Wright v The Jockey Club: QBD 15 May 1995

A jockey had been refused a jockey’s licence for medical reasons. He sought damages for his loss of earnings. The club applied to strike out the claim as showing no arguable cause of action.
Held: The duties of a body exercising a licensing function in connection with a member as implied by law were limited to acting fairly. There was no extra duty of care. The was no authority to say that a domestic tribunal of this nature owed any contractual duty of care to its members.

Sir Haydn Tudor Evans
Times 16-Jun-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan CA 4-Dec-1992
No Judicial Review of Decisions of Private Body
Despite the wide range of its powers, the disciplinary committee of the Jockey Club remains a domestic tribunal. Judicial review is not available to a member. Tne relationship is in contract between the club and its member. Sir Thomas Bingham MR: . .
CitedThe Moorcock CA 1889
Unless restricted by something else, an employer ought to find work to enable a workman to perform his part of the bargain, namely, to do his work. A term will be implied into a contract only to the extent required to give the contract efficacy: ‘if . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Negligence

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.90624

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English: HL 19 Jul 1937

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 reasonable care in entrusting the job to a competent employee, nor could it have been held liable vicariously since common employment would have been a defence.
Held: The desire to escape the consequences of the doctrine of common employment might justify the courts imposing a non-delegable duty of care. The employer was liable for breach of a personal duty to see that care was taken by the person whom it appointed to organise the system of work. The employer’s failure to provide a safe system of work was held to constitute a failure by it to discharge the personal non-delegable duty to provide a safe system. Fundamental obligations of a contract of employment, such as the duty to take reasonable care for the safety of an employee, constitute rights under a contract of employment and not merely rights in connection with it.
Lord Wright said that the obligation owed by an employer to his employee was not discharged by entrusting its fulfilment to employees, even though selected with due care and skill. The (non-delegable) obligation was threefold: ‘the provision of a competent staff of men, adequate material and a proper system and effective supervision’, and: ‘What the Court of Appeal have said amounts to reducing the three heads of duty to one only – that is, to engage competent employees of the higher grades and then everything else may be left to them. If that is done, the employers, it seems, will be free from further responsibility. Those whom they have engaged, if chosen with due care and skill, may appoint any other employee, may deal with the provision of paint and material, may determine the system of work. However negligently they may act and however dangerous the results of what they do may be to the workpeople, the employers on this view will be free from liability. The employee will have no remedy against the employer. His only remedy will be against his fellow-employee, which will be difficult to establish and in all probability worthless.’
The character of the duty was personal to the defendant and therefore non-delegable. Lord Macmillan said: ‘[The defendant] cannot divest himself of this duty, though he may – and, if it involves technical management and he is not himself technically qualified, must – perform it through the agency of an employee. It remains the owner’s obligation, and the agent whom the owner appoints to perform it performs it on the owner’s behalf. The owner remains vicariously responsible for the negligence of the person whom he has appointed to perform his obligation for him, and cannot escape liability by merely proving that he has appointed a competent agent. If the owner’s duty has not been performed, no matter how competent the agent selected by the owner to perform it for him, the owner is responsible.’

Lord Atkin, Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, and Lord Maugham
[1938] AC 57, [1937] UKHL 2, [1937] 3 All ER 628
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBartonshill 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 . .
CitedLochgelly 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedSutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
CitedA 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 . .
CitedFytche 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 . .
ExplainedKondis 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 . .
CitedFarraj 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, . .
CitedBritish 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 . .
CitedWoodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
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 . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
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. . .
CitedWoodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Negligence, Personal Injury, Vicarious Liability, Health and Safety

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.181796

Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd: QBD 17 Apr 2008

The claimant was injured in a hot air balloon. The defendant relied on the Rules in the Act to limit his liability to two years after the event.
Held: An internal flight in a hot air balloon was to be characterised as a journey by aircraft. The two year limitation period applied.

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 788 (QB), Times 23-Apr-2008, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1076, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 34, [2008] 4 All ER 494
Bailii
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order (SI 1967 No 480)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLaroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Transport

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.266967

Malik v Trump: QBD 28 Jul 2016

The claimant alleged negligence in the defendant US presidential candidate in that his election statements were said to have caused loss to the Muslim community in London. He now sought permission to serve out of the jurisdiction.

Master McLoud
[2016] EWHC 2011 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 9 14
England and Wales

Human Rights, Negligence

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570509

Rathband v Northumbria Constabulary: QBD 5 Feb 2016

The PRs of an officer who had been shot whilst on duty sued the Chief Constable alleging negligence after he later committed suicide.
Held: The action failed. The claimant, before his death, had over-estimated the time between the warning issued by the assailant and his own death.

Males J
[2016] EWHC 181 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCurtis (AKA Jason) Davis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 15-Jan-2016
The claimant sought damages after being shot by police officers. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Negligence

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.559557

Brown and Others v South West Lakes Trust and Others: CA 17 Jan 2022

This appeal raises issues about whether claims: (1) under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’) against occupiers of land adjoining a highway; and (2) against the relevant highway authority; arising from a tragic road traffic accident were reasonable causes of action or had a real prospect of success.

Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Dingemans
And
Lord Justice William Davis
[2022] EWCA Civ 18
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence, Land

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.671302

Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd: CA 1956

Where an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee’s actions, they are entitled to recover an indemnity from them, to cover such losses.
Held: An accident which occurred in the yard of a slaughterhouse did not arise out of use on the road. Romer LJ opined that to hold that the accident arose out of use on a road would be stretching the language of the section beyond permissible limits. He gave the following example to illustrate his understanding of the meaning of the statutory words: ‘An accident is caused by the use of a vehicle on a road if it runs over a pedestrian at a zebra crossing; an accident arises out of the use of a vehicle on a road if it skids off the road and injures a pedestrian who is walking on the pavement.’
Birkett LJ expressed a similar view in rejecting the idea that the accident arose out of the use of the lorry on the road because the lorry had to be driven on the road to get to the yard.
Denning LJ took a different view, holding that because the lorry was engaged in operations incidental or ancillary to a journey on the road, the accident arose out of the use of the vehicle on the road.

Lord Justice Birkett, Lord Justice Romer
[1956] 2 QB 180
Road Traffic Act 1930 36(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromLister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd HL 1957
An employer may be civilly responsible for his employee’s breach even though it constitutes a crime, and a skilled employee in general owed a contractual duty of reasonable care to his employer in the performance of his employment. In determining . .
ApproveeR and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.241433

Woods v Martins Bank Ltd: 1958

If a bank chooses to give advice to a customer, then the Bank’s obligation is to advise with ordinary skill and care. The liability is primarily on contract: ‘In my judgment, the limits of a banker’s business cannot be laid down as a matter of law. The nature of such a business must in each case be a matter of fact . .’ and ‘I find that it was and is within the scope of the Defendant Bank’s business to advise on all financial matters and that as they did advise him they owed a duty to the Plaintiff to advise him with reasonable care and skill.’
Salmon J discussed the duty of the lawyers for a party to make full disclosure: ‘It cannot be too clearly understood that solicitors owe a duty to the court, as officers of the court to make sure, as far as possible, that no relevant documents have been omitted from their client’s list’.
Salmon J discussed the duties of legal advisers: ‘it cannot be too clearly understood that solicitors owe a duty to the court, as officers of the court, to go through the documents disclosed by their client to make sure, as far as possible, that no relevant documents have been omitted from their client’s [list].’

Salmon J
[1958] 3 All ER 166, [1958] 1 WLR 1018, [1959] 1 QB 55
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedAl-Sweady and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Defence Admn 2-Oct-2009
The claimant’s son had died whilst in the custody of the British Armed Forces in Iraq. His uncle now claimed that his human rights had been infringed. The case ‘raised a fundamental issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the ECHR because if the . .
CitedEarles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.181791

Seddon v Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency: CA 28 Jan 2019

The court was asked whether the DVLA, in circumstances where it has doubts which it has decided to investigate about the age or identity of a registered ‘Historic Vehicle’ which it knows has been advertised for sale, owes a duty of care to prospective purchasers to inform the seller of its concerns.

[2019] EWCA Civ 14
Bailii
England and Wales

Administrative, Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.633092

Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd and Others: CA 31 Aug 2016

Appeal by the owners of a factory which suffered fire damage against a judgment dismissing their action. The owners claimed damages against the manufacturers of a device which, they said, should have prevented the fire from occurring. This takes us back to the basic principles of the law of tort and in particular to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, which is almost the first case that any law student studies.

Arden, Jackson LJJ, Sir Robert Akenhead
[2016] EWCA Civ 847
Bailii
Consumer Protection Act 1987, Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Contract

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568791

RXDX v Northampton Borough Council and Another: CA 9 Jun 2016

Thw Council sought leave to appeal against a finding that lifeguards at its pool had been negligent after the claimant, a child of 6 years old and unable to swim, had suffered serious injury at their swimming pool.
Held: It was arguable that the judge had set the standard of care too high as against the council. Leave to appeal granted.

[2016] EWCA Civ 672
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568621

Church v Dugdale and Adams Ltd: CA 1929

The court was asked whether an employer was responsible in law to a workman who having been injured so as to leave the employer liable under the Workers’ Compensation Acts, later committed suicide.
Held: Lord Hamworth MR said: ‘It is necessary to find not merely that there has been suicide, not merely at the time of the suicide that there was some depression and some delusions, but you must find that the condition of the man was such that the accident disabled him from exercising a judgment, and in that sense caused the accident. If you find merely that in consequence of the accident he is brooding in fear of poverty, or in distress, or in a mental condition which is consistent with the condition of a person not suffering from the accident, there you do not find and are not entitled to draw the inference that his mind has become so unhinged as to dethrone his power of volition and in that sense there is no proof and no necessary connection between the accident and the suicide.’

Lord Hamworth MR
(1929) 22 BWCC 444
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCorr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.240042

Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd: QBD 5 Oct 2020

Martin Spencer J
[2020] EWHC 2613 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromChell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd CA 12-Jan-2022
Explosive Pellet Use Not Within Employee’s Role.
The claimant worked on a site operated by the respondent. One of the respondent’s employees exploded two pellet targets injuring the claimant’s hearing. He asserted vicarious liability in the respondent. There had been tensions between the claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.655140

Watson v Gray and Another: QBD 26 Nov 1998

A professional footballer is at risk of being proved negligent, if he is shown to caused injury with an act which a reasonable professional player would know to carry a significant risk of causing serious injury. A late, forceful and high challenge was such.

