Weld-Blundell -v- Stephens; HL 1920

References: [1920] AC 956
Coram: Lord Sumner
The plaintiff had been successfully sued for a libel contained in a document which he had supplied to his accountant.
Held: He could not recover the damages he had had to pay to the defamed party from his accountant, who had negligently left the document about so that it came to the former’s attention.
Lord Sumner said: ‘In general, even though A is in fault, he is not responsible for injury to C which B, a stranger to him, deliberately chooses to do. Though A may have given the occasion for B’s mischievous activity, B then becomes a new and independent cause.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Weld-Blundell -v- Stephens CA ([1919] 1 KB 520)
    The exception to the obligation not to disclose confidential information is limited to the proposed or contemplated commission of a crime or a civil wrong. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stansbie-v- Troman CA ([1948] 2 KB 48)
    A decorator working alone in a house went out to buy wallpaper and left the front door unlocked. He was held liable for the loss caused by a thief who entered while he was away. For the purpose of attributing liability to the thief (e.g. in a . .
  • Cited – Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd -v- National Rivers Authority HL (Gazette 26-Feb-98, Times 09-Feb-98, Gazette 25-Mar-98, House of Lords, Bailii, [1998] 2 WLR 350, [1998] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 AC 22, [1998] 1 All ER 481)
    A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
  • Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another -v- Apotex Inc and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 55, [2015] 1 AC 430, [2014] WLR(D) 452, [2014] BUS LR 1217, [2015] 1 AC 430, [2014] 3 WLR 1257, Bailii Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0158, SC, SC Summary, SC Video)
    The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22-Oct-15 Ref: 190105

Leave a Reply