swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Torts - Other - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
ÂTinsley v Milligan [1992] Ch 310; (1991) 63 P and CR 152; [1992] 2 WLR 508; [1992] 2 All ER 391
1992
CA
Lord Justice Lloyd, Lord Justice Nicholls
Land, Torts - other
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: "These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the 'ex turpi causa' maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been raised, the court should keep in mind that the underlying principle is the so-called 'public conscience' test. The Court must weigh, or balance, the adverse consequences of granting relief against the adverse consequences of refusing relief. The ultimate decision calls for a value judgment. The detailed principles summarised by Lord Justice Kerr in the Euro-Diam case, [1900] 1 QB. 1, and distinctions such as that between causes of action which arise directly ex turpi causa and causes of action to which the unlawful conduct is incidental are valuable as guidelines. But they are no more than guidelines. Their value and justification lie in the practical assistance they give to courts by focusing attention on particular features which are material in carrying out the balancing exercise in different types of case".
Ralph Gibson LJ dissented, observing that: "in so far as the basis of the ex turpi causa defence, as founded on public policy, is directed at deterrence it seems to me that the force of the deterrent effect is in the existence of the known rule and in its stern application. Lawyers have long known of the rule and must have advised many people of its existence."
Law of Property Act 1925 193(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65
1992
Torts - Other
1 Citers
Â
Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Sibec Developments Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1253
1992
QBD
Millett J
Torts - Other
The court considered what was required to establish the tort of conversion. Held: Demand is not an essential precondition of the tort: what is required is an overt act of withholding possession from the true owner. Such an act may consist of a refusal to deliver up the chattel on demand, but it may be demonstrated by other conduct, for example by asserting a lien. Some positive act of withholding, however, is required; so that, absent any positive conduct on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff can establish a cause of action in conversion only by making a demand.
1 Citers
Â
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] 109 ALR 247; (1992) 175 CLR 514
1992
Mason CJ and Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Torts - Other
(High Court of Australia) A claim was based on a statutory trade indemnity scheme. The insurers claimed damages from Wardley, on the basis that its alleged deceit induced them to grant an indemnity, which was subsequently called on. Held: "[T]he English decisions have proceeded according to the view that, where the plaintiff is induced by a negligent misrepresentation to enter into a contract and the contract, as a result of the negligence, yields property or contractual rights of lesser value, the plaintiff first suffers financial loss on entry into the contract, notwithstanding that the full extent of the plaintiff's financial loss may be incapable of ascertainment until some later date" and
"If, contrary to the view which we have just expressed, the English decisions properly understood support the proposition that where, as a result of the defendant's negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff enters into a contract which exposes him or her to a contingent loss or liability, the plaintiff first suffers loss or damage on entry into the contract, we do not agree with them. In our opinion, in such a case, the plaintiff sustains no actual damage until the contingency is fulfilled and the loss becomes actual; until that happens the loss is prospective and may never be incurred. A deferred liability may stand in a different position but there is no occasion here to discuss that matter. " and "The conclusion which we have reached is reinforced by the general considerations …. It is unjust and unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to commence proceedings before the contingency is fulfilled. If an action is commenced before that date, it will fail if the events so transpire that it becomes clear that no loss is, or will be, incurred. Moreover, the plaintiff will run the risk that damages will be estimated on a contingency basis, in which event the compensation awarded may not fully compensate the plaintiff for the loss ultimately suffered. These practical consequences which would follow from an adoption of the view for which the appellants contend outweigh the strength of the argument that the principle applicable to the cases in which the plaintiff acquires property (or a chose in action) should be extended to cases where an agreement subjects the plaintiff to a contingent loss. In such cases, it is fair and sensible to say that the plaintiff does not incur loss until the contingency is fulfilled."
The English case of Fortser v Outred was explained: "by reference to the immediate effect of the execution of the mortgage on the value of the plaintiff's equity of redemption …. It has been contended that the principle underlying the English decisions extends to the point that a plaintiff sustains loss on entry into an agreement notwithstanding that the loss to which the plaintiff is subjected by the agreement is a loss upon a contingency. For our part, we doubt that the decisions travel so far. Rather, it seems to us, the decisions in cases which involve contingent loss were decisions which turned on the plaintiff sustaining measurable loss at an earlier time, quite apart from the contingent loss which threatened at a later date…. If…the English decisions properly understood support the proposition that where, as a result of the defendant's negligent representation, the plaintiff enters into a contract which exposes him or her to a contingent loss or liability, the plaintiff first suffers loss or damage on entry into the contract, we do not agree with them. In our opinion, in such a case, the plaintiff sustains no actual damage until the contingency is fulfilled and the loss becomes actual; until that happens the loss is prospective and may never be incurred."
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
 Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions; QBD 1992 - [1992] 1 All ER 982; [1992] RTR 215
Â
Saleh Farid v Theodorou Unreported 30th January 1992
30 Jan 1992
CA
Torts - Other
The first defendant had entered into an unauthorised sale and leaseback of the claimant's car to secure a loan. The second defendant finance company admitted that they had converted the car even though they had not physically possessed it. Their involvement had "rendered them parties to the deprivation of the plaintiff's title to the car".
1 Citers
Â
 Lennox Phillip and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same vCommissioners of Prisons; PC 19-Feb-1992 - Gazette, 19 February 1992; [1992] 1 AC 545; [1992] 2 WLR 211
Â
Plange v Chief Constable for Humberside Police Times, 23 March 1992; [1992] 156 LG Rev 1024; (1992) TLR 137
23 Mar 1992
CA
Parker LJ
Police, Torts - Other
Where an arresting officer knows at the time of arrest that no charge is possible, the arresting officer acts unlawfully. However, it is for the claimant to establish on Wednesbury principles that the decision to arrest in any particular case was unlawful for want of proper exercise of discretion. Parker LJ said that "it will only be in very exceptional cases that the condition precedent [in section 24(6) reasonable grounds to suspect] being satisfied, a Wednesbury challenge can succeed".
1 Citers
Â
Williams v Spautz 61 A Crim R 431; (1992) 66 ALJR 585; 107 ALR 635; (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34
27 Jul 1992
Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
Commonwealth, Torts - Other
(High Court of Australia) Criminal Law - Abuse of process - Stay of proceedings - Action for wrongful dismissal against university - Information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university - Predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action - Whether abuse of process.
Brennan J attempted a partial definition of purpose in the context of the tort of abuse of process, committed when a person conducts litigation for a purpose other than that for which the court's process is designed: "Purpose, when used in reference to a transaction, has two elements: the first, a result which the transaction is capable of producing; the second, the result which the person or persons who engage in or control the transaction intend it to produce. Or, to express the concept in different terms, the purpose of a transaction is the result which it is capable of producing and is intended to produce."
1 Citers
[ Austlii ]
Â
 Joyce v Sengupta and Another; CA 31-Jul-1992 - Gazette, 28 October 1992; [1993] 1 WLR 337; [1992] EWCA Civ 9; [1993] 1 All ER 897
Â
Godwin v Uzoigwe and Another Gazette, 02 September 1992
2 Sep 1992
CA
Torts - Other
Damages were paid for the tort of intimidation - the tort was adequately defined.
Â
