficient proximity between the police and victim – general duty to protect
individual members (all of them) from consequences of a crime would be impracticable
and on grounds of public policy deeply damaging to police operations
Osman v Ferguson (1993) – teacher conducted a campaign of harassment against the
Osman family, which culminated in killing his student´s father and injuring the student –
action was brought against police for not taking precautions, since identity of the
tortfeasor and of the victims were known – harm was foreseeable, proximity existed
nevertheless the claim did not fulfil the 3 rd limb od Caparo test and failed on grounds of
public policy
➔ Osman v UK (1999) – case continued to ECtHR, Court held there was no breach
of Article 2 of ECHR but Article 6 had been violated
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire (2008) – C repeatedly informed police
that his former partner had threatened to kill him and police had evidence of these
threats, nevertheless police did not take up positive action and C was badly injured in
attack – HOL held the police not liable, Van Colle did not satisfy the requirement that
police knew or ought have known “at the time” of the shooting of a real and immediate
risk to life of V
Smith v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police (2009) – C´s son was a prosecution
witness and a former lover threatened to kill him, later he was murdered. CA remarked
that in cases involving the police in proximity of the parties can not only create a duty of
care, but can overcome the public policy consideration, nevertheless here judgment was
for Ds for public policy reasons
Mitchell v Glasgow CC (2009) – CC were aware of V´s neighbour aggressive
behaviour, but when he conducted a long campaign of abuse and threats and actually
murdered a fellow tenant, HOL held there was no relationship of responsibility between
the Ds and C and it would not be fair, just and reasonable to impose this duty on a public
authority to cope with the entire range of anti-social behaviour
X v London Borough of Hounslow (2009) – local authority failed to take emergency
action to stop the escalating acts of abuse against a married couple with learning
difficulties, nevertheless, again, there was no specific assumption of responsibility and
thus no relationship of proximity which would give rise to liability
Z v UK (2001) – (Bedfordshire case at ECtHR) 4 children complained that four years
before they were taken into care by the local authority, its social services were aware
that they were living in filthy conditions and suffering appalling neglect by their parents –
claim succeeded on basis of Article 3
TP and KM v UK (2001) – (Newham case at ECtHR) – Grand Chamber found a violation
of Articles 8 and 13 and awarded GBP 10,000 as damages
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC (2001) – educational psychologist, employed by the local
authority, was under a duty of care for failing to diagnose Cs dyslexia; assumption of
responsibility is not necessary when duty of care is imposed by the law
Gorringe v Calderdale MBC (2004) – road was not marked with any warnings as to the
need to slow down and C sought damages after a road accident, claim failed – common
law duty to maintain the surface of the road should not be extended beyond that
➔ Lord Scott: Drivers are first and foremost themselves responsible for own safety.
Yetkin v Mahmood (2011) – P was knocked over by a car driven by D while she
crossed the southbound carriageway of the High Street – she sued D and highway
authority – planting of vegetation in the raised beds was a reasonable act of Authority,
nevertheless with CN on C´s side, Authority was held liable for 25% of compensation
damages
Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire CC (1997) – three cases involving fire brigades,
1st fire officer ordered the sprinkler system in a burning building to be switched off, 2 nd fire
brigade arrived to the scene and left believing fire was out, 3 rd failure to inspect and
maintain hydrants and ensure that adequate water supply was available at the scene – in
all three cases, if the decisions were made differently, damages would be less severe;
for public policy reasons liability in negligence in fighting off a fire would not arise unless
the service negligently increased the damage or caused additional damage
Kent v Griffiths (2000) – ambulance arrived after 38 minutes (too late!), C was given
oxygen and suffered respiratory arrest resulting in brain damage and a miscarriage – CA
held the ambulance service liable, although no duty to public at large existed, there was
a duty for the one member of public who called in emergency
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
Occupiers´ Liability Act 1957, 1984
Compensation Act 2006
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Slater v Clay Cross Co (1956) – Lord Denning: if a landowner is driving his car down
his private drive and meets someone lawfully walking upon it, then he is under a duty to
take reasonable care so as not to injure the walker and this duty is the same for if it is his
gardener, a tradesman, a friend or a flag seller seeking charitable gifts.
Ogwo v Taylor (1988) – fireman suffered injuries as he was fighting a fire in a confined
space at D´s premises – activity duty is covered by common law negligence, his claim
succeeded in common law where occupier negligently caused fire
WHAT CAN BE OCCUPIED – s.1(3)(a)
Wheeler v Copas (1981) – ladder was held to come within the definition of any fixed or
movable structure
WHO IS AN OCCUPIER – s.1(2)
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) – HOL held there can be two or more occupiers at
any one time if they share control over the premises, occupation is based on control and
not necessarily on any title to or property interest in the land
NATURE OF THE DUTY
Cole v Davis-Gilbert (2007) – C suffered leg injury when she stepped into a hole on a
village green which had been inserted to accommodate a maypole – her claim failed on
public policy grounds
➔ Scott Baker LJ: Accidents happen, and sometimes they are what can be
described as pure accidents in the sense that the V cannot recover damages for
the injury because fault cannot be established.
Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd (2011) – CA held that a ´reasonable´ walk
over the pitch was sufficient and noted that games of rugby are no more than games and
desirable activities (s.1 of the Compensation Act 2006)
CHILDREN – s.2(3)(a)
Glasgow Corp v Taylor (1922) – 7y.o. child died from eating poisonous berries which
he picked up in a public park, berries looked like cherries or large blackcurrants and were
found to act as allurement to children – local authority knew about the poisonous nature
but did not put up a fence nor warning = liable
Phipps v Rochester Corp (1955) (a pre-Act case!) – boy aged 5 and his sister aged 7
fell into a trench at a large open space where people crossed the land often, the boy
broke his leg. Ds were not held liable, Devlin J placed the responsibility for small
children primarily on their parents and both parents and occupiers must act reasonably
Simkiss v Rhondda BC (1983) – if father did not consider the steep slope to be
dangerous, Ds could not be asked to achieve a higher standard of care and thus their
claim for compensation failed
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden (2009) – although occupier ought reasonably to
anticipate that children might escape attention of parents and wander into places of
danger, it does not follow that occupier is under a legal duty to make premises
completely safe for children
Jolley v Sutton LBC (2000) – two kids tried to fix a delerict boat, the boat fell of a prop,
crushing C who suffered spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia with major complications;
HOL held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the wider risk of children meddling with
a dilapidated boat would result in a risk of physical injury
➔ Lord Hoffmann: noted that children always look for unexpected ways of doing
mischief to themselves and should not be underestimated. The injury that
occurred falls within the injuries reasonably foreseeable.
TRADE VISITORS – s.2(3)(b)
Roles v Nathan (1963) – D (occupier) was not liable because his duty had been
discharged by warning the chimney sweeps (Cs) of the particular risks, and he could
reasonably expect a specialist to appreciate and guard against the dangers arising from
the very defect that he had been called to deal with
WARNINGS – s.2(4)(a-b)
AMF Intl v Magnet Bowling (1968) – where occupier has called in independent
contractors (such as a contractor undertaking a large building development), owner and
the contractor may both be occupiers simultaneously
Haseldine v CA Daw & Son Ltd (1941) – D was not liable for C´s injuries when the light
in a block of flats fell to the bottom of its shaft – this accident happened as a result of
negligence of a firm of independent contractors – having no technical skills meant that he
could not be expected to check that the work was satisfactorily done and his duty was
discharged by employing a competent firm
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings (1945) – Ds were liable for injury of a child who slipped
on an icy step at school, since there was no technical knowledge required to check the
cleaning of a step, CA ruled it is just, fair and reasonable to impose liability
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club (2003) – CA held Ds liable although pyrotechnic
display was not stemming from the state of the premises under OLA 1957, along with the
contractors who had no public liability insurance, in common law negligence because of
Ds failure to engage a competent contractor
Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust (2002) – CA held occupiers owed
a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the C was reasonably safe and to take
steps to ensure that an independent contractor who is supplying the hazardous
equipment is insured
Ferguson v Welsh (1987) – HOL found that district council was not liable since the
engagement of a contractor whom they had reasonable grounds for regarding as
competent was valid and to supervise the contractor´s activities would be imposing an
undue burden – the fact that neither the contractors or sub-contractors were not insured
was not their fault
DEFENCES
White v Blackmore (1972) – on ordinary principles, notice must be clear (both in
legibility and of its intended scope) and reasonably drawn to the visitor´s attention before
entry
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1984
Addie v Dumbreck (1929) – no duty of care was owed to trespassers to ensure they
were safe when coming onto land – the only duty as not to inflict harm wilfully (old rule)
British Rly Board v Herrington (1972) – HOL imposed on occupiers a duty to act with
common humanity towards trespassers – Ds knew that children had been seen on the
line but they did not take up any action and when C was burnt, Ds were held liable
Ratcliffe v McConnell (1999) – CA held occupiers owed no duty under s.1 of the OLA
1984, since the pool was closed for winter, it was dangerous to dive into water of
unknown depth, C willingly accepted the risk as his within the meaning of s.1(6) – volenti
applied
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd (2003) – C took a midnight swim in the sea in
winter, struck his head and broke his neck, security guards employed by D were stopping
people from diving but there were no warning signs put up. C was a professional scuba
diver, he should have known about the risks and should have checked the water levels
before jumping in. → Ds were not liable (having considered all circumstances)
Tomlinson v Congleton BC (2003) – sign “Dangerous water. No Swimming.”, despite it
many people used the lake for swimming – C jumped into shallow water and broke his
neck. → HOL held the Council not liable, no risk arose from the state of premises, the
risk arose from the C´s own action
NUISANCE
A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) – Romer LJ: Any nuisance is public which materially
affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of HM´s subjects. The
sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as the neighbourhood; but the Q
whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons
to constitute a class of the public is a Q of fact in every case.
