Author: admin

Kondis v State Transport Authority: 16 Oct 1984

(High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to an employee and delegation to an independent contractor. As Mason J said: ‘On the hypothesis that the duty is personal or incapable of delegation, the employer is liable for its negligent performance, whether the performance be that of an employee or that of an independent contractor’ and as to the existence of a non-delegable duty: ‘when we look to the classes of case in which the existence of a non-delegable duty has been recognised, it appears that there is some element in the relationship between the parties that makes it appropriate to impose on the defendant a duty to ensure that reasonable care and skill is taken for the safety of the persons to whom the duty is owed . . The element in the relationship between the parties which generates a special responsibility or duty to see that care is taken may be found in one or more of several circumstances. The hospital undertakes the care, supervision and control of patients who are in special need of care. The school authority undertakes like special responsibilities in relation to the children whom it accepts into its care. If the invitor be subject to a special duty, it is because he assumes a particular responsibility in relation to the safety of his premises and the safety of his invitee by inviting him to enter them . . In these situations the special duty arises because the person on whom it is imposed has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another or is so placed in relation to that person or his property as to assume a particular responsibility for his or its safety, in circumstances where the person affected might reasonably expect that due care will be exercised.’
References: [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311
Links: Austlii
Judges: Mason J
Jurisdiction: Australia
This case cites:

  • Explained – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
    The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
  • Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
    The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
  • Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
    The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.378397

A v Ministry of Defence and another: QBD 16 Apr 2003

The claimant’s father a member of the armed forces had been posted to Germany, and his wife, A’s mother had gone with him. A had been born in Germany, but suffered injury at birth through the negligence of the doctor’s appointed by the defendant English hospital.
Held: Declarations that the defendant and the English hospitals with the duty of appointment of the German doctors were responsible were refused, and that action lay in Germany. The duty to make such an appointment was particular to the Armed Forces, but was limited to the exercise of due care in selection, and did not extend to a duty in respect of the treatment itself. The duty was not non-delegable.
References: Times 16-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003
Judges: Bell J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
    The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995 (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, , [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
  • Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942 ([1942] 2 KB 293)
    The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
  • Cited – Cassidy v Ministry of Health CA 1951 ([1951] 2 KB 343)
    The court considered the liability in negligence of the respondent for the negligence of doctors employed by it.
    Held: The Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service.
    Denning LJ . .
  • Cited – Green v Fibreglass Ltd 1958 ([1958] 2 QB 245)
    The law might impose a duty of care which was non-delegable. . .
  • Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954 ([1954] 2 QB 66, , [1954] 2 All ER 131, [1954] 2 WLR 915, [1954] EWCA Civ 7)
    The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
    Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
    The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.182364

Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis: 1949

When arranging with the plaintiff company to obtain a loan for the defendant V stipulated that he should be paid half the procuration fee which the defendant would be charged for the company’s services. The company knew that V was to receive from the defendant a share of the profits on the resale of property to be purchased with the money lent, and that he was acting as agent for the defendant, but they had no dishonest intention to cause him to persuade the defendant to accept and the rate of commission demanded or to urge the defendant to act disadvantageously to his own interest. Neither V nor the company informed the defendant of the payment to V.
Held: for the purposes of the civil law a bribe meant nothing more than the payment of a secret commission, and proof of a corrupt motive on the part of the payer was unnecessary; once it was established that one party to a contract that made a secret payment to the agent of the other party the law would presume that he had acted corruptly, that the agent had been influenced by the payment to the detriment of his principal, and that the principal had suffered damage at least to the amount of the bribe; in the present case the payment by the plaintiffs to V constituted a bribe and it’s amount was recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiffs as damages or money had and received.
The court discussed difficulties in defining what is a bribe, Slade J said: ‘Sometimes the words ‘secret commission’ are used, sometimes ‘surreptitious payment’, and sometimes ‘bribe’. For the purposes of the civil law a bribe means the payment of a secret commission, which only means (i) that the person making the payment makes it to the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; (ii) that he makes it to that person knowing that that person is acting as the agent of the other person with whom he is dealing; and (iii) that he fails to disclose to the other person with whom he is dealing that he has made that payment to the person whom he know to be the other person’s agent. Those three are the only elements necessary to constitute the payment of a secret commission or bribe for civil purposes.’ and ‘Yes, but earlier the learned judge has said that if a gift be made to a confidential agent with a view to inducing him, it is a bribe, and, therefore, in using the later language and referring to the bribes the learned judge is in effect saying: ‘I am using these later presumptions in cases where a bribe has been established and I have already defined a bribe as being only something which has been established as being paid with a certain motive.’ That, of course, would tear up the whole of the learned judge’s observation because he says lower down that the courts will not receive evidence as to what is the motive of the person making the payment. The motive will be conclusively inferred against him.’
References: [1949] 2 All ER 573, 93 Sol Jo 577
Judges: Slade J
This case cites:

  • Explained – Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff 1900 ([1900] 83 LT 41)
    Romer LJ said: ‘The courts of law in this country have always strongly condemned and, when they could, punished the bribing of agents, and have taken a strong view as to what constitutes a bribe. I believe the mercantile community as a whole . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) CA 1985 ([1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1985] 1 WLR 640)
    In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary.
    When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the . .
  • Cited – Tesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003 (, [2003] EWHC 823 (Ch), [2004] IRLR 618)
    A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.194862

Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another: CA 13 Nov 2009

The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, despite doubts about the adequate of the sample, and the pregnancy continued. The child was born with the disease. The court had found negligence and apportioned the damages.
Held: The court had fallen into error in not accepting the expert descriptions of normal good practice. The testing hospital was able to assume the adequacy of the sample unless informed of this by the testing agency. The hospital laboratory carried none of the liability.
Dyson LJ said that any departure from the general rule as to the liability of an employer for the acts of others had to be justified on policy grounds. If the position were to be otherwise, there was a danger that the general rule would become the exception rather than the rule, and that is not the law.
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sedley, Dyson, Smith LJJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – Kondis v State Transport Authority 16-Oct-1984 (, [1984] HCA 61, (1984) 154 CLR 672, (1984) 55 ALR 225, (1984) 58 ALJR 531, (1984) Aust Torts Reports 80-311)
    (High Court of Australia) Mason J discussed the concept of the personal duty which Lord Wright expounded in Wilson and said that it made it impossible to draw a convincing distinction between the delegation of performance of the employer’s duty to . .
  • Cited – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England HL 14-Jul-1988 (, [1988] UKHL 4, [1989] AC 177)
    The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
    Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the . .
  • Cited – Gold v Essex County Council CA 1942 ([1942] 2 KB 293)
    The hospital was held accountable for an injury caused by negligence of an employee radiographer. The main issue was whether the authority could be vicariously liable even for employees in cases where their employment called for the exercise of . .
  • Cited – Cassidy v Ministry of Health CA 1951 ([1951] 2 KB 343)
    The court considered the liability in negligence of the respondent for the negligence of doctors employed by it.
    Held: The Ministry was liable for the negligence of doctors who were employed by it on contracts of service.
    Denning LJ . .
  • Cited – A v Ministry of Defence; Re A (A Child) CA 7-May-2004 (Times 17-May-04, Gazette 03-Jun-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 641, [2005] QB 183)
    The wife of a British Army soldier serving in Germany delivered a premature baby, ‘A’, with a German obstetrician in a German hospital. A suffered brain damage in the birth as a result of the obstetrician’s negligence. The mother claimed against the . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995 (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, , [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
  • Cited – Priestley v Fowler 1837 (, [1837] EngR 202, (1837) 3 M and W 1, (1837) 150 ER 1030)
    Priestley was a butcher’s man who was injured when a van overloaded by fellow employees collapsed, injuring him. His lawsuit was founded on the principle of a master’s vicarious liability for his servant’s negligence. . .
  • Cited – Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid HL 1858 ((1858) 3 Macqu 265)
    A workman had been killed through the overturning of the miners’ cage, the engineman having failed to stop the ascending cage at the platform and having allowed it to be sent with great force up against the scaffolding. An allegation was made that . .
  • Cited – Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital 1989 ([1990] 2 Med LR 103, (1989) 17 NSWLR 553)
    (Court of Appeal of New South Wales) Samuels JA discussed the circumstances in which a non-delegable duty of care arises: ‘It arises from a relationship which combines the dependence of A upon the reasonable care, skill and judgment of B with the . .
  • Cited – Roe v Ministry of Health CA 1954 ([1954] 2 QB 66, , [1954] 2 All ER 131, [1954] 2 WLR 915, [1954] EWCA Civ 7)
    The plaintiff complained that he had developed a spastic paraplegia following a lumbar puncture.
    Held: An inference of negligence was rebutted. However the hospital authority was held to be vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the . .
  • Cited – Robertson v Nottingham Health Authority CA 1987 ([1987] 8 Med LR 1)
    Brooke LJ held that ‘the only rule that this court has to apply in the present case is that if a patient is injured by reason of a negligent breakdown in the systems for communicating material information to the clinicians responsible for her care, . .
  • Cited – Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority CA 1986 (, [1986] 3 All ER 801, [1987] 2 WLR 425)
    A prematurely-born baby was the subject of certain medical procedures, in the course of which a breach of duty occurred. to ensure that the correct amount was administered it was necessary to insert a catheter into an umbilical artery so that his . .
  • Cited – Joseph Smith (Pauper) v Charles Baker and Sons HL 21-Jul-1891 (, [1891] UKHL 2, [1891] AC 325)
    . .
  • Cited – Mitchil v Alestree 1726 (, [1726] EngR 590, (1726) 1 Vent 295, (1726) 86 ER 190 (B))
    In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011 (, [2011] EWHC 2631 (QB), [2012] PIQR P3, [2012] ELR 76)
    The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
  • Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012 (, [2012] EWCA Civ 239, [2013] 3 WLR 853, [2012] ELR 327, [2012] Med LR 419, [2012] PIQR P12, [2012] BLGR 879)
    The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.377910