Hooper J
Times 26-Nov-1998
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCollett v Smith and Another QBD 11-Aug-2008
The claimant had been an eighteen year old playing football for Manchester United reserves when he was injured by a foul tackle which ended his football career. The defendant admitted liability, but denied that he would have gone on to be a premier . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.90325

Re Charnley Davies Ltd (No 2): ChD 1990

An administrator owed a duty to the company over which he was appointed to take reasonable care to obtain the best price that the circumstances, as he reasonably perceived them to be, permitted, including a duty to take reasonable care in choosing the time at which to sell the property. A mortgagee is bound to have regard to the interests of the mortgagor, but he is entitled to give priority to his own interests, and may insist on an immediate sale whether or not that is calculated to realise the best price. An administrator, by contrast, like a liquidator, has no interest of his own to which he may give priority, and must take reasonable care in choosing the time at which to sell the property.
Millett J said: ‘An allegation that the acts complained of are unlawful or infringe the petitioner’s legal rights is not a necessary averment in a s.27 petition. In my judgment it is not a sufficient averment either. The petitioner must allege and prove that they are evidence or instances of the management of the company’s affairs by the administrator in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner’s interests. Unlawful conduct may be relied on for this purpose, and its unlawfulness may have a significant probative value, but it is not the essential factor on which the petitioner’s cause of action depends.
Counsel for the petitioners asked: ‘If misconduct in the management of the company’s affairs does not without more constitute unfairly prejudicial management, what extra ingredient is required?’ In my judgment the distinction between misconduct and unfairly prejudicial management does not lie in the particular acts or omissions of which complaint is made, but in the nature of the complaint and the remedy necessary to meet it. It is a matter of perspective. The metaphor is not a supermarket trolley but a hologram. If the whole gist of the complaint lies in the unlawfulness of the acts or omissions complained of, so that it may be adequately redressed by the remedy provided by law for the wrong, the complaint is one of misconduct simpliciter. There is no need to assume the burden of alleging and proving that the acts or omissions complained of evidence or constitute unfairly prejudicial management of the company’s affairs. It is otherwise if the unlawfulness of the acts or omissions complained of is not the whole gist of the complaint, so that it would not be adequately redressed by the remedy provided by law for the wrong. In such a case it is necessary to assume that burden, but it is no longer necessary to establish that the acts or omissions in question were unlawful, and a much wider remedy may be sought.
A good illustration of the distinction is provided by Re a company (No 005287 of 1985) [1986] BCLC 68. In that case the petitioners, who were minority shareholders, alleged that the respondent, who was the majority shareholder, had disposed of the company’s assets in breach of his fiduciary duty to the company and in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. Hoffmann J refused to strike out the petition, holding that the fact that the petitioners could have brought a derivative action did not prevent them seeking relief under s 459.
Again, I respectfully agree. The very same facts may well found either a derivative action or a s 459 petition. But that should not disguise the fact that the nature of the complaint and the appropriate relief is different in the two cases. Had the petitioners’ true complaint been of the unlawfulness of the respondent’s conduct, so that it would be met by an order for restitution, then a derivative action would have been appropriate and a s 459 petition would not. But that was not the true nature of the petitioners’ complaint. They did not rely on the unlawfulness of the respondent’s conduct to found their cause of action; and they would not have been content with an order that the respondent make restitution to the company. They relied on the respondent’s unlawful conduct as evidence of the manner in which he had conducted the company’s affairs for his own benefit and in disregard of their interests as minority shareholders; and they wanted to be bought out. They wanted relief from mismanagement, not a remedy for misconduct.
When the petitioners launched the present proceedings, they wrongly believed that Mr Richmond was managing the affairs of the company in a manner which disregarded their interests and those of the creditors generally. That was a perfectly proper complaint to bring under s 27. Long before the case came to trial, however, it had become a simple action for professional negligence and nothing more. That, if established, would amount to misconduct; but it would neither constitute nor evidence unfairly prejudicial management. In my judgment it would be a misuse of language to describe an administrator who has managed the company’s affairs fairly and impartially and with a proper regard for the interests of all the creditors (and members where necessary), conscientiously endeavouring to do his best for them, but who has through oversight or inadvertence fallen below the standards of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner in the carrying out of some particular transaction, as having managed the affairs of the company in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to the creditors.’

Millett J
[1990] BCLC 760
Companies Act 1985 459
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStandard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker CA 1982
The mortgagee having obtained insufficient on the sale at auction of the property charged to recover the sum secured, applied for summary judgment against the mortgagor for that sum. The mortgagor resisted the application alleging that the mortgagee . .
CitedCuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd CA 1971
A mortgagee selling as mortagee in possession must ‘take reasonable care to obtain the true value of the property at the moment he chooses to sell it’ and obtain the best price for the property reasonably obtainable on the open market. However, . .

Cited by:
CitedSilven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
CitedSilven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Company, Insolvency

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.187031

Vibert v Zenith Insurance and Another: SCS 7 Jul 2016

The pursuer had suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by her partner, who died in the accident. It was said that they had been undertaken by another car. The insurers said that the twocars had been racing each other.

Lord Turnbull
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 96
Bailii

Scotland, Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.567045

Da Costa and Another v Sargaco and Another: CA 14 Jul 2016

A motorcycle was parked up, but was said to have been hit by a car driven negligently. The car’s insurers said that the claim was fraudulent. The judge found the accounts of the claimants ‘so inconsistent as to be implausible’ and found that they had not proved their cases. She also found their claims to be ‘manufactured or fraudulent’. She therefore dismissed them and ordered the claimants to pay the insurance company’s costs on an indemnity basis. They now complained that the judge’s decision to exclude each from the court while hearing the evidence of the other.
Held: The appeal against the finding of fraud, and the associated indemnity costs succeeded. However, the claimants had indeed failed to prove their case, and the judgment as a whol, with costs on a standard basis stood.

Black, Floyd LJJm Moylan J
[2016] EWCA Civ 764
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566891

Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company: 20 Nov 1858

A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was set alight and burned by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done everything that was practicable to the locomotives to make them safe, but it was admitted that even with these precautions the locomotives had been the means of occasionally setting fire to the wood. The banks of the railway were covered with inflammable grass. The jury found the Company guilty of negligence.
Held: First, that, assuming the fire to have been caused by lighted coals from the locomotives falling in the plaintiff’s wood, the defendants were liable. – Secondly, that they were not excused by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 and 9 Vict c. 20, s. 86 – Thirdly, that if the fire broke out on the defendants’ land and was communicated to the wood from the banks of the railway, there was evidence to justify the verdict, and that the defendants were not protected by the 14 Geo 3, c 78, s. 84 – Fourthly, that it was no defence that the plaintiff had allowed his wood to become peculiarly liable to take fire by neglecting to clear away the dry grass and dead sticks.

[1858] EngR 1160, (1858) 3 H and N 743, (1858) 157 ER 667
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromVaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 12-May-1860
A railway Company, authorized by the legislature to use locomotive engines, is not responsible for damage from fire occasioned by sparks emitted from an engine travelling on their railway, provided they have taken every precaution in their power and . .
CitedSmith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1869
Negligence requires duty to injured
Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of . .
CitedSmith v The London and South Western Railway Company 1870
Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.289631

Nestle v National Westminster Bank: CA 6 May 1992

The claimant said that the defendant bank as trustee of her late father’s estate had been negligent in its investment of trust assets.
Held: The claimant had failed to establish either a breach of trust or any loss flowing from it, though there was not much for the bank to be proud of in its administration of the trusts.

Dillon, Staughton, Leggatt LJJ
[1992] EWCA Civ 12, [1993] 1 WLR 1260, [1994] 1 All ER 118
Bailii
Aministration of Justice Act 1985 50
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedIn re Sharp 1845
(Year?) Cotton LJ discussed a power to invest ‘upon the debentures or securities of any railway or other public company’ and said:- ‘It is true that he refers to railway companies, but he also adds, ‘or any other public company’; and I think it . .
CitedRobinson v Robinson CA 1851
The trustee defendants had been directed by their testator to realise his investments and invest the proceeds in one or other of two forms of investment; but the trustees had delayed the realisation of the testator’s investments. When they actually . .
CitedSpeight v Gaunt HL 26-Nov-1883
A trustee is required to use the same degree of prudence and diligence as a person of ordinary prudence would have done if he had been conducting his own affairs. . .
CitedHotson v East Berkshire Health Authority HL 2-Jul-1988
The claimant (then 13) fell twelve feet in climbing a tree and sustained an acute traumatic fracture of the left femoral epiphysis. At hospital, his injury was not correctly diagnosed or treated for five days, and he went on to suffer a vascular . .
CitedIn re Whiteley 1886
Lindley LJ considered the duties of a trustee in exercising his powers of investment and said: ‘The principle applicable to cases of this description was stated . . to be that a trustee ought to conduct the business of the trust in the same manner . .
CitedLavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd CA 1967
Damages for wrongful dismissal could not confer on an employee extra benefits that the contract did not oblige the employer to confer. There is a clear distinction between expectations, however reasonable, and contractual obligations.
Diplock . .
CitedOtter v Church Adams Tatham and Co ChD 1953
The plaintiff was sole administratix of her son’s estate. He had died on active service intestate. She claimd negligence on the part of the solicitors, saying they were in breach of their duty to exercise care and skill as solicitors, having failed . .
CitedChaplin v Hicks CA 1911
A woman who was wrongly deprived of the chance of being one of the winners in a beauty competition was awarded damages for loss of a chance. The court did not attempt to decide on balance of probability the hypothetical past event of what would have . .
CitedWilsher v Essex Area Health Authority HL 24-Jul-1986
A premature baby suffered injury after mistaken treatment by a hospital doctor. He had inserted a monitor into the umbilical vein. The claimant suggested the treatment should have been by a more senior doctor. The hospital appealed a finding that it . .
CitedCowan v Scargill and Others ChD 13-Apr-1984
Trustee’s duties in relation to investments
Within the National Coal Board Pension scheme, the trustees appointed by the NCB were concerned at the activities of the trustees of the miners, and sought directions from the court. The defendants refused to allow any funds to be invested abroad. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Financial Services, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.262624

Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company: 12 May 1860

A railway Company, authorized by the legislature to use locomotive engines, is not responsible for damage from fire occasioned by sparks emitted from an engine travelling on their railway, provided they have taken every precaution in their power and adopted every means which science can suggest to prevent injury from fire, and are not guilty of negligence in the management of the engine So held in the Exchequer Chamber (reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer).

[1860] EngR 749, (1860) 5 H and N 679, (1860) 157 ER 1351
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromVaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company 20-Nov-1858
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was set alight and burned by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.285588

Philips v Whitely (William) Ltd: 1938

The plaintiff asked the defendants to arrange for ears to be pierced. The defendant referred her to a third party jeweller. The jeweller appeared to take proper steps to keep the wounds disinfected, but an abcess developed.
Held: A jeweller could not be expected to take the same steps as would be taken by a surgeon, and in this case had taken all reasonable steps to avoid infection: ‘I do not think that a jeweller holds himself out as a surgeon … If a person wants to ensure that the operation of piercing her ears is going to be carried out with that proportion of skill … that a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons would use, she must go to a surgeon. If she goes to a jeweller she must expect that he will carry it out in the way one would expect a jeweller to carry it out’.
It had not been shown that the infection entered the ear at the time when it was pierced.
Otherwise: Philips v William Whiteley Ltd; Philips v Wm Whiteley Ltd

Goddard J
[1938] 1 All ER 566, [1938] 54 TLR 379, [1938] 82 Sol Jo 196
England and Wales

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.190058

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Terrapin Construction Limited: CA 31 Jul 2000

Claim for damages for breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and negligence for alleged defects in the new build and refurbishment work at the Sidney Russell Comprehensive School in Dagenham,

Lord Justice Otton
Lord Justice Buxton
And
Mr Justice Hooper
[2000] EWCA Civ 247
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.147280

London Graving Dock Co Ltd v Horton: HL 1951

An experienced welder had for a month been carrying out work on a ship as an employee of sub-contractors engaged by ship-repairers in occupation of the ship. He was injured, without negligence on his part, owing to the inadequacy of certain staging, constituting an unusual danger, of which he had full knowledge and which, despite complaints, the ship-repairers had not remedied.
Held: (Majority) The welder being an invitee, his knowledge of the unusual risk exonerated the ship-repairers from liability for the damage sustained by him and that it was not essential to their defence to establish that he was volens in that he was not under any feeling of constraint in accepting the risk. Lord Porter summarised the facts in Donoghue v Stevenson, and said: ‘Your Lordships’ House held that, assuming the facts alleged to be true, the manufacturer would have escaped if it was natural to expect that the intermediate vendor would take care to see that the contents were in order. The pursuer, however, could recover from the manufacturer because such an examination was not to be expected. The law required the latter to be careful not to run the risk of injuring a person whom he contemplates or ought to contemplate as likely to be injured by his negligence, but an examination by the retail vendor, if rightly expected, could be relied upon by the manufacturer and would have been a complete answer to the claim. Still more so would knowledge by the purchaser of the true position, whether such knowledge was actual or such as the circumstances would warrant the manufacturer to assume. The defence did not have to show that the pursuer drank the contents with a full knowledge of the risk: it would have been enough if examination and consequent knowledge was to be expected. To that extent an argument based on Donoghue v Stevenson seems less forcible than the more obvious contention founded upon the relationship of invitor and invitee. Neither ground, in my opinion, supports the conclusion that the appellants were in breach of their duty of care.’