Davey v Harrow Corp (1958) – roots of trees which were growing on D´s corporation´s
property had penetrated C´s property – no difference between self-sown trees and grown
intentionally, they represent nuisance the same
Malone v Laskey (1907) – C was unsuccessful in her claim because she did not have a
proprietary interest in the house where she was injured (her husband was mere licensee)
Khorasandjian v Bush (1993) – CA held that P who lived with her mother and had no
proprietary interest in property was entitled to an injunction to restrain a private nuisance
in form of telephone harassment
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) (overruling Khorasandjian, upholding Malone) – only
householders with a right to property could commence actions in nuisance and
interference with TV signal was not actionable nuisance
Sedleigh-Denfield v O´Callaghan (1940) – Lord Wright: balance must be made
between the right of the occupier to do what he likes with his own and right of his
neighbour not to be interfered with. The test is of reasonable user (not of reasonable
care!) given ordinary usages of particular society.
Baxter v Camden LBC (No 2) – CA dismissed a nuisance claim on grounds that
occupants of low-cost, high-density housing must be expected to tolerate higher level of
noise from their neighbours than others in more substantial and spacious premises
Walter v Selfe (1851) – damage to property or personal discomfort always positively
support a nuisance claim; burning of bricks was a nuisance and injunction was granted
St Helen´s Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) – where there is physical damage to property,
the locality principle does not provide a defence and is of no relevance, C suffered
damage by smelting works of D and it did not matter that smelting used to be done there
long before C moved in
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) – nature of a locality may sometimes be relevant; nuisance
will sometimes be judged according to the area in which it occurs
➔ Thesiger LJ: What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not
necessarily be so in Bermondsey.
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham Docks) Co Ltd (1993) – planning
permission to develop a commercial dock was held to have changed the character of the
neighbourhood and the local residents were therefore unable to claim in nuisance for the
disturbance it created
Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd (1996) – planning permission to facilitate an activity on a
site already used for that purpose does not carry with it an immunity in nuisance in
respect of implementation of that planning permission
Coventry v Lawrence (2014) – mere fact that activity (motor sports stadium) which is
said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of
no assistance to the D
➔ Lord Neuberger: planning authority has to consider effects of a proposed
development; i.e. competing interests, some of which are and are not relevant for
assessment of nuisance.
De Keyser´s Royal Hotel Ltd v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) – duration and frequency will
sometimes be determinate, here injunction was granted to prevent building work taking
place at night despite the fact work was temporary in nature, interference was
considered unreasonable since it interfered with C´s sleep
Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996) – burning debris from a
firework display landed on a nearby barge and caught on fire – Ds were liable despite the
pyrotechnic display lasted only for 20 minutes
SCM (UK) Ltd v WJ Whittal & Son Ltd (1971) – D´s workmen damaged electric cable
and cut off C´s factory, part of claim arising from physical damage was not struck out, but
that for economic loss was
Miller v Jackson (1977) – P bought a house that cricket balls from a cricket ground
nearby would be hit in from, CA found that cricket was unreasonable interference with
P´s enjoyment land, nevertheless did not award injunction (social utility)
Robinson v Kilvert (1889) – court will not interfere, where complaint is based on the
abnormal sensitivity; brown paper was exceptionally delicate and hot air would not in the
same amount affect ordinary paper
Mackinnon Industries v Walker (1951) – recovery for harm to orchids when fumes
would have damaged any flowers grown
Christie v Davey (1893) – P succeeded, when D (annoyed by P´s music training)
expressed his annoyance by knocking on the wall, beating trays, whistling and shrieking
➔ North J: what was done by the D was done only for the purpose of annoyance
and in my opinion, it was not a legitimate use of the D´s house
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936) – D wanted to prevent P´s silver
foxes from breeding and discharged guns on his own land to scare them – Macnaghten
J considered the intention of D to be relevant and injunction and damages were awarded
Matania v National Provincial Bank (1936) – landlord authorised works of independent
contractors (D) in a floor under one where P was leasing and the effect made P unable to
carry out his profession as a singing professor for three months – vicarious liability for
independent contractor
Sedleigh-Denfield (1940) – occupier of the land is best placed to deal with the nuisance,
they will be liable if they are found to be at fault, liability thus arises in two ways; adopting
a nuisance (using the state of affairs for own purposes) or continuing a nuisance (failing
to take reasonably prompt and efficient steps to abate it)
Leakey v National Trust (1980) – the rule has been applied to acts of nature, here to
failure to protect neighbouring villagers from effects of subsidence to the D´s land
Goldman v Hargrave (1967) – the rule has been applied to acts of nature, here to failure
to extinguish with adequate care a tree which had been struck by lightning and had
caught fire
➔ Lord Wilberforce: D´s conduct is to be judged in light of their resources and
ability to act in the circumstances
Holbeck Hall Hotel Ltd v Scarborough BC (2000) – D owned land between hotel and
the sea, massive land slip took place on the cliff and lawn of hotel disappeared in the
sea; Council was held not liable, considering neighbour´s interest and physical effort of