Bartonshill Coal Co v Reid: HL 1858

A workman had been killed through the overturning of the miners’ cage, the engineman having failed to stop the ascending cage at the platform and having allowed it to be sent with great force up against the scaffolding. An allegation was made that there had been no safe system of working.
Held: After dealing with the maxim ‘respondeat superior’, Lord Cranworth said: ‘But do the same principles apply to the case of a workman injured by the want of care of a fellow-workman engaged together in the same work? I think not. When the workman contracts to do work of any particular sort, he knows, or ought to know, to what risks he is exposing himself; he knows, if such be the nature of the risk, that want of care on the part of a fellow-workman may be injurious or fatal to him, and that against such want of care his employer cannot by possibility protect him. If such want of care should occur, and evil is the result, he cannot say that he does not know whether the master or the servant was to blame. He knows that the blame was wholly that of the servant. He cannot say the master need not have engaged in the work at all, for he was party to its being undertaken.’ The law on this point should be the same in Scotland as in England.
References: (1858) 3 Macqu 265
Judges: Lord Cranworth
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 1203, (2010) 11 BMLR 131, [2010] PIQR P7, [2010] Med LR 1)
    The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.379553

Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc: HL 1 Jul 2004

The claimant was employed as a milk truck driver. He was issued with a pair of boots capped to protect his feet from impact. In a snowstorm, and against company advice, he sough to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite. He claimed for the injury, saying that under the regulations, since the boots were protective equipment, and as a result of a fault he was injured, the company was liable.
Held: The injury suffered was not of the kind from which the boots were designed to give protection. The regulations gave effect to the Directive which was intended to protect against perceived risks. By a majority the House held that any special duty to the claimant under the Regulations extended to the risks against which the protection was provided.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘The purpose of PPE is, therefore, as a last resort after collective protection or methods of work organisation, to avoid or limit risks’
References: [2004] UKHL 31, Times 02-Jul-2004, [2004] ICR 975, [2004] IRLR 817, [2004] 4 All ER 221
Links: Bailii, House of Lords
Judges: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Statutes: Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966) 7(1), Personal Protective Equipment Directive (89/656/EEC)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc CA 12-May-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582)
    A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
    Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of . .
  • Cited – Groves v Lord Wimborne CA 1898 ((1898) 79 LT 284, (1898) 67 LJQB 862, [1898] 2 QB 402)
    The court heard a case dealing with a claim for breach of a duty to fence dangerous machinery under the Act.
    Held: Legislation protecting safety in the workplace gives rise to an action by a person for whom the protection was intended for . .
  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – John Summers and Sons Ltd v Frost HL 1955 ([1955] AC 740, [1955] 1 All ER 870)
    The normal rule that penal statutes must be strictly construed has not been allowed to stand in the way of the protection given to the workman by the statutory language. The House considered the requirement under section 14(1) of the 1937 Act that . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appealed to – Fytche v Wincanton Logistics Plc CA 12-May-2003 (, [2003] EWCA Civ 874, [2003] ICR 1582)