Lord Porter
[1951] AC 737
England and Wales
Citing:
SummarisedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Cited by:
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
CitedRoles v Nathan CA 15-May-1963
Two chimney sweeps were overcome by fumes, and died in the basement of the Manchester Assembly Rooms. Whilst occupied working in flues (against advice), a boiler had been lit.
Held: (Majority – Pearson LJ dissenting) The land-owner’s appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.226706

Cockbill v Riley: QBD 22 Mar 2013

The claimant sufferd catastrophic injury diving into a paddling pool at a party held by the defendant for his daughter to celebrate completing her GCSEs.
Held: The claim failed. ‘It was reasonably foreseeable that someone would lose his footing and suffer minor injury. Even after a number of boys had jumped into the pool feet first, it was not reasonably foreseeable that someone would attempt to carry out a dive or a belly-flop (which can very easily turn into a dive) and thus suffer grave injury. ‘

Bean J
[2013] EWHC 656 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
CitedPerry and Another v Harris (A Minor) CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendant had organised a children’s party. The claimant (11) was injured when a bigger boy was allowed to use the bouncy castle at the same time. The defendants appealed the award of damages.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant . .
CitedPortsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A Charity) v Poppleton CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant was injured climbing without ropes (‘bouldering’) at defendant’s activity centre. The defendant appealed against a finding of 25% responsibility in having failed to warn climbers that the existence of thick foam would not remove all . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v Radclyffe CA 30-Jun-2009
The court held the appellant Ministry liable for a soldier’s injuries incurred when jumping from a high bridge. A senior officer had earlier ‘assumed responsibility to prevent the junior soldiers from taking undue risks of which he was or ought to . .
CitedUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 26-Feb-2013
The claimant was seriously injured on a ‘Hello and Fun’ day. He and several others had taken part in a competitive game in the course of which they were allowed to enter a small pool with a one-metre drop into a depth of water of only 18 inches head . .

Cited by:
CitedChell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Ltd CA 12-Jan-2022
Explosive pellet not part of employee’s role.
The claimant worked on a site operated by the respondent. One of the respondent’s employees exploded two pellet targets injuring the claimant’s hearing. He asserted vicarious liability in the respondent. There had been tensions between the claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.471969

Rowe v Kingston-Upon-Hull City Council and Another: CA 24 Jul 2003

The claimant sought damages for a breach of duty by his teachers which had happened before 1991. He argued that 3(1) of the HRA should affect the construction of section 14(1) of the 1980 Act.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1281, [2003] ELR 771
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 14 33, Human Rights Act 1980 14(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.186542

Cockburn v Edwards: CA 2 Aug 1881

A solicitor advanced money to his client on a second mortgage, in which was inserted a power of sale exerciseable at any time without the usual proviso requiring that notice should be given, or some interest should be three months in arrear; and it was not shewn that he explained to the client that the power was not in the usual form. The solicitor afterwards took possession, and for several years received the rents, which, together with some payments made by the mortgagor, exceeded the interest on both mortgages. He then sold the property without notice. Held (affirming the decision of Fry, J), in an action by the mortgagor against the solicitor, that the omission from the power of sale of the usual qualifying clause was a breach of duty, and that the mortgagee was liable in damages as for an improper sale, unless it could be shewn that some interest was three months in arrear ; and whether the absence of explanation did not make it improper even if there was interest in arrear, quaere.
Held, that the fact that the mortgagee had received rents to an amount more than sufficient to pay the interest would not by itself prove that there was no interest in arrear if no appropriation was shewn to have been made.
The dictum in Brocklehurst v. Jessop overruled.
But held, that, as in an account sent by the mortgagee to the mortgagor the interest was treated as satisfied up to a certain day out of the rents, there was evidence of an arrangement that the rents should be applied in discharge of interest, and that, as the final account shewed that if the rents were thus appropriated there would be no interest in arrear at the time of sale, the sale was improper.
Whether a mortgagee in possession having a balance of rents in hand more than sufficient for payment of the interest and all expenses he has incurred can be heard to say that interest is in arrear so as to justify a sale
because no account has been rendered and no appropriation made, qnaere.
Held (reversing the decision of Fry, J), that the difference between party
and party costs and solicitor and client costs of the present action could not
be given to the Plaintiff by way of damages.

Jessel MR
[1881] UKLawRpCh 203, (1881) 18 Ch D 449, 50 LJCh 181
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRoss v Caunters (a firm) ChD 1979
The court upheld a finding of negligence against a firm of solicitors for failing to ensure the correct attestation of a will, and also the award of damages in favour of a disappointed beneficiary.
A solicitor owes a duty of care to the party . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Legal Professions, Damages

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654667

Midland Bank Plc v Cameron, Thom, Peterkin and Duncans: SCS 1988

(Outer House) The pursuer had made a loan to X in assumed reliance on a statement by the defenders, who were X’s solicitors, about the extent of his assets. The statement was materially inaccurate. But the pursuer’s claim against the defenders failed. Having referred to the Hedley Byrne case as the proper starting point and to the Allied Finance case, the Lord Ordinary observed: ‘In my opinion four factors are relevant to a determination of the question whether in a particular case a solicitor, while acting for a client, also owes a duty of care to a third party: (1) the solicitor must assume responsibility for the advice or information furnished to the third party; (2) the solicitor must let it be known to the third party expressly or impliedly that he claims, by reason of his calling, to have the requisite skill or knowledge to give the advice or furnish the information; (3) the third party must have relied upon that advice or information as matter for which the solicitor has assumed personal responsibility; and (4) the solicitor must have been aware that the third party was likely so to rely.’
The Lord Ordinary concluded that the pursuer was able to establish none of the first three of the four factors.

Lord Ordinary, Lord Jauncey
1988 SLT 611
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedSteel and Another v NRAM Ltd (Formerly NRAM Plc) SC 28-Feb-2018
The appellant solicitor acted in a land transaction. The land was mortgaged to the respondent bank. She wrote to the bank stating her client’s intention to repay the whole loan. The letter was negligently mistaken and the bankers allowed the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654668

CN and Another v Poole Borough Council: QBD 16 Mar 2016

Appeal against striking out of claim for damages in negligence

Slade DBE J
[2016] EWHC 569 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromCN and Another v Poole Borough Council CA 21-Dec-2017
The court considered the existence of a tortious duty of care to children, on the part of a local authority, to protect them from harassment and abuse by third parties. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561111

Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority: QBD 4 Dec 2006

Sir Douglas Brown
[2006] EWHC 3019 (QB)
Bailii
Registered Homes Act 1974 30
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromJain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority CA 22-Nov-2007
The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The . .
See AlsoTrent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
See AlsoJain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Sep-2009
. .
See AlsoJain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicants ran a Registered Nursing Home. The health authority, having concerns about its elderly residents, brought an ex parte application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for an order cancelling the Certificate of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.347109

Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council: CA 25 May 1990

The club had enjoyed a concession from the council to operate pleasure flights from the airport operated by the council. They were invited to bid for a new concession subject to strict tender rules. They submitted the highest bid on time, but the council staff did not open the bid until after the time, and wrongly marked it ‘late’. It was not considered, and the contract was awarded elsewhere. On learning of the mistake, the council sought to renew the bidding process, but the company awarded the contract claimed it had a binding contract.
Held: ‘where, as here, tenders are solicited from selected parties all of them known to the invitor, and where a local authority’s invitation prescribes a clear, orderly and familiar procedure (draft contract conditions available for inspection and plainly not open to negotiation, a prescribed common form of tender, the supply of envelopes designed to preserve the absolute anonymity of tenderers and clearly to identify the tender in question, and an absolute deadline) the invitee is in my judgment protected at least to this extent: if he submits a conforming tender before the deadline he is entitled, not as a matter of mere expectation but of contractual right, to be sure that his tender will after the deadline be opened and considered in conjunction with all other conforming tenders or at least that his tender will be considered if others are.’

Stocker, Bingham, Farquharson LJJ
[1990] 3 All ER 25, [1990] 1 WLR 1195, [1990] EWCA Civ 13
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSpencer v Harding 1870
Willes J considered what promise had been made where parties had bid in response to an advertisement, and the bidder sought to enforce the contract: ‘In the advertisement cases, there never was any doubt that the advertisement amounted to a promise . .
CitedCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co CA 7-Dec-1892
Unilateral Contract Liability
The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘pounds 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by . .
CitedHarris v Nickerson QBD 25-Apr-1873
The defendant auctioneer advertised in the London papers that certain brewing materials, plant, and office furniture would be sold by him at Bury St Edmunds on a certain day and two following days. The plaintiff, a commission broker in London, . .
CitedHeilbut Symons and Co v Buckleton HL 11-Nov-1912
In an action of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, the plaintiff founded on a conversation between himself and the defendants’ representative. In this conversation the plaintiff said-‘I understand that you are bringing . .
CitedCBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
CitedLiverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
CitedLavarack v Woods of Colchester Ltd CA 1967
Damages for wrongful dismissal could not confer on an employee extra benefits that the contract did not oblige the employer to confer. There is a clear distinction between expectations, however reasonable, and contractual obligations.
Diplock . .
CitedWhite and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor HL 6-Dec-1961
Contractor not bound to accept Renunciation
Mr McGregor contracted with the appellants for them to display advertisements for three years on litter bins. The contract was made on his behalf by an employee, without specific authority. On the day it was made, he sought to cancel the contract. . .
CitedThe Kapetan Markos N.L. (No 2) CA 1987
A party seeking to establish the existence of a contract must at least able to answer the question ‘What was the mechanism for offer and acceptance?’ . .
CitedTai Hing Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank PC 1985
(Hong Kong) The relationship between banker and customer is principally a contractual one between debtor and creditor. As between the banker and his customer, the risk of loss through forgery of the customer’s signature falls on the banker unless . .
CitedRoss v Caunters (a firm) ChD 1979
The court upheld a finding of negligence against a firm of solicitors for failing to ensure the correct attestation of a will, and also the award of damages in favour of a disappointed beneficiary.
A solicitor owes a duty of care to the party . .
CitedAmerican Express International Banking Corporation v Hurley ChD 1985
The property mortgaged was specialised sound and lighting equipment used at pop concerts. The mortgagee’s guarantor was dissatisfied with the way in which the receiver sold the equipment.
Held: Where a company receiver was appointed under a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.248030

Jain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority: CA 22 Nov 2007

The claimant argued that the defendant owed him a duty of care as proprietor of a registered nursing home in cancelling the registration of the home under the 1984 Act. The authority appealed a finding that it owed such a duty.
Held: The magistrate had made his decision on the inaccurate material placed before him. The authority was responsible in law for that inaccuracy.