which he is not capable would be unreasonable or unjust, but here it would not
Tetley v Chitty (1986) – noise from a race track of go-kart club was an ordinary and
necessary incident for the purpose for which permission to use the land was granted
Smith v Scott (1973) – local authority was not found to have authorised the nuisance
caused by a family they housed even when they were known to be a problem family,
since there was a clause expressly prohibiting commission of such acts in the tenancy
contract
Hussain v Lancaster CC (2000) – council was not held liable for racial harassment
against a shopkeeper on their estate, they were under no duty to intervene to prevent
their tenants from harassing the Hussains (they had a clause instructing tenants not to
discriminate or harass residents or visitors)
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC (2000) – gypsy groups were allowed to stay on
council land and caused chaos, trespassing, littering and vandalism – council was held
liable, since the travellers used the land to commit nuisance as a launching pad and
council were more likely to be liable for acts of trespassers and licensees than tenants
(tenants have statutory protection and have notice clauses)
Thompson-Schwab v Costaki (1956) – sight of prostitutes and their clients entering
and leaving neighbouring premises were held to amount to actionable nuisance since the
activity was offensive in itself
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd (1981) – statutory authority protected D from liability over
nuisance for smell and noise and vibration caused by construction of an oil refinery,
since the construction was authorised by an Act of Parliament
Department of Transport v North West Water Authority (1984) – statutes may contain
a nuisance clause which provides that nothing in the Act shall exonerate the undertaker
from liability for the nuisance and regard is to be given as to distinction between
mandatory and permissive provisions in statutes – where damage is caused in the
course of carrying out mandatory obligation, authority will not be liable
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) – for over 20 years noise and vibrations from D´s business
did not interfere with C´s use of land, then P built a consulting room (he was a doctor)
and complained of the noise – defence of 20 years prescription did not apply because
the time ran from when nuisance actually started
Sedleigh-Denfield (1940) – act of a stranger defence did not apply where D adopted
and continued the nuisance
Bliss v Hall (1938) – the fact that candle business had been carried on in the same
premises for three years before P came to the adjoining property did not defeat P´s
claim, justification for the rule is that it would be unreasonable to expect someone not to
purchase land because a neighbour was abusing their rights
Adams v Ursell (1913) – utility of a fish-and-chips shop to local poor inhabitants could
not justify its presence in a fashionable street
Miller v Jackson (1977) – cricket balls were flying out on more numerous occasions, Ds
were then held liable, since damage was both foreseeable and likely to occur; utility (not
a defence) may sometimes encourage the court to be more flexible in deciding a remedy
Lambton v Mellish (1894) – Chitty J: if acts of 2 people, amount in the aggregate to
what is an actionable wrong, each is amenable to the remedy against the aggregate
cause of complaint; it is not a defence that D was simply one of many
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895) – whether for a mandatory
injunction or to restrain a continuing nuisance, the appropriate remedy may be damages
in lieu of an injunction if: the injury is small, is one capable of being estimated in money,
is one which can be compensated with small money payment and it would be oppressive
to D to grant an injunction
Coventry v Lawrence (2014) – mere fact that activity (motor sports stadium) which is
said to give rise to the nuisance has the benefit of a planning permission is normally of
no assistance to the D – UKSC reviewed court´s power to award damages in lieu of an
injunction and to remind judges of their broad discretion beyond the Shelfer rules
Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster CC (2002) – abatement is a remedy of self-
help intended for minor problems such as encroaching roots and branches (you can cut
them yourself)
Andreae v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1938) – consequential economic loss is recoverable,
here C had a hotel and rest of the island was D´s and they demolished and rebuild other
properties – noise and dust were incredibly interfering with C´s comfort and damages
were assessed at GBP 4500
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961) – damage to personal property will likely to be
recoverable, here laundry hanging in garden was destroyed which created grounds for
actionable nuisance
Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Grater London Council (1983) – case concerning public
nuisance, Ds constructed terminals in Thames which obstructed P´s business for their
molo and they had to spend large sums on dredging operations (= special damage) and
their claim was successful in public nuisance
A-G v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957) – example of where case was brought in name of A-G
by means of a relator action, where P cannot prove special damage for public nuisance
Stoke-on-Trent CC v B&Q (Retail) Ltd (1984) - example of where case was brought in
name of a local authority under s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972, where P
cannot prove special damage for public nuisance
Hatton v UK (2002) – Cs had not had proper opportunity to challenge the decision
(Article 6 ECHR) of D who increased number of flights to Heathrow Airport, but their
rights to private and family life were not infringed (Article 8 ECHR)
McKenna v British Aluminium (2002) – (unsettled law) – claim was brought by 30
children from various households – they had no rights to land, but because of Article 8,
courts were considering giving a claim to people without proprietary interests → this is