    A milk lorry driver was issued with protective boots. Stuck in a snowstorm, he tried to dig himself out. The boots leaked and he suffered frostbite.
    Held: The compulsory element under the regulations is taken into account in the standard of . .
  • Cited – Hampshire Police v Taylor CA 9-May-2013 (, [2013] EWCA Civ 496, [2013] WLR(D) 171, [2013] PIQR P20, [2013] ICR 1150, )
    The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.198540

Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan: HL 10 Jul 1933

Lord Wright coined the term ‘statutory negligence’. He affirmed the need for ‘damage’ as an essential element of actionable negligence, saying: ‘In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach, and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing: on all this the liability depends.’
References: [1933] UKHL 4, 1934 SLT 114, [1934] AC 1, 1933 SC (HL) 64
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Wright
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Simon v Islington Borough Council CA 1943 ([1943] KB 188)
    A cyclist was killed because of the dangerous condition of an abandoned tramway. A rail and the adjoining stone setts were not level with each other. The London Passenger Transport Board had given the highway authority the notice required by statute . .
  • Cited – Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SCS 8-Jan-2010 (2010 GWD 7-118, 2010 SLT 179, , , [2010] ScotCS CSOH – 02, Times 19-Jan-10)
    The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise . .
  • Cited – Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English HL 19-Jul-1937 ([1938] AC 57, , [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628)
    The employer had entrusted the task of organising a safe system of work to an employee as a result of whose negligence another employee was injured. The employer could not have been held liable for its own negligence, since it had taken all . .
  • Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013 (, [2013] UKSC 66, , [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, , UKSC 2012/0093, , , [2014] 1 AC 537, [2014] ELR 67, [2014] 1 All ER 482)
    The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.190005

British Telecommunications Plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd: QBD 7 Jan 2010

The court considered the liability of the claimant for injury claims by former members of the Post Office at the date of the transfer.
Held: The obligations had been transferred: ‘section 10(2) of the Act, if read according to both its natural meaning and with a purposive approach, refers to all liabilities without limitation and does not exclude liabilities in respect of former employees of the Post Office whose employment had ceased prior to 30 September 1981.’
References: [2010] EWHC 8 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Edwards-Stuart J
Statutes: British Telecommunications Act 1981 10(2)
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.392552

In re Estate of Park (deceased), Park v Park: ChD 1953

The deceased had executed his will in which he was described as a widow, whereas in fact he had recently re-married. He was elderly and physically and mentally infirm. A relative alleged that the most recent marriage had been invalid for his lack of capacity.
Held: Pleadings in the ealier proceedings had not raised the issue of capacity, and the claimant was therefore now not estopped from asserting incapacity.
References: [1954] P 89, [1953] 2 All ER 408, [1953] 97 Sol Jo 491
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – In re Estate of Park (deceased), Park v Park CA 2-Jan-1953 ([1953] 2 All ER 1411, [1954] P 112, [1954] 97 Sol Jo 830)
    The deceased had remarried. His beneficiaries asserted that he had lacked capacity and that the marriage was ineffective.
    Held: The test of capacity to marry is whether he or she was capable of understanding the nature of the contract, was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.223062