Arden LJ, Jacob LJ, Wilson LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1186, Times , [2008] LS Law Medical 139, [2008] QB 246, [2008] 2 WLR 456, (2008) 11 CCL Rep 79
Bailii
Registered Homes Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMartine v South East Kent Health Authority CA 22-Mar-1993
The authority applied ex parte under the 1984 to the magistrate for the revocation of the plaitiff’s nursing home licence. It was supported by a written statement of the reasons for making the order made by the health authority’s chief nursing . .
CitedCarty v London Borough of Croydon CA 27-Jan-2005
The claimant sought damages in negligence from education officers employed by the respondent. He appealed refusal of his claim. A statement of special education needs had been made which he said did not address his learning difficulties. The . .
CitedA and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
CitedBowden and Another v Lancashire County Council CA 16-Apr-2002
The claimant had succeeded in her appeal against the cancellation of her registration as a child minder, and now sought damages for negligence in using unnecessarily the emergency procedure leading to damage to the claimant’s reputation and . .
CitedPhelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
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 . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Appeal fromJain and Another v Trent Strategic Health Authority QBD 4-Dec-2006
. .

Cited by:
CitedPierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Appeal FromTrent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
CitedHome Office v Mohammed and Others CA 29-Mar-2011
The claimants sought damages saying that after a decision had been made that they should receive indefinite leave to remain in 2001 (latest), the leave was not issued until 2007 (earliest) thus causing them severe losses. The defendant now appealed . .
See AlsoJain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Sep-2009
. .
At CAJain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Sep-2009
. .
At CAJain and another v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Mar-2010
The applicants ran a Registered Nursing Home. The health authority, having concerns about its elderly residents, brought an ex parte application under section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 for an order cancelling the Certificate of . .
CitedSingh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Health Professions

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.261454

James McNaughton Paper Group Ltd v Hicks Anderson and Co: CA 31 Jul 1990

When considering the liability of an auditor in negligence, the fact and nature of any communications direct between the auditor and the potential investor must be allowed for. The court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account in determining whether the threefold test and the assumption of responsibility test for negligence are met.
Neill LJ said: ‘In some cases the statement will have been prepared or made by the ‘adviser’ for the express purpose of being communicated to the ‘advisee’, to adopt the labels used by Lord Oliver. In such a case it may often be right to conclude that the advisee was within the scope of the duty of care. In many cases, however, the statement will have been prepared or made, or primarily prepared or made, for a different purpose and for the benefit of someone other than the advisee. In such cases it will be necessary to look carefully at the precise purpose for which the statement was communicated to the advisee.’
Lord Neill set out six headings to establish liability: ‘(1) the purpose for which the statement was made. (2) the purpose for which the statement was communicated . (3) the relationship between the advisor, the advisee and any relevant third party. (4) the size of any class to which the advisee belongs. (5) the state of knowledge of the advisor. (6) reliance by the advisee.’
‘from this scrutiny it seems to me to be clear (a) that in contrast to developments in the law in New Zealand, of which the decision in Scott Group Ltd -v- McFarlane [1978] 1 NZLR 553 provides an important illustration, in England a restrictive approach is now adopted to any extension of the scope of the duty of care beyond the person directly intended by the maker of the statement to act upon it; and (b) that in deciding whether a duty of care exists in any particular case it is necessary to take all the circumstances into account; but (c) that, notwithstanding (b), it is possible to identify certain matters which are likely to be of importance in most cases in reaching a decision as to whether or not a duty exists. I propose to examine these matters under a series of headings, though the headings involve a substantial measure of overlap. (1) The purpose for which the statement was made. In some cases the statement will have been prepared or made by the ‘adviser’ for the express purpose of being communicated to the ‘advisee’, to adopt the labels used by Lord Oliver. In such a case it may often be right to conclude that the advisee was within the scope of the duty of care. In many cases, however, the statement will have been prepared or made, or primarily prepared or made, for a different purpose and for the benefit of someone other than the advisee. In such cases it will be necessary to look carefully at the precise purpose for which the statement was communicated to the advisee. (2) The purpose for which the statement was communicated.
Under this heading it will be necessary to consider the purpose of, and the circumstances surrounding, the communication. Was the communication made for information only? Was it made for some action to be taken and, if so, what action and by whom? Who requested the communication to be made? These are some of the questions which may have to be addressed.
(3) The relationship between the adviser, the advisee and any relevant third party.
Where the statement was made or prepared in the first instance to or for the benefit of someone other than the advisee it will be necessary to consider the relationship between the parties. Thus it may be that the advisee is likely to look to the third party and through him to the adviser for advice or guidance. Or the advisee may be wholly independent and in a position to make any necessary judgments himself.
(5) The state of knowledge of the adviser. The precise state of knowledge of the adviser is one of the most important matters to examine. Thus it will be necessary to consider his knowledge of the purpose for which the statement was made or required in the first place and also his knowledge of the purpose for which the statement was communicated to the advisee. In this context knowledge includes not only actual knowledge but also such knowledge as would be attributed to a reasonable person in the circumstances in which the adviser was placed. On the other hand any duty of care will be limited to transactions or types of transactions of which the adviser had knowledge and will only arise where ‘the adviser knows or ought to know that [the statement of advice] will be relied upon by a particular person or class of persons in connection with that transaction:’ per Lord Oliver in the Caparo case [1990] 2 A.C. 605, 641.
It also necessary to consider whether the adviser knew that the advisee would rely on the statement without obtaining independent advice
(6) Reliance by the advisee
In cases where the existence of a duty of care is in issue it is always useful to examine the matter from the point of view of the plaintiff. As I have ventured to say elsewhere the question ‘Who is my neighbour?’ prompts the response ‘Consider first those who would consider you to be their neighbour.’ One should therefore consider whether and to what extent the advisee was entitled to rely on the statement to take the action that he did take. It is also necessary to consider whether he did in fact rely on the statement, whether he did use or should have used his own judgment and whether he did seek or should have sought independent advice. In business transactions conducted as arms’ length it may sometimes be difficult for an advisee to prove that he was entitled to act on a statement without taking any independent advice or to prove that the adviser knew, actually or inferentially, that he would act without taking such advice.’

Neill, Nourse, Balcombe LJJ
[1991] 1 All ER 134, [1991] 2 QB 113, [1990] EWCA Civ 11
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
CitedWest Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty QBD 14-Dec-2005
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surgeon alleging negligent care of a footballer. The defendant argued that he had no duty to the club as employer of his patient who was being treated through his BUPA membership. It would have created . .
CitedJeremy D Stone Consultants Ltd and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc and Another ChD 11-Feb-2013
The claimants asserted an equitable claim against funds held by the defendant bank in the name of a company owned by another defendant who they said defrauded them through a Ponzi investment scheme.
Held: The claim failed. On the evidence, the . .
CitedSteel and Another v NRAM Ltd (Formerly NRAM Plc) SC 28-Feb-2018
The appellant solicitor acted in a land transaction. The land was mortgaged to the respondent bank. She wrote to the bank stating her client’s intention to repay the whole loan. The letter was negligently mistaken and the bankers allowed the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.190016

Williams and Another v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd and Another: QBD 18 Jan 1996

A company director can be liable for the negligent mis-statement of the company if he warrants his own personal skill.

Langley J
Independent 18-Jan-1996, [1996] BCLC 288
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromWilliams; Reid v Natural Life Health Foods Limited and Mistlin CA 5-Dec-1996
(Majority) A director of a one man company himself could himself be liable for negligent advice outside his duties as a director where his personal character known to be relied upon. In order to fix a director with personal liability, it must be . .
At first instanceWilliams and Another v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd and Another HL 30-Apr-1998
A company director was not personally reliable in negligence for bad advice given by him as director unless it could clearly be shown that he had willingly accepted such personal responsibility. A special relationship involving an assumption of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.90526

Macleod (By His Deputy and Litigation Friend, Macleod) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: QBD 3 Apr 2014

The claimant sought damages after being severely injured when knocked from his cycle by police officers in a car attending an emergency, and driving over the speed limit.
Held: The claim succeeded, and there had been no contributory negligence by the claimant.
McKenna J said: ‘the police car was quite simply travelling far too fast in poor lighting conditions and visibility and the driver simply failed to keep a proper lookout. Both PC Reilly and PC Burbeck plainly failed to observe Mr Einsman who was cycling with his lights on in the opposite direction, despite passing him shortly before entering the roundabout. It is highly likely that they equally simply failed to see the Claimant ahead of them. PC Reilly was intent on getting to the incident at Hackney as quickly as possible and his focus as he indicated in the course of his evidence was as to whether he retained a right of way to enable him to maintain his speed. The overwhelming likelihood is that there was simply too much to observe in the run up to the junction and as with Mr Einsman, PC Reilly and indeed PC Burbeck simply failed to see the Claimant until he was virtually on top of him.’

McKenna J
[2014] EWHC 977 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMarshall v Osmond CA 1983
The plaintiff was passenger in a stolen car seeking to escape the police as they chased. The car was stopped, the plaintiff got out of the car, and was hit by a police car. He sought damages.
Held: His appeal against dismissal of his claim was . .
CitedKeyse v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis, Scutts CA 18-May-2001
The court considered liability where a police car on emergency duty hit Mr Scutts causing very serious injuries. The officer appealed against a finding of liability saying that the judge had declared irrelevant the fact he was on an emergency . .
CitedSam v Atkins CA 9-Nov-2005
May LJ said: ‘Caparo and Murphy v Brentford were both cases concerning economic loss, not physical damage, but the principle is the same for each. The question is whether the relationship between the claimant and the defendant is such that it . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.523598

Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (Epn) Plc and Others: QBD 15 Jun 2010

The claimant cyclist sought damages for severe personal injury. He was walking or riding his cycle through some roadworks by the roadside, and fell out through roadside barriers into the path of a car. The defendants admitted that the path was less wide than it should have been, but said he should not have been riding on the pavement.
Held: The defendants were wholly responsible. They had created a very hazardous multi-layered trap across a kerb for all pedestrians, and: ‘it is only with the benefit of cruel hindsight that it might be said the Claimant should have risked the danger on the road or the sanctuary of another pavement rather than this one. He should certainly not be held at all ‘responsible’ for electing for the wrong option when faced with such a dreadful hazard. Neither should he be criticised for momentary inadvertence, loss of balance or misjudgement whilst trying to negotiate this particular hazard.’