still quite restrictively approached by HOL: Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2003)
THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Rylands v Fletcher (1865) – mill owner had a reservoir for water, independent
contractors he hired found some old shafts and passages underneath after an
abandoned coal mine on D´s land but they seemed to be blocked – when the reservoir
bursted, P´s land was flooded and he sought compensation
➔ Rule in Rylands v Fletcher:
1. D brings on his lands for his purposes something likely to do mischief
2. Which escapes
3. Due to a non-natural use
4. Which causes foreseeable harm
Cambridge Water co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) – leather manufacturer

(D) used PCE in tanning process and unknowingly contaminated ground underneath D´s
premises from where P drew their water → claim of nuisance failed because at the time
of contamination was taking place it was not foreseeable that chemical would
accumulate in such quantities – claim failed for lack of foreseeability
Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – large water pipe leaked and water escaped into
embankments and caused it to collapse – high pressure gas main was left exposed and
Cs sought recovery of substantial costs spent in fixing the problem; claim failed since
HOL held that water supply piping was a routine function and there was thus no special
hazard (non-natural use requirement was not fulfilled)
Shiffman v Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (1936) – flag pole
belonging to D hell and hit C, this amounted to escape for purposes of Rylands v
Fletcher
Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956) – D kept an old coach that needed repair on their
land adjoining a piece of wasteland, C approached two other boys on the wasteland
close to the coach, as he got close, boys lit a match and threw it into the petrol tank and
that caused explosion – D was not liable since escape was caused by deliberate action
of 3rd party
Read v Lyons (1947) – obiter: P must be an occupier in order to maintain an action
under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Weller & Co v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966) – Ps could not
succeed under the rule because they did not have an interest in land affected by the
escape of a virus + the cattle affected was to be sold and they tried recovering for that
too, but pure economic loss is not recoverable under R v F
Ponting v Noakes (1894) – C´s horse died after it ate some leaves from a Yew tree at
D´s premises – D was not liable because the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the
D´s land and there was no escape
Box v Jubb (1879) – unforeseeable act of stranger is a well-established defence, here
third party owned a reservoir close to D´s reservoir and this third party emptied their
reservoir through a drain connected to D´s and caused it to overflow and damage C´s
land – D was not liable since damage was caused by act of a third party D could not
control
Rickards v Lothian (1913) – malicious act by an unknown third party blocked a
domestic water system – Ds were not liable because the overflow of water was caused
by the act of a stranger over whom D´s did not have any control
North-western Utilities Ltd v London Guarantee Co (1936) – although bringing things
onto land for the purposes of provided public utilities (water, gas etc.) is arguably for the
entire public’s benefit, such accumulations still fall under the rule, as the relevant
companies are accumulating for their own purposes. Fire extinguishers and sprinkler
systems have been held to fall outside the principle. – D had no control over the workers
employed by the city and was not liable for the destroyed hotel
Nichols v Marsland (1876) – unprecedented rainfall causing banks of ornamental lake
to burst and destroy bridges on P´s land was held to be an act of God absolving D from
liability
Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway (1917) – rainfall was found not to be an act of
God; owners or occupiers are to secure against injury at grounds level
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) – water main burst causing damage to P´s
land, Chelsea Waterworks were under a statutory obligation to maintain high pressure,
this would mean that any escape would inevitably cause damage – statutory authority
was a valid defence – they were not liable
Charing Cross Electricity supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co (1914) – statutory
authority provided permission to D to keep the water main at high pressure but there was
no obligation to do so – defence then failed
Dunne v North Western Gas Board (1964) – gas escape was caused by a burst water
main, 5 people were injured – the Ds were not liable, because the Board had not
accumulated gas for their own purposes
Kiddle v city Business Properties Ltd (1942) – Goddard L: P takes property as he
finds it and must put up with the consequences. It is not to be supposed that the landlord
is going to alter the construction, unless he consents to do so. He would say to his
intending tenant. “You must take it as it is or not at all.”
Hale v Jennings (1938) – a chair became detached from a chair-o-plane in a fairground
and a stallholder who suffered personal injuries as a result of the “escape” was allowed
to recover for personal injury
DEFAMATION
Defamation Act 1998, 2013
Human Rights Act 1998
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
Theatres Act 1968
Broadcasting Act 1990
Slander of Woman Act 1891 (repealed by 2013 Act)
Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd (1993) – local authority cannot maintain an
action for liber on the ground that the threat of a civil action for defamation would have an
inhibiting effect on freedom of speech and it was contrary to public interest that the
organs of government, whether central or local, should have a right to sue for libel
Lynch v Knight (1861) – loss must not be too remote, Lord Wensleydale: “Mental pain
or anxiety the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act
complained of causes that alone; though where material damage occurs, and is
connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the
feelings of the party interested.”
Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd (1934) – distinction between libel and slander is not
always clear; here, words in a film soundtrack were claimed to falsely suggest that C was
raped by Rasputin – court took the view that speech synchronised with the film took a
permanent form and should be treated as libel
Sim v Stretch (1936) – statement must be defamatory, here a telegram was alleged to
be defamatory in a sense that it implied claimant´s pecuniary difficulties, HOL held there
is a threshold of seriousness about what is defamatory (s.1 of DA 2013 now extends this
threshold to only serious harm to be recoverable)
Berkoff v Burchill (1996) – a published description of an actor as hideously ugly was
capable of being defamatory, although as a general rule, mere abuse does not constitute
a defamatory statement, here the statement potentially not only hurt feelings but was
relevant for C´s acting career
Byrne v Deane (1937) – C brought an action for libel alleging that by these words Ds
meant that he was guilty of underhand disloyalty to his fellow club members and gave
away information about illegal game machines to police – court held it was not
defamatory because right-thinking persons would not think less of such a man because
everybody should believe law should be enforced
Tolley v JS Fry & Sons Ltd (1931) – famous amateur golfer was caricatured and the
picture was used without his knowledge or consent in an advertisement and he brought a
defamatory claim – HOL held that advertisement was capable of bearing the meaning
that he would dishonestly take money despite remaining in an amateur league
Cassidy v Daily Mirror News (1929) – publishing a photograph depicting Cassidy and a
young woman announcing that they were engaged was defamatory because Mr Cassidy
was still married and those words were defamatory of the existing Mrs Cassidy (a
reasonable person knowing of their relationship might assume that she had cohabited
with Cassidy outside marriage)
Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1964) – a paragraph in newspaper stated that C firm were
investigating affairs of the company and C himself – paragraph allegedly contained an
innuendo that company was operated in a fraudulent and dishonest way; HOL rejected
this interpretation – a reasonable person would suspect of fraud but not assume them to
be guilty of fraud – test is: Would the reasonable person view the statement as
defamatory on the particular facts of the case?
Chase v News Group Newspapers (2002) – Brooke LJ identified 3 possible defamatory
meanings that might be derived from a publication alleging police investigations into the
conduct of a claimant
1. Chase lvl.1 meaning is that the claimant was guilty
2. Chase lvl.2 is that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that C was guilty
3. Chase lvl.3 is that there were grounds for investigating whether the C was guilty
Charleston v News Group Newspapers (1995) – courts will not allow Cs to point to a
particular sentence in isolation but will examine the statement in its whole context,
defamatory was judged by the standard of the ordinary reasonable person who would
have taken the trouble to discover what the article was about
Morgan v Odhams Press (1971) – HOL found that it was not necessary to find a
specific pointer in article or a peg on which to hand a reference to C, it was enough that
ordinary reasonable person would, on facts, have drawn the inference that the article
referred to C
Hulton & Co v Jones (1910) – HOL held that there was evidence upon which the jury
could conclude that reasonable people would believe Mr Jones was referred to and it
was irrelevant that the Ds had no intention to defame him
Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd (1940) – held that evidence would have
justified a finding by the jury that reasonable persons would have understood the words
complained of to refer to P, and that, assuming the words complained of were capable of
a meaning defamatory of the P, the fact that they were true of another person did not
afford a good defence to the Ds
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd (1944) – P claimed that his position as a
head of political party was enough to single him out from the group – HOL disagreed,
there was not even a reference to British Branch in the article which concerned the party
generally – reasonable person would therefore not find P to be singled out
Theaker v Richardson (1962) –D was liable for sending a defamatory letter to a married
woman which had been opened by her husband – the letter looked like an election
circular; court upheld the view of the jury that it was foreseeable that husband would
open the letter
Huth v Huth (1915) – D, in an unsealed envelope, sent a letter to P´s mother which Ps
alleged to be defamatory of them – the letter was opened and read by an inquisitive
butler in an admitted breach of his duty – CA held there was no publication
Slipper v BBC (1991) – P, senior police officer, claimed he was defamed in a film about
his unsuccessful attempts to secure the extradition of one of the Great Train Robbers
and that BBC had caused widespread repetition of the libel through reviews in the TV
columns of newspapers
McManus v Beckham (2002) – C sought damages from D who was a pop star and
publicly wrongly accused C of selling pictures with fake autograph of her husband, D
obtained an order striking out the claim that D was not responsible for repetitions; it was
held it was not possible to dispose of the republication issue at the interlocutory stage
Godfrey v Demon Internet (2001) – defamatory statements of C were posted by an
unknown person on internet newsgroup hosted on D´s server, Ds successfully showed
that they were not the author, editor or publisher of the statement within the meaning of
the DA 1996 and they could not show that they had taken reasonable care in relation to
its publication and thus were liable
Google UK and Google Inc (2011) – it was claimed that Google was responsible for
defamatory comments on a website which appeared on its search results page, it was
held by Justice Eady that Google was not liable for publication of the statements
