MICHAEL AND OTHERS V THE

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SOUTH

WALES POLICE [2015] UKSC 2
A CASE ON DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE
THIS CASE ESTABLISHES WHETHER THE
SWP WERE IN BREACH OF THEIR DUTY OF
CARE
A. True
B. False

0% 0%

ue l se
Tr Fa
WHO GAVE THE LEADING JUDGEMENT?

A. Lord Mance
B. Lord Toulson
C. Lady Hale
D. Lord Jones

0% 0% 0% 0%

ce n l e s
an l so Ha ne
M ou y Jo
rd T ad rd
Lo rd L Lo
Lo
WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO
DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM HILL V CC OF
WY?
A. A change in conditions in society
B. That it was right to apply a duty in
light of evidence on proximity
C. Evidence of a rise in domestic abuse
D. Calls from lobbying groups to
0% 0% 0% 0%
extend liability
... ... t.. ...
so es st
n ya m up
si pl do ro
o n ap ei
n g
d iti
tt
o
ris i ng
on i gh a bby
i n
c
sr of l o
ge
a ce m
an i tw en fr o
ch at id ls
A Th Ev Ca
l
WHEN DID THE EVENTS TAKE PLACE?

A. June 2009
B. July 2009
C. August 2009
D. September 2009
0% 0% 0% 0%

09 00
9
00
9
00
9
20 2 t 2 r 2
ne l y
Ju Ju g us be
Au m
te
S ep
ENGLISH LAW ACCEPTS THAT A BODY OR
PERSON CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
CRIMINAL ACTS OF OTHERS:
A. If there is special proximity
B. Never
C. Always
D. If certain facts exist
0% 0% 0% 0%

r s st
ity ve ay i
i m e w ex
ox
N Al c ts
r fa
lp in
ia
ec rta
sp c e
is If
e
her
t
If
THE SC ACCEPTED THAT THE TELEPHONE CALL
HAD CREATED SPECIAL PROXIMITY BETWEEN
MICHAEL AND THE POLICE:
A. Which created a duty to act
B. They had to protect her well
being
C. Neither.
0% 0% 0%

.
ac
t . er
o ll. . ti h
ty
t
r we Ne
du e
a cth
d e
te ot
ea pr
cr to
ch ad
hi
W e yh
Th
IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT
OF THE PHONE CALL LEAD TO A
CONCLUSION THAT:
A. The police could not be sure she
was in danger
B. The police should have know
that she was in danger
C. The police should have acted 0% 0% 0%
quickly
.. ... ..
r e. o t e.
su kn ac
e v e e
o tb ha ha
v
n d d
ul
d oul ou
l
co sh sh
e e e
lic li c lic
po e po po
e e
Th Th Th
THE DECISION SUGGESTS THAT:

A. The courts will never apply a duty

of care to the police
B. The courts will balance the risk of
floodgates against harm caused
C. The courts don’t like influencing
0% 0% 0%
police operations
. .. . ..
r. . e.
ly e u
pp th in
fl
ra n ce e
ev
e a lik
al ’t
il ln il lb o n
w w d
rts r ts urts
u
c o c ou e c o
e e
Th Th Th
THE FLOODGATES ARGUMENT IS:

A. A fear of the vexatious litigant

B. A fear of large numbers of
litigants
C. Both of the above
D. An ill-defined concept. 0% 0% 0% 0%

t .
an ... ve pt
tig f li t a bo n c e
i
sl rs
o he co
o u
be o ft ed
x ati m th efi
n
ve nu Bo l- d
e ge il
f th l ar An
ro of
f ea a r
A fe
A
AN ASSUMPTION OF RISK MEANS:

A. A person tells someone he is

responsible for them
B. A persons actions may lead to an
presumption of responsibility
C. Assuming that someone else will 0% 0% 0%
take on the risk
.. . ...
is. t.. se
h e ad el
ne le ne
eo ay eo
m
so
m s om
on ts
l ls c ti ha
te sa g t
n n in
r so rs
o m
e su
A
p pe A s
A