Simon Brown QC J
[2010] EWHC B11 (QB)
Bailii
Highway Act 1835 72, Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLee v Williams CA 23-Jan-2001
The claimant cyclist had been injured. He had been riding along the pavement, but was hit by the defendant as he crossed an access road. Sight lines were restricted. The driver had concentrated on traffic from his right with which he was to merge, . .
CitedDavies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd CA 1949
A plaintiff brought an action for damages for personal injury against the drivers of two cars.
Held: There are two aspects to apportioning responsibility between a plaintiff and defendant in an action for negligence, the respective causative . .

Cited by:
Principal hearingKotula v EDF Energy Networks (EPN) Plc and Others QBD 17-Jun-2011
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.416771

K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another: QBD 30 May 2008

The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act.
Held: The case should be allowed to go ahead. Though the common law tort of negligence is still developing, negligence against the background of a statute will change less. The care plan adopted by the defendants for the claimant did not override or substitute for any statutory duty, and nor did the decision in Clunis make impossible any claim in negligence against an authority satisfying its duties under section 117 and: ‘it would be wrong to debar the Appellant from arguing at trial that on the facts of his case there was a relationship and proximity between him and the defendants that was far closer than between claimant and the defendant health authority in Clunis, and that on the facts of that proximity as may be established at trial it would be ‘fair just and reasonable’ to superimpose the common law duty of care contended for in this case, notwithstanding the ruling in Clunis on its particular facts. ‘ There was also an arguable case under human rights law.

King J
[2008] EWHC 1217 (QB)
Bailii
Mental Heath 1983 117(2), European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
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 . .
CitedSmith v Chief Constable of Essex CA 2008
The claimant sought damages from the police, saying that the way they had handled the witness protection programme had led to him suffering injury.
Held: The action which had been struck out by the court below should be restored, because even . .
CitedPhelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
CitedBarrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
ExplainedClunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 5-Dec-1997
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedRegina v Manchester City Council, ex parte Stennett etc HL 25-Jul-2002
The applicants were former mental patients who had been admitted to hospital compulsorily under section 3. On their release they were to be given support under section 117. The authorities sought to charge for these services, and appealed a decision . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedG v G (Minors: Custody appeal) CA 1985
A court should take great care before setting aside a decision of a judge which had involved the exercise of a judicial discretion. The court considered the duty of an appellate court in a children case: ‘What this court should seek to do is to . .
CitedSavage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
The claimant said that the defendant hospital had been negligent in failing to prevent her daughter escaping from the mental hospital at which she was detained and committing suicide.
Held: The status of a detained mental patient was more akin . .
CitedTakoushis, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and others CA 30-Nov-2005
Relatives sought judicial review of the coroner’s decision not to allow a jury, and against allowance of an expert witness. The deceased had been a mental patient but had been arrested with a view to being hospitalised. He was taken first to the . .
CitedOsman v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-Oct-1998
Police’s Complete Immunity was Too Wide
(Grand Chamber) A male teacher developed an obsession with a male pupil. He changed his name by deed poll to the pupil’s surname. He was required to teach at another school. The pupil’s family’s property was subjected to numerous acts of vandalism, . .
CitedAEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd CA 1-Feb-1999
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on . .
CitedPowell v United Kingdom ECHR 4-May-2000
A ten-year old boy had died from Addison’s disease. No inquest took place, because the coroner decided that the boy had died of natural causes. The parents, who were also affected by the events, had accepted compensation from the local health . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Human Rights

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.270295

Atkins v Co-Operative Group Ltd: QBD 26 Jan 2016

The Claimant sought damages for diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment by the Defendant between June 1958 and November 1962. The defendant now appealed against entry of judgment against it and an award of interim damages.

Supperstone J
[2016] EWHC 80 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Negligence, Health and Safety

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559290

Fernando v Bilton: CA 8 Oct 2015

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision dismissing a claim by the applicant for damages resulting from the claimant’s exposure to noise, brought on grounds of negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty.

Sir David Keene
[2015] EWCA Civ 1098
Bailii
England and Wales

Nuisance, Negligence, Construction, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556229

Beedie v Norrie: 1966

Chapter 26 of the Rules of the Court of Session 1994, which is headed Third Party Procedure, enables questions arising out of claims by a defender against a third party for contribution, relief or indemnity and liability to be disposed of in the same action as that in which the defender is himself being sued.

1966 SC 207
Rules of the Court of Session 1994 824, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 3(2)
Scotland
Cited by:
CitedFarstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd and Another SCS 23-Apr-2008
(Outer House) The pursuers alleged that the defendant service company was responsible in negligence for damage by fire to its oil rig supply vessel. It was said that oil they had failed to clear was released by piping when opened flowing onto a hot . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.410552

Tylicki v Gibbons: QBD 21 Dec 2021

HHJ Karen Walden-Smith Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
[2021] EWHC 3470 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCaldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.670657

Baikie v Glasgow Corporation: HL 17 Jan 1919

An inmate of a house to which access was obtained by a common stair brought an action against a lighting authority for damages for personal injuries sustained by her in falling on the stair. She averred that on returning home at a time when the stair ought to have been lighted she found it unlighted, that she proceeded to mount the stair, which had no handrail, in the dark with the greatest caution, and that at a turn in it she strayed on to the narrow part of the steps, came against the stair wall, slipped and fell down the stair, sustaining injuries. She averred further that the accident was due to the negligence of the defenders in failing to light the stair. The First Division dismissed the action as irrelevant on the ground that the pursuer’s averments disclosed a case of contributory negligence. Held ( rev. judgment of the First Division) that while those averments might be evidence of contributory negligence which a judge or jury would be entitled to weigh, they did not per se establish a case of contributory negligence, and case remitted to the Court of Session with a direction to order issues.

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Finlay. Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw
[1919] UKHL 141, 56 SLR 141
Bailii
Scotland

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.632764

Dunnage v Randall and Another: CA 2 Jul 2015

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injuries. The deceased whilst suffering mental illness poured petrol on himself and ignited it. The claimant was injured seeking to prevent this. The events occurred in the deceased’s home and he had insurance. The claimant appealed against athe deciion which had found that the deceased’s duty of care was negatived by his mental condition.
Held: If the person had a legal duty of care to a claimant, that duty need not be negatived by his mental condition. The standard required was that of a reasonable person, not that of a treasonable person with that mental condition. The legal analysis of responsibility does not rest of a false distinction between physical and mental conditions.

Arden, Rafferty, Vos LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2015] WLR(D) 287, [2016] PIQR P1, [2016] MHLR 117, [2016] 2 WLR 839, [2016] QB 639
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549750

Davies v Forrett and Others: QBD 23 Jun 2015

The claimant had been very severely injured as a passenger in a car (uninsured) which had attempted an overtaking manouvre past three cars. One pulled out, and the car in which he was a passenger swerved off the road and crashed. Damages were now sought against the car which had pulled out. A settlement had been all but reached with the defendant accepting some responsibility. The court now considered liability for costs.
Held: The defendant and his insurers had behaved in a way which was designed to secure an advantage to which they were not entitled, increasing costs.

Edis J
[2015] EWHC 1761 (QB)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedSanderson v Blyth Theatre Company CA 1903
Where a party sues two or more defendants and succeeds against one but fails against one or more other defendants, the court has a discretion to order the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs of the claimant in pursuing the successful defendant . .
CitedBullock v London General Omnibus Company 1907
An order was made for the payment of the successful defendants’ costs, but with liberty to the plaintiff to include those costs in the costs of the action recoverable by the plaintiff from the unsuccessful defendant. The plaintiff had been unable . .
CitedSymphony Group Plc v Hodgson CA 4-May-1993
Nine rules were set out for allowing a costs order against someone who is not a party to the action. Such orders should be exceptional. The normal rule is that witnesses in either civil or criminal proceedings enjoy immunity from any form of civil . .
CitedIrvine v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Carillion Plc, Town and Country Flooring Limited CA 3-Feb-2005
Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘There is no doubt that the jurisdiction to make a Bullock or Sanderson order has survived the introduction of the CPR, though the exercise of discretion to make such an order must be guided by the overriding objective and the . .
CitedMoon v Garrett and others CA 28-Jul-2006
The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable for the personal injury to the claimant. The claimant was employed to collect blocks and bring them to the site. He fell and injured himself.
Held: The defendant, the occupier of the land, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Road Traffic, Personal Injury, Costs

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549417

McShane v Burnwynd Racing Stables Ltd: SCS 5 Jun 2015

‘This case concerns an accident at the defenders’ racing stables on 25 March 2011. The pursuer was employed there by the defenders as trainer or assistant trainer. He was exercising a horse (‘Psalm 23′) on the training gallop. At the far end of the gallop, just before the third or final bend, his horse fell and landed on him. He was badly hurt. His left arm was injured and he has been left with a permanent impairment to his left side. He sues the defenders on the basis, in short, that the gallop was unsafe and that that was the cause of the fall.’

Lord Glennie
[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 70
Bailii
Work at Height Regulations 2005, Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992

Scotland, Health and Safety, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547657

Buswell v Symes and Another: QBD 15 May 2015

The claimant motor-cyclist sought damages against a tractor driver who had emerged from a field to the cyclist’s left with tractor and trailer. The tractor driver’s evidence was that the cyclists’ had gone over a blind summit on a narrow road at a speed of 70mph.
Held: The tractor driver knew of the danger of the exit and had failed to take an alternative. Equally the claimant was driving far too fast, and: ‘the Claimant was at fault in driving much too fast under the circumstances. I consider that he was two-thirds to blame for the collision that occurred.’

Supperstone J
[2015] EWHC 1379 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546847

Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas: PC 21 Jan 1888

(Victoria) The appellant’s gatekeeper had negligently invited the plaintiffs to cross a railway line as a train approached. There was no collision, but the plaintiff sought damages for physical and mental injuries from shock.
Held: The defendant’s appeal on liability succeeded. It was difficult, if not impossible, to recover damages for ‘illness which was the effect of shock caused by fright’. Such injury was regarded as being too remote a head of damages in an action for negligence. There would be evidential difficulty in deciding upon the causes of psychiatric symptoms. Mere sudden terror unaccompanied by actual physical injury could not in such circumstances be considered a consequence which in the ordinary course would flow from the negligence of the gate keeper.
‘Damages arising from mere sudden terror unaccompanied by any actual physical injury, but occasioning a nervous or mental shock, cannot under such circumstances, their Lordships think, be considered a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence of the gate-keeper. If it were held that they can, it appears to their Lordships that it would be extending the liability for negligence much beyond what that liability has hitherto been held to be.’

Fitzgeral, Hobnouse LL, Sir Barnes Peacock, Sir Richard Couch
(1888) 13 App Cas 222, [1888] UKPC 3, (1888) LR 13 App Cas 222
Bailii
Australia
Cited by:
DistinguishedWilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .
Not FollowedDulieu v White and Sons KBD 1901
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were . .
CitedWainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedOPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
CitedRhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.186859

Rushbond Plc v The JS Design Partnership Llp: CA 14 Dec 2021

Claim in negligence arising out of damage to the appellant’s property, caused by an intruder who, it is said, gained access as a result of a breach of duty by the respondent. The real issue is whether this is what, at least historically, has been called a ‘pure omissions’ case, or whether it falls into an accepted category of potentially sustainable negligence claims.