because it had no control over the search terms entered by users of the search engine or
of the material which is placed on the web by its users
Tamiz v Google Inc (2013) – CA examined liability of providers of internet platforms
such as Google as potential publishers of defamatory comments posted on a London
Muslim blog operated by Google – Google could not be said to be either primary or
secondary publisher but after being notified, there was a case that Google was a
publisher, but liability was denied on other grounds
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2-5) (2002) – Russian businessman
brought a libel action in respect of statements in a printed newspaper and also in the The
Times newspapers website article – settlement was reached in respect of the same story
which had been placed in the newspapers online archive – where an article published on
the date of the print edition is then archived on the internet, s.8 provides that no action
can be brought if it is accessed online several years later = single publication rule
DEFENCES TO DEFAMATION
TRUTH
Alexander v North Eastern Railway (1865) – statement published by D said that P was
sentenced to three weeks of imprisonment when in fact he was imprisoned for two weeks
– defence of truth applied, it is now enough for the statement to be substantially true and
not entirely true
Wakley v Cooke (1849) – court held that the term “libellous journalist” indicated that C
was in habit of libelling people and even proof that C had lost a libel case did not serve to
justify this innuendo – D must justify every innuendo and not simply the main allegation
Williams v Reason (1988) – D may wish to raise matters with a common sting (general
truth) in support of his claim of justification – allegation that P broke the code of Rugby
Union and made money by writing a book was held to be reasonably capable of bearing
the wider meaning of a charge of shamateurism and hence evidence that P had taken
boot money could be adduced by way of “truth”
Cruise v Express Newspapers Ltd (1999) – Ps sued the paper for allegations that their
marriage was a sham to cover up their homosexuality, Ds appealed that parts of an
article were not severable, so C must complain of the whole article to be defamatory
(there were two stings, C complained of one)
HONEST OPINION
Kemsley v Foot (1952) – statement must be a comment on a true set of facts for honest
opinion to apply, here the article containing a phrase “lower than Hemsley” could be
construe to infer that the Kemsley Press was of a low and undesirable quality,
nevertheless D was entitled to rely on material confirming the allegation
Telnikoff v Matusevitch (1992) – CA considered the element of malice in defamation
defence: “If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of
malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice.”
- HOL decided on whether an article is fact or comment purely by reference to the article
itself and not taking into account any of the earlier background coverage
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001) – honest opinion protects opinions honestly
held if the statement complained of: (i) was a statement of opinion, (ii) indicated, whether
in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion and (iii) could have been held by an
honest person on the basis of any fact which existed at the time the statement was
published.
➔ Lord Nicholls gave some guidance (not exhaustive one):
o seriousness of the allegation
o nature, source and status of the information
o urgency of the matter
o what steps have been taken for verification
o tone of the article…etc.
PUBLICATION ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST
Al-Faigh v HH Saudi Research & Marketing (UK) Ltd (2002) – Simon Brown LJ:
“reportage” defence has been described as a convenient word to describe the neutral
reporting of attributed allegations rather than their adoption by the newspaper
Hamilton v Al Fayed (2000) – absolute privilege covers statements made in Parliament
by MPs → in addition to that: reports and papers ordered to be published by either house
of Parliament, judicial proceedings, fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of UK
court proceedings and communications between high officers of state
ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE
Chatterton v Secretary of State for India (1985) – D had been apprised that his action
with respect to P would be made the subject of a parliamentary inquiry, the claim was
dismissed for reasons of public policy
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
Horrocks v Lowe (1975) – qualified privilege applies where it is desirable that freedom
of speech should be protected, but not where the author is activated by malice; here P
complained of alleged slander spoken at a meeting of town council, held: allegation of
malice is a very serious allegation capable of amounting to dishonesty
Watts v Longsdon (1930) – a letter alleged that P was immoral and dishonest, D
informed the company chairman about P was misbehaving with women and he
communicated the statements to the P´s wife although they were false - CA held that
communication to chairman was privileged because both publisher and receiver had a
common interest in the affairs of the company, but there was no social or moral duty to
inform the wife = here it was defamation
Bryanston Finance Ltd v de Vries (1975) – if A claimed to be victim of a tort committed
by joint tortfeasors, and if A obtained either a judgment against one or more of them, or
the benefit of a settlement by which he released one or more of them, then subject to
certain exceptions, A thereby released the others
Kearns v General Council of the Bar (2002) – communications between the Bar
Council and heads of chambers, senior clerks and practice managers were a classic
example of circumstances where there was a common and corresponding interest
between those persons and such communications were, therefore, subject to qualified
privilege
Spring v Guardian Assurance (1995) – an employer was liable for a negligently given
and damaging reference given on behalf of an employee, a duty of care and a social duty
to provide a reference was owed to the employee.