Billingham v Customs and Excise: Excs 25 Mar 2004

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of seized excise goods and conditional restoration of motor vehicle – whether the goods were for personal or commercial use – commercial use but selling at above cost price to family and cost price to friends – Appellant knew what he was doing wrong – the non-restoration and conditional restoration proportionate to the Appellant’s contravention – yes – did the conditional restoration of the vehicle create exceptional hardship – no – was the decision not to restore the excise goods and offer conditional restoration of the vehicle reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed
References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00686
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.271732

HM Revenue and Customs v Executors of W M Atkinson (Decd): UTTC 31 Oct 2011

Inheritance Tax – Exempt transfers and relief – Agricultural property relief – Farm owned by deceased and let to family farming partnership – Deceased as partner lived in bungalow on the farm until ill-health required him to move to care home – Deceased made occasional visits to bungalow and his possessions remained in it until his death – Whether throughout the seven year period ending with his death the bungalow was occupied by the deceased or another for the purposes of agriculture – No – IHTA 1984 section 117(b). Appeal allowed.
References: [2011] UKUT 506 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.462888

Jason Pope (Deceased) v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Jun 2012

INCOME TAX – Interest – Life Insurance Policy – Extra payment – Presumed death of missing life assured – Insurer satisfied of death as at particular date – Extra payment in respect of period starting with that date until date of payment of sum assured – Whether extra payment interest – Yes — Whether next of kin ‘entitled’ to the income – No – Whether next of kin taxable under s.59(1) of ICTA 1988 – No .
References: [2012] UKUT 206 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.462885

HM Revenue and Customs v Photron Europe Ltd: UTTC 30 Jul 2012

CUSTOMS DUTIES – tariff classification under Combined Nomenclature – high speed camera – whether ‘digital camera’ under subheading 8525 80 30 or ‘video camera recorders – only able to record sound and images taken by the television camera’ under subheading 8525 80 91 – camera properly classified as ‘digital camera – appeal dismissed.
References: [2012] UKUT 275 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.466682

HM Revenue and Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club: UTTC 30 Jul 2012

Whether charges made by a non-profit-making golf club to persons who do not qualify as members are subject to Value Added Tax at the standard rate or exempt altogether. Interpretation of Articles 132 (1) (m), 133 (d) and 134 of the Principal VAT Directive. Appeal by HMRC against decision of First-tier Tribunal. Reference to the European Court of Justice.
References: [2012] UKUT 272 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.466679

Sri International v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 10 Jun 2011

VAT – 13th Directive – Refund of tax to non-EU claimant – Whether VAT would be input tax of claimant were it a taxable person in the UK – Whether evidence supports claim – Yes – Decision of First-tier Tribunal set aside – Decision reversed in favour of claimant; EC 13th Directive (86/560 EEC) and VAT Regs 1995 (SI 1995/2518) reg 186
References: [2011] UKUT 240 (TCC), [2011] STI 1944, [2011] BVC 1643, [2011] STC 1614
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.441767

Gordon v The Pensions Regulator: UTTC 1 Mar 2012

PENSIONS REGULATOR – Contribution notice – Authority of the Tribunal – Appropriate action – Reference by Scheme Trustees as party affected – Whether any determination to take regulatory action against individual shareholder in employer company – Whether Tribunal’s direction to Regulator to issue a contribution notice after expiration of six year limitation period is ‘appropriate action for the Regulator to take’ – Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 Articles 91(2)(d) and (e) and (3) and 97(4) PENSIONS REGULATOR – Applications to strike out – Allegations not made in determination of Panel – Allegations rejected by Panel – Allegations never put to Panel – Application to bar Regulator from relying on series of acts – Pensions (NI) Order 2005 Art 34 – Trib Procedure (UT) Rules 2008 Sch 3 p4′
References: [2012] UKUT B24 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.466668