Lady Justice Asplin,
Lord Justice Coulson,
And,
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
[2021] EWCA Civ 1889
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.670462

Sebry v Companies House and Another: QBD 26 Jan 2015

The claimant sought damages in negligence and breach of statutory duty, saying that a failure by the defendants to maintain the correctness of its registers led to losses causing the insolvency of his company. The defendant had filed a note of a winding up order against the wrong (but similarly named) company.
Held: ‘the Registrar owes a duty of care when entering a winding up order on the Register to take reasonable care to ensure that the Order is not registered against the wrong company. That duty is owed to any Company which is not in liquidation but which is wrongly recorded on the Register as having been wound up by order of the court. The duty extends to taking reasonable care to enter the Order on the record of the Company named in the Order, and not any other company. It does not extend to checking information supplied by third parties. It extends only to entering that information accurately on the Register.’

Edis J
[2015] EWHC 115 (QB), [2016] 1 WLR 2499, [2015] 4 All ER 681, [2015] BCC 236, [2015] 1 BCLC 670
Bailii
Companies Act 2006 108
England and Wales

Administrative, Negligence

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541767

Baxter v Barnes (T/A We Barnes Tree Surgeons And/Or Upand Out Platform Hire: QBD 12 Jan 2015

Claim for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising out of an accident suffered by the Claimant on 1 December 2010. On that day, the Claimant was engaged in his business, together with some of his employees, in the pruning of a tree. He and one of his employees, Mr Milbourn, were working from the basket of a sophisticated piece of equipment called a Mobile Elevated Work Platform (MEWP) which had been hired by the Claimant from the Defendant.

Collender QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 54 (QB)
Bailii

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541570

Old Gate Estates Ltd v Toplis and Harding and Russell: 1939

The case of Donoghue -v- Stevenson was restricted in its application to cases of negligence causing damage to life, limb or health.

Wrottesley J
[1939] 3 All ER 209, [1939] 161 LT 227
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Cited by:
Too narrowHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.216363

Smoldon v Whitworth and Another: QBD 23 Apr 1996

A claim was brought against a player and a referee in a rugby match when a scrum collapsed. A rugby referee at a colts game has a duty of care to players as regards scrimmaging.

Times 23-Apr-1996, (1997) ELR 249
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSmoldon v Whitworth and Nolan CA 17-Dec-1996
The claimant sued another player and the referee at a colts rugby match in which he was badly injured when the scrum collapsed. The claim against the player was dismissed, but the referee was found liable and he now appealed.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.89352

Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald: CA 27 Jun 2001

The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) owes a duty of care to each and all other contestants. [2] That duty is to exercise in the course of the contest all care that is objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances for the avoidance of infliction of injury to such fellow contestants. [3] The prevailing circumstances are all such properly attendant upon the contest and include its object, the demands inevitably made upon its contestants, its inherent dangers (if any), its rules, conventions and customs, and the standards, skills and judgment reasonably to be expected of a contestant. Thus in the particular case of a horse race the prevailing circumstances will include the contestant’s obligation to ride a horse over a given course competing with the remaining contestants for the best possible placing, if not for a win. Such must further include the Rules of Racing and the standards, skills and judgment of a professional jockey, all as expected by fellow contestants. [4] Given the nature of such prevailing circumstances the threshold for liability is in practice inevitably high; the proof of a breach of duty will not flow from proof of no more than an error of judgment or from mere proof of a momentary lapse in skill (and thus care) respectively when subject to the stresses of a race. Such are no more than incidents inherent in the nature of sport. [5] In practice it may therefore be difficult to prove any such breach of duty absent proof of conduct that in point of fact amounts to reckless disregard for the fellow contestant’s safety. I emphasise the distinction between the expression of legal principle and the practicalities of the evidential burden.’
Held: The formulation was correct.
The fact that a jockey has ridden his horse in breach of the rules of racing does not decide the issue of liability and, while non-compliance with the rules, conventions or customs is necessarily a consideration to be attended to upon the question of reasonableness, it is only one consideration, and it may be of much or little or even no weight in the circumstances of a particular race.
The threshold for liability was high: ‘there will be no liability for errors of judgment, oversights or lapses of which any participant might be guilty in the context of a fast-moving contest. Something more serious is required. I do not think it is helpful to say any more than this in setting the standard of care to be expected in cases of this kind.’

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes),
Lord Justice Judge,
And,
Lord Justice Tuckey
[2001] EWCA Civ 1054, [2002] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHarrison v Vincent 1982
A sidecar passenger sued the motorcycle driver for injuries sustained during a race when he was unable to stop because he missed his gear and his brakes failed at the same time.
Held: The court approved the Wooldridge approach as the . .
CitedCondon v Basi CA 30-Apr-1985
The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued.
Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner CA 1963
A spectator was injured at a horse show.
Held: The court considered the defence of volenti non fit injuria: ‘The maxim in English law presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The consent that is relevant is not consent to the risk of . .
CitedWilks v Cheltenham Homeguard Motor Cycle and Light Car Club CA 1971
The plaintiff was a spectator at a motorcycle scramble race, and was injured.
Held: Edmund Davies LJ said: ‘although in the very nature of things the competitor is all out to win and that is exactly what the spectators expect of him, it is in . .
CitedSmoldon v Whitworth and Nolan CA 17-Dec-1996
The claimant sued another player and the referee at a colts rugby match in which he was badly injured when the scrum collapsed. The claim against the player was dismissed, but the referee was found liable and he now appealed.
Held: The . .
CitedCaldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .

Cited by:
CitedBlake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
CitedCaldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .
CitedTylicki v Gibbons QBD 21-Dec-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.188804

Coventry University v Mian: CA 7 Oct 2014

Appeal against a determination that the appellant, Coventry University was liable in negligence to the respondent, Dr Rubina Mian. The judge gave permission to appeal on a number of ground on the ground that the judge erred in finding the University in breach of its duty of care to Dr Mian.

Sullivan, Beatson, Sharp LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1275
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537423

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd: 1994

(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the progressive weakening of the rule by judicial decision, by recognition that the law of negligence had been very greatly developed and expanded since Rylands v Fletcher was decided and by a belief that most claimants entitled to succeed under the rule would succeed in a claim for negligence anyway: ‘Where a duty of care arises under the ordinary law of negligence, the standard of care exacted is that which is reasonable in the circumstances. It has been emphasised in many cases that the degree of care under that standard necessarily varies with the risk involved and that the risk involved includes both the magnitude of the risk of an accident happening and the seriousness of the potential damage if an accident should occur . . even where a dangerous substance or dangerous activity of a kind which might attract the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is involved, the standard of care remains ‘that which is reasonable in the circumstances, that which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the circumstances’: Adelaide Chemical and Fertiliser Co Ltd v Carlyle [1940] 64CLR514 at page 523. In the case of such substances or activities, however, a reasonably prudent person would exercise a higher degree of care. Indeed, depending upon the magnitude of the danger, the standard of ‘reasonable care’ may involve ‘a degree of diligence so stringent as to amount practically to a guarantee of safety”

Mason CJ
[1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520
Australia
Citing:
ExplainedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:
CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.188013

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman: 4 Jul 1985

(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence.
Brennan J said: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. ‘
Dean J said: ‘The requirement of proximity is directed to the relationship between the parties in so far as it is relevant to the allegedly negligent act or omission of the defendant and the loss or injury sustained by the plaintiff. It involves the notion of nearness or closeness and embraces physical proximity (in the sense of space and time) between the person or property of the plaintiff and the person or property of the defendant, circumstantial proximity such as an over riding relationship of employer and employee or of a professional man and his client and what may (perhaps loosely) be referred to as causal proximity in the sense of the closeness or directness of the causal connection or relationship between the particular act or course of conduct and the loss and injury sustained. It may reflect an assumption by one party of a responsibility to take care to avoid or prevent injury, loss or damage to the person or property of another or reliance by one party upon such care being taken by the other in circumstances where the other party knew or ought to have known of that reliance. Both the identity and the relative importance of the factors which are determinative of an issue of proximity are likely to vary in different categories of case. That does not mean that there is scope for decision by reference to idiosyncratic notions of justice or morality or that it is a proper approach to treat the requirement of proximity as a question of fact to be resolved merely by reference to the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in the particular circumstances. The requirement of a relationship of proximity serves as a touchstone and control of the categories of case in which the common law will adjudge that a duty of care is owed. Given the general circumstances of a case in a new or developing area of the law of negligence, the question what (if any) combination or combinations of factors will satisfy the requirement of proximity is a question of law to be resolved by the processes of legal reasoning, induction and deduction. On the other hand the identification of the content of that requirement in such an area should not be either ostensibly or actually divorced from notions of what is ‘fair and reasonable’ . . or from the considerations of public policy which underlie and enlighten the existence and content of the requirement.’
Mason J said: ‘although a public authority may be under a public duty, enforceable by mandamus, to give proper consideration to the question whether it should exercise a power, this duty cannot be equated with, or regarded as a foundation for imposing, a duty of care on the public authority in relation to the exercise of the power. Mandamus will compel proper consideration of the authority of its discretion, but that is all.’
Brennan J pointed out that the statutory duty of a local authority to approve building plans could not be made the basis of a general duty to protect a subsequent purchaser against even foreseeable problems in the course of construction: ‘It is impermissible to postulate a duty of care to avoid one kind of damage – say, personal injury – and, finding the defendant guilty of failing to discharge that duty, to hold him liable for the damage actually suffered that is of another and independent kind – say, economic loss. Not only may the respective duties differ in what is required to discharge them; the duties may be owed to different persons or classes of persons. That is not to say that a plaintiff who suffers damage of some kind will succeed or fail in an action to recover damages according to his classification of the damage he suffered. The question is always whether the defendant was under a duty to avoid or prevent that damage, but the actual nature of the damage suffered is relevant to the existence and extent of any duty to avoid or prevent it.’

Brennan J, Dean J, Mason J
[1985] 50 ALR 1, (1985) 157 CLR 424
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
ApprovedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedBinod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
AdoptedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedJD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .
CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
CitedGlaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council CA 9-Dec-2009
The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a . .
CitedMichael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
CitedBPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel) SC 22-Mar-2017
The court was asked what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Damages

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.194628

McHale v Watson: 7 Mar 1966

(High Court of Australia) A girl was injured playing tag with her friends at school. A boy threw a sharpened object which bounced off a post and hit her. The level of duty of care owed by a child was questioned: ‘The standard of care being objective, it is no answer for him, [that is a child] any more than it is for an adult, to say that the harm he caused was due to his being abnormally slow-witted, quick-tempered, absent- minded or inexperienced. But it does not follow that he cannot rely in his defence upon a limitation upon the capacity for foresight or prudence, not as being personal to himself, but as being characteristic of humanity at his stage of development and in that sense normal. By doing so he appeals to a standard of ordinariness, to an objective and not a subjective standard.’