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2-5) (2002) – Russian businessman
brought a libel action in respect of statements in a printed newspaper and also in the The
Times newspapers website article – settlement was reached in respect of the same story
which had been placed in the newspapers online archive – where an article published on
the date of the print edition is then archived on the internet, s.8 provides that no action
can be brought if it is accessed online several years later = single publication rule
Bonnick v Morris (2003) – the words alleged were ambiguous, it was held that
publishers were protected by Reynolds privilege – the court should give the article the
natural and ordinary meaning which would be attributed by an intelligent reader seeing it
once
Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL (2005) – ability to publish an article which
was in its nature defamatory but where there were proper matters of public concern, and
where D had taken reasonable steps to verify its contents, was not to be lost only
because steps had not been taken to obtain a comment on the proposed article from the
C before publication
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd (2012) – example of a case where Reynolds criteria
still applied despite being abolished by the 2013 Act – in considering whether D´s belief
that publishing the information was in the public interest was reasonable the court must
make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate
McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers Ltd (2001) – it is necessary in a
modern democracy to restrict to as limited extent as is possible, restrictions on freedom
of speech and reporting, qualified privilege is provided under the Act unless published
with malice
INNOCENT DISSEMINATION – s.1(3)(a)-(e)
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd (1999) – unknown person had posted a message which
was forged to appear to have been sent by the C, C wanted D to take the message of
their server which they did not do – Ds took a provocative stand and the message was
there for additional 10 days – case ended with a settlement
UNINTENTIONAL DEFAMATION – s.2-4
Milne v Express Newspapers (No 1) (2004)
Horrocks v Lowe (1975) – qualified privilege applies where it is desirable that freedom
of speech should be protected, but not where the author is activated by malice; here P
complained of alleged slander spoken at a meeting of town council, held: allegation of
malice is a very serious allegation capable of amounting to dishonesty
PROTECTION FOR STATEMENTS IN SCIENTIFIC OR ACADEMIC JOURNALS – s.6
British Chiropractic Association v Singh (2010) – a big chiropractic association was
suing a science author and journalist Simon Singh – CA overturned the previous ruling
that Singh´s comments were an assertion of fact and instead ruled that Singh was
entitled to defend his comments as legally permissible fair comments
CONSENT
Chapman v Ellesmere (1932) – it is a defence where C has expressly or impliedly (e.g.
via giving an interview) consented to the publication of the defamatory matter
Cookson v Harewood (1932) – D cannot escape liability by saying he is only repeating
the words of others, Greer LJ: if you repeat a rumour, you cannot say it is true by
proving that the rumour in fact existed, you have to prove that the subject matter of the
rumour is true
REMEDIES
Kiam v MGN Ltd (2003) – where a court regards a jury award in a defamation case as
excessive, a proper award can be substituted for it is not whatever sum court thinks
appropriate, wholly uninfluenced by jury´s view, but the highest award which a jury could
reasonably have thought necessary – adequate amount may also deter media from
riding roughshod over the rights of other citizens
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2002) - CA was not able to quash a jury
verdict as perverse, and the appeal succeeded – an appellate court could not substitute
its own verdict on the facts for that of the jury, thus at least damages award was reduced
from GBP 850,000 to GBP 1 since C behaved disgracefully
Cairns v Modi (2013) – CA held that reference to pain and suffering in personal injury
cases could be made when considering damages in libel case – although large damages
award may express the jury´s indignation as to how the newspaper has treated the C,
the courts have been careful to emphasize that damages should be compensatory and
any larger award must be justified as exemplary damage
Bonnard v Perryman (1891) – libel here was a very damaging one – unless it could be
justified at the trial it was one in which a jury would give the plaintiff very serious
damages – court has jurisdiction to restrain by injunction the publication of a libel but the
exercise of this jurisdiction is discretionary!
Holley v Smith (1998) – D threatened to publish defamatory allegations of fraud unless
he was paid a substantial sum of money that he claimed to have lost as a result of the
alleged fraud – D said he would justify the allegations – injunction was discharged, what
matter was whether he asserted that he would justify the allegation complained of and
that such an assertion was arguable

VERY HELPFULL! Complete Case List For Tort

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VERY HELPFULL! Complete Case List For Tort

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORT LAW CASE LIST

NEGLIGENCE: DUTY OF CARE

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA (CONSENT)

EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO (ILLEGALITY)

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (1995) – managing agents conducted the

Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990)

THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Cambridge Water co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) – leather manufacturer

You might also like