Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

DH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority: CA 6 Jul 1988

The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the claim against the defendant police authority failed. On appeal it was conceded on behalf of … Continue reading DH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority: CA 6 Jul 1988

Pitchers v Surrey County Council: CA 2 Jan 1923

The claimant sought payment for damages to his property after imprisoned Canadian troops were released and came into the town causing damage. Held: Lord Sterndale said: ‘it is said that this camp under the circumstances ceased to be within the police district. The circumstances are that this camp was inhabited by soldiers who were under … Continue reading Pitchers v Surrey County Council: CA 2 Jan 1923

Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act. Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.Lush J said: ‘In this case the police authority failed to fix … Continue reading Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

Ford v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District: 1921

Bailhache J considered a claim under the 1886 Act: ‘There must be judgment for the plaintiff, and the question of the quantum of damages must be referred.’ Judges: Bailhache J Citations: [1921] 2 KB Statutes: Riot (Damages) Act 1886 Cited by: Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008 The authority insured … Continue reading Ford v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District: 1921

Bearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver: CA 1961

Sellers LJ said: ‘The second plaintiffs had paid some andpound;5,000 for that theft; and for their respective losses these plaintiffs sought to recover damages under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886’ The court considered that a liberal approach was appropriate for the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings. Judges: Sellers LJ, Devlin LJ Citations: [1961] … Continue reading Bearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver: CA 1961

The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others: SC 20 Apr 2016

The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and loss of rent, under section 2 of the 1886 Act, and if so on what basis. Held: MOPC’s … Continue reading The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others: SC 20 Apr 2016

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: CA 20 May 2014

The appellant had suffered damage in a riot, and, under the 1886 Act, the respondent was liable to pay compensation. Held: The MOPC was liable to pay compensation by way of indemnity. Analysis of section 2(1) suggested compensation for loss ‘sustained . . by such injury, stealing, or destruction’. This was loss that was caused … Continue reading Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others v Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: CA 20 May 2014

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Another v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: ComC 12 Sep 2013

In the lead case, Sony’s warehouse at Enfield had been severely damaged in what were said to be riots in August 2011. The court considered preliminary issues as to whether the events constituted a riot within the 1886 Act, and the extent of damages claimable under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether consequential losses … Continue reading Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Another v The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime: ComC 12 Sep 2013

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance companies and as to whether the compensation under the Acts counted as damages under the policies. The syndicate said … Continue reading Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable: CA 12 Feb 2009

The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory compensation and not in damages as covered by the insurance policy. Held: The insured’s … Continue reading Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable: CA 12 Feb 2009

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority: CA 23 Oct 2009

The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was not limited in the way suggested. Held: Though privately operated, … Continue reading Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority: CA 23 Oct 2009