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.
Torts - Other - From: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Martin v Watson; CA 26-Jan-1994 - Gazette, 23 March 1994; Times, 27 January 1994; Independent, 26 January 1994; [1994] 2 WLR 500; [1994] QB 425; [1994] 2 All ER 606
Harrison v Surrey County Council and Others Times, 27 January 1994
27 Jan 1994
CA
Torts - Other
Local Authority knowing of earlier case was liable for child injuries by childminder.
Child Minding Regulations 1948 5 6
McLeod, Mealing (deceased) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; CA 3-Feb-1994 - Ind Summary, 21 February 1994; [1994] EWCA Civ 2; [1994] 4 All ER 553
Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc v Ural Caspian Oil Corp Ltd Independent, 10 March 1994
10 Mar 1994
CA
Torts - Other
An assignment which was made intending to defeat a third party's rights is not itself a cause of action.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Tynes v Barr (1994) 45 WIR 7; [1994] ICHRL 5
28 Mar 1994
Commonwealth, Damages, Constitutional, Torts - Other
(Supreme Court of the Bahamas) The plaintiff had been wrongfully arrested and humiliated publicly at an airport. He claimed exemplary damages. In assessing the exemplary damages in a court should take account of the injury the plaintiff has endured to his dignity and pride, mental suffering and loss of reputation: "Exemplary damages should be awarded in view of the arrogant, abusive and outrageous disregard shown by the police for the law, in particular, their delay in producing documents; the manner in which the defence was conducted; and the fact that liability was not conceded until the sixth and ninth days of the trial and even then with no appropriate apology being offered to the plaintiff. The police should be made aware of the need to observe the requirements as to when they may arrest and detain a person without a warrant and the way in which a person so detained must be humanely treated."
1 Citers
[ Worldlii ]
Mohammed Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Office and Another Independent, 05 July 1994; [1995] Imm AR 166
5 Jul 1994
CA
Kennedy LJ
Torts - Other
The revocation of a deportation order does not make a detention pending deportation retrospectively unlawful.
1 Citers
Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd Ind Summary, 08 August 1994; [1996] 2 All ER 573
15 Jul 1994
ChD
Jacob J
Contract, Torts - Other
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial contracts. An entire agreement clause limits the terms of the parties' agreement to their written agreement and prevents a representation from assuming contractual force, but that it does not, without more, preclude or exclude liability for misrepresentation. As to the clause under which a party acknowledged that he had not been induced to enter the subject agreement by any representation, save those specified in a schedule.
Discussing the clause at issue, Jacob J said: "The problem is its scope. The Act of 1967 calls for consideration of the term as such. And it refers to 'any liability' and 'any misrepresentation'. It does not call for consideration of the term so far as it applies to the misrepresentation in question or the kind of misrepresentation in question. The term is not severable: it is either reasonable as a whole or not. So one must consider its every potential effect. The clause does not seek to distinguish between fraudulent, negligent, or innocent misrepresentation. If it excludes liability for one kind of misrepresentation it does so for all. I cannot think it reasonable to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation . . It may well be, with a different clause, reasonable to exclude liability for innocent misrepresentation or even negligent misrepresentation. But since the width of this clause is too great I would have held it failed the requirement of reasonableness and was of no effect.
A possible route round this latter objection would be to construe the clause so that it did not apply to a fraudulent misrepresentation. This approach is artificial. It is unnecessary now that the 1977 Act exists to destroy unreasonable exclusion clauses. The construction involves creating an implied exception in the case of fraud. What about an implied exclusion of negligence? Or gross negligence? It is not for the law to fudge a way for an exclusion to be valid. If a party wants to exclude liability for certain sorts of misrepresentation, it must spell those out clearly".
Misrepresentation Act 1967
1 Citers
Unilever Plc v Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd; Chiron Corp etc v Organon; CA 24-Nov-1994 - Times, 28 November 1994; Independent, 24 November 1994; [1994] FSR 135
S v W [1994] EWCA Civ 35; [1995] 3 FCR 649; [1995] 1 FLR 862
28 Nov 1994
CA
Torts - Other, Limitation
Appeal against extension of time to bring allegations of sexual abuse from childhood.
[ Bailii ]
Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd; QBD 20-Dec-1994 - Independent, 20 December 1994
Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others Times, 28 December 1994
28 Dec 1994
Admn
Torts - Other, Police
An intention to injure is a necessary element of the tort of public misfeasance.
