The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising from injuries which children had sustained in a derelict minefield.
 2 All ER 241,  AC 543
England and Wales
Appeal from – Adams v Naylor CA 1944
The court considered the practice of appointing a substitute defendant against whom damages could be awarded, ie to get around crown immunity. . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Followed – Royster v Cavey CA 1946
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured on her way to work. The Crown nominated the superintendent of a factory in which the plaintiff was injured as its occupier in order to allow the claim which would otherwise have failed for Crown . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Updated: 03 May 2021; Ref: scu.180524