Click the case name for better results:

Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited: QBD 30 Oct 2003

A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty. Held: ‘ . . . in building Little Heck Bridge on … Continue reading Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited: QBD 30 Oct 2003

Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust: CA 15 Jun 2000

The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant’s employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant’s very severe psychiatric disabilities was complex and that different elements of his mental troubles could be attributed to the two separate tortious incidents. … Continue reading Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust: CA 15 Jun 2000

Hurstwood Developments Ltd v Motor and General and Andersley and Coinsurance Services Limited and Another: CA 21 Nov 2001

Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 1785 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and others HL 25-Apr-2002 The claimants sought damages against the defendants for their late delivery of a building. The contractors sought to share the … Continue reading Hurstwood Developments Ltd v Motor and General and Andersley and Coinsurance Services Limited and Another: CA 21 Nov 2001

Friends’ Provident Life Office v Hillier, Parker May and Rowden: CA 1997

Friends Provident had participated in a development project on terms which required it to pay its share of the development costs as it proceeded. It employed Hillier Parker, a firm of surveyors, to check demands made from time to time for payment of its share of development costs. Friends Provident paid the developer its share … Continue reading Friends’ Provident Life Office v Hillier, Parker May and Rowden: CA 1997