Reid v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 27 Sep 2012

INCOME TAX – appeal against closure notices with amended self-assessment returns – whether amendments fair – whether appellant established from his evidence that assessments should be reduced or set aside – whether First-tier Tribunal erred in law by failing to take proper account in reaching its decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeal of evidence before it as to appellant’s allowable expenditure – First-tier Tribunal’s decision reasonable having regard to evidence – appeal dismissed.
References: [2012] UKUT 338 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.468855

West Bank Estates Ltd v Arthur: PC 1967

(From Federal Supreme Court of the West Indies) A claim was made for possessory title to a strip of land, based upon acts of cultivation, the cutting of timber, wood and grass, fishing and growing rice. The trial judge disallowed the claim to a possessory title. The Federal Supreme Court reversed him. They took the view that the respondents had made what was, for persons of their means and class, normal user of the land.
Held: The precise nature of the acts and rights required to amount to possession varies with the nature of the land and all the circumstances. Lord Wilberforce said: ‘The learned judge . . applied his mind correctly to the question whether the respondents had proved ‘sole and undisturbed possession user and enjoyment’ of the disputed strip. As the Federal Supreme Court itself stated, these words convey the same meaning as possession to the exclusion of the true owner. The learned judge gave recognition to the fact that what constitutes possession, adequate to establish a prescriptive claim, may depend upon the physical characteristics of the land. On the other hand, he was, in their Lordships’ view, correct in regarding such acts as cutting timber and grass from time to time as not sufficient to prove the sole possession which is required . . The respondents had, in [the view of the Federal Supreme Court], proved that they had made what was for persons of their means and class normal user of the land . . This does not appear to be a correct approach to the evidence. Admitting the utility of the respondents’ operations, and that they did what was normal for small peasant farmers, this still does not establish a sufficient degree of sole possession and user to satisfy the Ordinance, or carry the matter beyond a user which remains consistent with the possession of the true owner.’
References: [1967] AC 665
Judges: Lord Wilberforce
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cobham v Frett PC 18-Dec-2000 (Times 24-Jan-01, , , , [2000] UKPC 49, [2001] 1 WLR 1775)
    (British Virgin Islands) Two issues arose. First, what was the consequence of inordinate delay between a judge hearing a case and giving his decision, and secondly, how was the law of adverse possession to be applied in cases of interrupted or . .
  • Cited – Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of The Greater London Authority) CA 16-Jul-2010 (, [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2010] WLR (D) 195, , [2011] 1 WLR 504)
    The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
    Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.179830

Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright; Regina (Scott) v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court: Admn 4 Feb 2009

The court heard appeals from rulings under the 2004 Act.
Held: In section 1, the hunting of a wild mammal did not include the search for an animal with a view to flushing it from cover. As to the exemptions, the operation of the 1980 Act and 2004 Act together meant that the evidential burden of raising the possibility of an exemption applying lay with the defendant, but once that was discharged, the legal burden of disproving the exemption lay with the prosecution. Orders were made accordingly.
References: [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), Times 17-Feb-2009, (2009) 173 JP 169, [2010] 1 QB 224, [2009] 3 All ER 726, [2010] 2 WLR 497
Links: Bailii
Judges: Sir Anthony May, President and Mr Justice Maddison
Statutes: Hunting Act 2004, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 101
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Hunt (Richard) HL 1987 ([1987] 1 AC 352, (1986) 84 Cr App R 163, [1986] 3 WLR 1115, [1987] AC 352, [1987] 1 All ER 1)
    The court objected to the insistence on leaving the burden throughout a prosecution on the defendant on the ground that ‘the discharge of an evidential burden proves nothing – it merely raises an issue’. The House emphasised the special nature of . .
  • Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004 (, , [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, Times 14-Oct-04, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169)
    Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
    Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
  • Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001 (Times 06-Jul-01, , , Gazette 31-Aug-01, [2001] 3 WLR 206, [2001] UKHL 37, [2002] 2 AC 545, [2002] 1 All ER 2, [2001] HRLR 55, [2001] 2 Cr App R 28, [2001] UKHRR 1074, [2001] 3 All ER 577)
    The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.282623