Kitto J
[1966] ALR 513, [1966] 115 CLR 199
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
CitedMullin v Richards and Birmingham City Council CA 6-Nov-1997
Two 15 year old schoolfriends were playing with rulers when one shattered and a fragment injured the eye of the other. She claimed negligence in the school. She appealed a finding that she was herself fifty per cent responsible.
Held: Although . .
CitedOrchard v Lee CA 3-Apr-2009
The claimant appealed rejection of her claim for personal injuries. She was supervising a school playground, and was injured by a 13 year old child running backwards into her. She claimed against the boy. The judge found it to be mere horseplay.
Negligence

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.190041

Best v Samuel Fox and Co Ltd: 1952

The court considered liability for injury to secondary victims. Lord Morton of Henryton: ‘it has never been the law of England that an invitor, who has negligently but unintentionally injured an invitee, is liable to compensate other persons who have suffered, in one way or another, as a result of the injury to the invitee. If the injured man was engaged in a business, and the injury is a serious one, the business may have to close down and the employees be dismissed; a daughter of the injured man may have to give up work which she enjoys and stay at home to nurse a father who has been transformed into an irritable invalid as a result of the injury. Such examples could easily be multiplied. Yet the invitor is under no liability to compensate such persons, for he owes them no duty and may not even know of their existence.’

Lord Morton of Henryton
[1952] AC 716, (1951) 2 KB 639, [1952] 2 All ER 394
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedWhite, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others HL 3-Dec-1998
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone
The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy.
Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the . .
CitedJD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.184754

Carr v East Sussex Fire and Rescue Authority: CA 8 Feb 2008

The caimant appealed refusal of his claim against the defendant. Each driver claimed to have entered a junction controlled by traffic lights when the lights were at green. The judge had accepted that the driver of the fire engine went through at green, and gave judgment accordingly, but also said that the claimant went through only just after the lights had turned red against him. The claimant said that these findings were inconsistent.
Held: The judge had failed to grapple with the sequencing of the lights, and made inconsistent findings. It was not for the court of appeal to choose between them, and the case was remitted.

[2008] EWCA Civ 157
Bailii
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.268700

Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong: PC 1987

(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the difficulties.
Held: The requirements for a duty of care were a foreseeability of harm, and a close and direct proximity. The commissioner had no day to day contact with the deposit taker, and no especial proximity to the plaintiff. The nature of the statute gave no warranty that could properly have been relied upon by the plaintiff.
Lord Keith identified the issue at stake: ‘The foremost question of principle is whether in the present case the commissioner owed to members of the public who might be minded to deposit their money with deposit-taking companies in Hong Kong a duty, in the discharge of his supervisory powers under the Ordinance, to exercise reasonable care to see that such members of the public did not suffer loss through the affairs of such companies being carried on by their managers in fraudulent or improvident fashion.’
Lord Keith analysed the nature of the power exercisable by the defendants and the circumstances in which it would fall to be exercised. The power was to refuse or grant registration and to revoke or suspend it once granted. Anything other than granting the registration would put the deposit-taker out of business. The power was quasi-judicial. In exercising it, the defendant might well have to have regard to the interests of existing as well as prospective depositors whose interests might not coincide. The defendant did not have the resources to control the day to day management of the company. In those circumstances, the Commissioner owed no statutory or common law duty to potential depositors. It was not reasonable or justifiable for the plaintiffs to rely on the fact of registration as a guarantee of the soundness of the company, nor could the defendant be expected to know of such reliance. In the circumstances, no duty of care was owed to the plaintiffs.

Keith L
[1988] AC 175, [1987] 2 All ER 705, [1987] 3 WLR 776, [1987] UKPC 16
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedAnns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .

Cited by:
CitedK v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 31-May-2002
The applicant sought damages from the defendant who had released from custody pending deportation a man convicted of violent sexual crimes and who had then raped her. She appealed against a strike out of her claim. She had been refused information . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England HL 18-May-2000
The applicants alleged misfeasance against the Bank of England in respect of the regulation of a bank.
Held: The Bank could not be sued in negligence, but the tort of misfeasance required clear evidence of misdeeds. The action was now properly . .
CitedJones v Department of Employment CA 1989
The claimant said the respondent adjudication officer had been negligent in assessing and rejecting his claim for benefits, which had later been allowed on appeal. The officer claimed he was exercising a judicial office and was immune from action. . .
CitedTee v Lautro Limited CA 20-Nov-1996
. .
CitedCBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
CitedMitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
CitedGlaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council CA 9-Dec-2009
The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a . .
DistinguishedSchubert Murphy (A Firm) v The Law Society QBD 17-Dec-2014
The claimant solicitors’ firm had acted in a purchase, but the vendors were represented by fraudsters presenting themselves as solicitors, registering with the defendant in names of retired solicitors, and who made off with the money intended for . .
CitedMichael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
CitedThe Law Society of England and Wales v Schubert Murphy (A Firm) CA 25-Aug-2017
The solicitors had made use of the online facility provided by the appellant Law Society to verify the bona fides of a firm of solicitors acting for a third party to a transaction. Relying upon the information, they suffered losses, and claimed in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Commonwealth

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.181785

Davis v St Mary’s Demolition and Excavation Co Ltd: 1954

The defendants were demolishing some houses, behind which was an open space on which children were known to play. A child wandered onto the site and a wall fell causing injury.
Held: Although the plaintiff was a trespasser, the presence of children on the land was so likely that they were within the class of people to whom a duty of care was owed. A building in course of demolition is an allurement. Precautions should have been taken, and the defendant was liable.

[1954] 1 All ER 57, [1954] 1 WLR 592, 98 Sol Jo 217
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBritish 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.182868

A J Allan (Blairnyle) Ltd and Another v Strathclyde Fire Board: SCS 2 Sep 2014

Outer House – The pursuers seek damages in respect of loss caused by fire in a farmhouse and outbuildings owned by them. The damage occasioned by the fire is averred to have been caused as a result of fault and negligence of the defenders who are a joint fire and rescue board responsible, inter alia, for the provision of fire services in Strathclyde region. The parties now disputed the relevance of the proceedings.

Lord Brailsford
[2014] ScotCS CSOH – 135
Bailii

Scotland, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.536364

Winstanley v Sleeman and Another: QBD 13 Dec 2013

The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The defendants no wapplied to strike out a clai for negligence.
Held: The application failed: ‘If a university fails to take proper care of a student’s career by falling short in the delivery of the processes involved in obtaining the qualification for which the student is studying, why is it not arguable that it is foreseeable that the claimant will suffer some loss or injury as a result? The nature of the injury need not, as a matter of law be foreseeable but the possibility of injury of some description is surely foreseeable, or at least arguably so.’

Saffman HHJ
[2013] EWHC B43 (QB), [2013] EWHC 4792 (QB)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981 9
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSiddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 5-Dec-2016
The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Negligence

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.535721

Bottomley v Bannister: CA 1932

The deceased man, the father of the plaintiff, had taken an unfurnished house from the defendants, who had installed a gas boiler with a special gas-burner which if properly regulated required no flue. The deceased and his wife were killed by fumes from the apparatus.
Held: The apparatus was part of the realty and the landlord did not know of the danger, and was not liable. The court discussed the result if it had ben a chattel. It was not easy to reconcile all the authorities, and there was no authority binding on the Court of Appeal that a person selling an article which he did not know to be dangerous can be held liable to a person with whom he has made no contract by reason of the fact that reasonable inquiries might have enabled him to discover that the article was in fact dangerous.
The general rule at common law was also applied by analogy to a vendor of land. Scrutton LJ said: ‘Now it is at present well established English law that, in the absence of express contract, a landlord of an unfurnished house is not liable to his tenant, or a vendor of real estate to his purchaser, for defects in the house or land rendering it dangerous or unfit for occupation, even if he has constructed the defects himself or is aware of their existence. ‘

Greer LJ , Scrutton LJ
[1932] 1 KB 458
Lord Campbell’s ActFatal Accidents Act 1846
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Land

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.188796

DSD and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: QBD 23 Jul 2014

The court had found the defendant liable for a breach of the claimants’ human rights in that its negligent investigations had led to further rapes and sexual assaults by an offender. The court now considered what damages might be payable.

Green J
[2014] EWHC 2493 (QB)
Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
Liability JudgmentDSD and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 28-Feb-2014
The claimants sought damages alleging negligent failure by the police to investigate and find a serial rapist.
Held: The claim succeeded. The claimants were entitled to damages from the defendant, the Commissioner of the Police of the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromThe Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and NBV and Others CA 30-Jun-2015
The claimants alleged that they had been victims of rapes after the defendant police force had negligently failed to properly investigate a series of similar crimes. They said that the failures had infringed their article 3 rights. The Commissioner . .
At First InstanceCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.535242

Glaister and Others v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council: CA 9 Dec 2009

The claimant was injured when at a horse fair. A loose horse kicked him causing injury. They claimed in negligence against the council for licensing the fair without ensuring that public liability insurance. The Council now appealed agaiinst a finding that they were liable, saying that this had been a wrongful extension of the law of negligence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Council owed the claimant no duty of care as asserted.
Toulson LJ said: ‘The fact that this is a novel claim is not necessarily fatal because the categories of negligence are never closed. But the Privy Council and the House of Lords have approved the well-known judgment of Brennan J in Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 60 ALR 1, 43-44, where he expressed the view that: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories, rather than by a massive extension of a prima facie duty of care restrained only by indefinable ‘considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of the person to whom it is owed’. See Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175, 191 and Caparo (618, 633-634).
As Lord Oliver observed in Caparo (634), Brennan J was echoing a theme expressed in Hedley Byrne and Co Limited v Heller and Partners Limited [1964] AC 465 by Lord Devlin, whose speech in that case has come to be seen as particularly significant. (See the observations of Lord Goff in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Limited [1995] 2 AC 145, 178 and ff.) In Caparo (634-635) Lord Oliver cited a lengthy passage from Lord Devlin’s speech about the development of the law since Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, in which he concluded:
‘The real value of Donoghue v Stevenson to the argument in this case is that it shows how the law can be developed to solve particular problems. Is the relationship between the parties in this case such that it can be brought within a category giving rise to a special duty? As always in English law, the first step in such an enquiry is to see how far the authorities have gone, for new categories in the law do not spring into existence overnight.’
Lord Oliver in an important passage . . observed that the extension of the concept of negligence since the decision in Hedley Byrne to cover cases of pure economic loss had given rise to ‘a considerable and as yet unsolved difficulty of definition’. The postulate of a simple duty to avoid any harm that was, with hindsight, reasonably capable of being foreseen was untenable without the imposition of some intelligible limits to keep the law of negligence within the bounds of common sense and practicality. He observed that those limits had been found by the requirement of what has been called a ‘relationship of proximity’ between the claimant and the defendant and by the imposition of a further requirement that the attachment of liability for the harm which had occurred be ‘just and reasonable’. But it was impossible to identify some common dominator by which the existence of the essential relationship could be tested, and that ‘to search for any single formula which will serve as a general test of liability is to pursue a will-of-the-wisp’. The most that could be attempted is a broad categorisation of the decided cases according to the type of situation in which liability has been established in the past in order to found an argument by analogy.
These words needs to be emphasised because there is sometimes a tendency (as the present case shows) to pluck out the words ‘fair, just and reasonable’ as if they provide some comprehensive touchstone. In itself, the expression means little more than that the court should only impose a duty of care if it considers it right to do so. The various speeches in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181 underline the point that the ‘threefold test’ provides no straightforward answer to the question whether in a novel situation a party owes a duty of care (Lord Bingham at 6, Lord Hoffmann at 35-36, Lord Rodger at 53, Lord Walker at 71 and Lord Mance at 93). In considering whether there is sufficient ‘proximity’ to make it just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, the courts examine carefully the nature of the relationship between the parties and begin by considering whether it is reasonably analogous to other cases in which such a duty has been recognised. The court is looking to see whether there is ‘that special relationship of proximity which is required to give rise to the duty of care’ to protect the claimant from economic loss (using the language of Lord Oliver in Caparo at 650F) – which is another way of framing the question posed by Lord Devlin in Hedley Byrne ‘Is the relationship between the parties in this case such that it can be brought within a category giving rise to a special duty?’ . . For a duty of care to arise, there needs to be something particular about the relationship between the defendant and the claimant, in relation to some particular transaction or activity likely to have economic consequences for the claimant, such that the claimant can properly expect to be entitled to rely on the defendant to safeguard him from economic harm likely to result from want of care on the part of the defendant. This need is reflected by the usage of the words ‘special duty’ or ‘special relationship. There was no such relationship in the present case between the Town Council and the many tens of thousands of members of the general public, including the claimants, who visited the fair.’

