There had been a riot by sailors in Liverpool. The cort was asked whether the victim of a riot could recover compensation not only for the damage to his house but for also the destruction of the furniture and household goods within his house. The hundred argued that the victim could not recover for the … Continue reading Ratcliffe v Eden et al: KBD 22 Nov 1776
A claim was made upon insurance after a riot. The court asked asked ‘Who is first liable?’ This was not an issue of chronology but of establishing where the primary responsibility lay to make good the loss. The Act laid the primary responsibility with the inhabitants of the hundred, and it did not matter that … Continue reading Mason v Sainsbury: 19 Apr 1782
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
Police Liabie for Damage to Furniture in Riot The owners of furniture destroyed by rioters who entered a house and damaged it recovered compensation, even though the 1714 Act did not expressly mention furniture. Lord Mansfield said: ‘To encourage people to resist persons thus riotously assembled, and to reward those, who, by doing their duty, … Continue reading Radcliffe v Eden: 1776
The owners of the Yarslwood Immigration centre sought damages under the 1886 Act after a riot at the centre caused substantial damage.
Held: The claim failed: ‘The fact that YWIL and GSL [the appellants] were acting as public authorities . .
References: (1782) 3 Dougl 61,  EngR 37, (1782) 3 Doug 61, (1782) 99 ER 538 Links: Commonlii Coram: Lord Mansfield CJ, Buller J A claim was made upon insurance after a riot. The court asked asked ‘Who is first liable?’ This was not an issue of chronology but of establishing where the primary responsibility … Continue reading Mason v Sainsbury; 19 Apr 1782
After the anti-Catholic ‘Gordon Riots’ in London in June 1780, which caused extensive damage and destruction of property, including Lord Mansfield’s house in Bloomsbury Square, damages were claied from the local hundred. The hundred argued that the 1714 Act was penal against both the trespasser and the hundred and ought to be interpreted narrowly. Held: … Continue reading Hyde v Cogan And Others: 22 Jun 1781
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
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