Lord Neuberger, MR, Toulson, Jacob LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1325, [2009] NPC 143, [2010] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedDorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
CitedGwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Others CA 24-Jul-2002
The claimant sought damages. She had been injured after the negligent erection of a stand which was known to be potentially hazardous. The contractor was uninsured, and the claimant sought damages from the Hospital which had arranged the fair in its . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedSutherland Shire Council v Heyman 4-Jul-1985
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence.
Brennan J said: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. ‘
Dean J said: . .
CitedYuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
CitedNaylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling CA 7-May-2004
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
CitedNaylor (T/A Mainstreet) v Payling CA 7-May-2004
The claimant was injured by a door attendant employed as an independent contractor by the defendant.
Held: The defendant’s duty in selecting an independent contractor was limited to assessing the competence of the contractor. The duties of . .
CitedSmith v Eric S Bush, a firm etc HL 20-Apr-1989
In Smith, the lender instructed a valuer who knew that the buyer and mortgagee were likely to rely on his valuation alone. The valuer said his terms excluded responsibility. The mortgagor had paid an inspection fee to the building society and . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .

Cited by:
CitedMichael and Others v South Wales Police and Another CA 20-Jul-2012
The deceased had called the police and said her life was under immediate threat. An officer downgraded its seriousness, and she was killed within 15 minutes by her partner, and before the officers arrived. She had sought assistance four times . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.383789

LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others: TCC 30 Sep 2005

The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To establish liability for the escape of fire under the rule in Rylands, ‘the defendant must have brought onto his land things which were likely to cause and/or catch fire, and kept them in such a condition that, if they ignited, the fire would be likely to spread to the claimant’s land. To put it another way, those things must represent a recognisable risk to the owners of the adjoining land. Secondly, the actions on the part of the defendant must arise from a non-natural user of the defendant’s land.’ and ‘A non-natural user should be considered by reference to contemporary standards. The existence of statutory regulations relating to the storage of the dangerous thing(s) may preclude the operation of the rule in a particular case.’ and
‘Fire is plainly dangerous. Therefore, if the escape of fire from A’s land to B’s land was the (foreseeable) result of the storage of dangerous things that comprised a non-natural user of land by A, then, subject to the qualifications set out above, A is prima facie liable to B.’
‘An occupier has a positive duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimise the risk of injury or danger emanating from his land, howsoever caused. The occupier cannot discharge that duty simply by abstaining from the creation or addition to the source of danger or hazard. However, it will be a matter of fact and degree in each case as to whether what the occupier does in purported compliance with that duty was reasonable in all the circumstances.’

Peter Coulson QC
[2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC)
Bailii
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
Citing:
CitedRylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .
CitedRickards v Lothian PC 11-Feb-1913
The claim arose because the outflow from a wash-basin on the top floor of premises was maliciously blocked and the tap left running, with the result that damage was caused to stock on a floor below.
Held: The provision of a domestic water . .
CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedCambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL 9-Dec-1993
The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
CitedRead v J Lyons and Co Ltd HL 1946
The plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Defence, inspecting a weapons factory. A shell exploded injuring her. No negligence was alleged. The company worked as agent for the ministry.
Held: The respondents were not liable, since there had . .
CitedMason v Levy Auto Parts of England 1967
The defendants had a store of machinery in inflammable packings, together with a quantity of petroleum, acetylene and paints. A neighbour claimed from fire damage.
Held: They were liable for the damage when fire broke out and escaped to the . .
CitedPerry v Kendricks Transport Ltd CA 1956
The Act gave a defence to liability for a fire which started accidentally, this did not cover a fire which started by negligence. . .
CitedMusgrove v Pandelis CA 2-Jan-1919
The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms.
Held: The Act did not provide a . .
CitedSpicer v Smee 1946
A fire resulting from a non-natural user of land (i.e. a fire to which the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies) was outside the protection of the Act, because, in such circumstances, the relevant fire was not regarded as having been started . .
CitedJohnson v B J W Property 2002
Judge Thornton QC said: ‘With respect to Mackenna J, however, the narrow meaning given to the Act which so concerned him is one that is particularly appropriate given the Act’s historical origins since the fire in question had not escaped . .
CitedSochacki v Sas 1947
A claim was made after the escape of a fire in a domestic fireplace. The defendant had left the room for two or three hours with the fire burning, with no fire guard or fender,
Held: The use was not a non-natural use for a house, the room was . .
CitedJohnson v B J W Property 2002
Judge Thornton QC said: ‘With respect to Mackenna J, however, the narrow meaning given to the Act which so concerned him is one that is particularly appropriate given the Act’s historical origins since the fire in question had not escaped . .
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedRees and Other v Skerrett CA 23-May-2001
An owner of a terrace house had demolished it, but had taken no steps to shore up or weatherproof the exposed wall of the neighbouring property. That wall suffered wind damage, and the owner of the remaining property claimed damages under their . .
CitedHolbeck Hall Hotel Ltd and Another v Scarborough Borough Council CA 22-Feb-2000
Land owned by the defendant was below a cliff, at the top of which was the claimant’s hotel. The land slipped, and the hotel collapsed. Some landslip was foreseen from natural causes, but not to the extent of this occasion.
Held: The owner of . .
CitedBurnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd 1994
(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the . .
CitedE Hobbs (Farms) Limited v The Baxenden Chemical Co Limited 1992
A fire had started in Hobbs’ barn when a spark from a grinding machine fell onto combustible material/debris below the machine. The fire spread into and destroyed Gerber’s adjacent hanger. Hobbs alleged that the fire spread was due to the action of . .
CitedBalfour v Barty-King 1957
A fire started as the result of the negligent use of a blow torch by an independent contractor, damaging the plaintiff’s property. The use of fire had, therefore, been deliberate. The plaintiff argued that ‘If negligence be shown, it matters not . .
CitedBradburn v Lindsay 1983
The plaintiffs sued the owner of the adjoining house which had deteriorated so badly it had had to be demolished. The party wall was left standing but was largely unsupported.
Held: The defendant knew of the perilous state of her property (a . .
CitedLeakey v The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty CA 31-Jul-1979
Natural causes were responsible for soil collapsing onto neighbouring houses in Bridgwater.
Held: An occupier of land owes a general duty of care to a neighbouring occupier in relation to a hazard occurring on his land, whether such hazard is . .
CitedJ Doltis Limited v Issac Braithwaite and Sons (Engineers) Limited 1957
. .
CitedGoldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
CitedRich v Basterfield 5-Feb-1846
A landlord can be liable in nuisance for the acts of his tenant where the very nature of the letting would lead to that nuisance: ‘If a landlord lets premises, not in themselves a nuisance, but which may or may not be used by the tenant so as to . .
CitedSouthwark London Borough Council v Mills/Tanner; Baxter v Camden London Borough Council HL 21-Oct-1999
Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .
CitedTetley v Chitty 1986
A local council had granted planning permission to a go-kart club to develop a go-kart track on land owned by the authority, and had granted the club a seven year lease to use it for that express purpose.
Held: The council were held liable in . .
CitedMargaret Ribee v Michael Norrie CA 22-Nov-2000
An owner of a property let to tenants was liable to a neighbour injured after a fire in the property, where the fire arose in circumstances which the owner had power, through the making of rules to prevent. The damage arose from a tenant smoking in . .
CitedHussain v Lancaster City Council CA 1999
The court considerd the liability of a landlord for the acts of racial aggravation of his tenant causing damage to his neighbour. The plaintiffs were shopowners and they claimed to have suffered severe harassment from tenants which included threats, . .

Cited by:
CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Principal judgmentLMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.230956

Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council: CA 20 Feb 2004

The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity and foreseeability. The report was a short term pilot report, and could not be used as a base for a claim in negligence. The claim was properly struck out. (Lord Justice Clarke dissenting)

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Wall
[2004] EWCA Civ 175, Times 19-Mar-2004, Gazette 01-Apr-2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedAnns and Others v Merton London Borough Council HL 12-May-1977
The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
CitedDorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
CitedClay v AJ Crump and Sons Ltd CA 1964
An architect, a demolition contractor and a building contractor were each held liable to an employee of building contractors for the collapse of a wall which, with the architect’s approval, demolition contractors had left standing.
Held: As . .
CitedStovin v Wise, Norfolk County Council (Third Party) HL 24-Jul-1996
Statutory Duty Does Not Create Common Law Duty
The mere existence of statutory power to remedy a defect cannot of itself create a duty of care to do so. A highway authority need not have a duty of care to highway users because of its duty to maintain the highway. The two stage test ‘involves . .
CitedSutherland Shire Council v Heyman 4-Jul-1985
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence.
Brennan J said: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. ‘
Dean J said: . .
CitedCaparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
CitedMurphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
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 . .
CitedSiddell and Siddell v Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) (Lead Action) Follows and Follows v Smith Cooper and Partners (a Firm) CA 18-Dec-1998
Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim at an early stage in a developing area of law if when all the facts are know the claim might succeed. . .
CitedJD, MAK and RK, RK and Another v East Berkshire Community Health, Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust and Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Oldham NHS Trust and Dr Blumenthal CA 31-Jul-2003
Damages were sought by parents for psychological harm against health authorities for the wrongful diagnosis of differing forms of child abuse. They appealed dismissal of their awards on the grounds that it was not ‘fair just and reasonable’ to . .
CitedMarc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others HL 6-Jul-1995
A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea.
Held: The marine classification . .
CitedCoulthard, Ashton Shuttleworth, and Dawes v Neville Russell (a Firm) CA 27-Nov-1997
Auditors who were in a position to advise a company’s directors as to the legality of them making loan payments to a shell company which was acquiring there shares had a duty so to advise. The directors of a company sued them for failing to warn . .
CitedPerrett v Collins, Underwood PFA (Ulair) Limited (T/a Popular Flying Association) CA 22-May-1998
The plaintiff was a passenger in an aircraft which crashed, and there was a preliminary issue as to the liability to him of those who certified that the aircraft was fit to fly. The propeller was mismatched to the gearbox.
Held: A certifying . .
CitedFarah and Others v Home Office, British Airways Plc and Another CA 6-Dec-1999
The applicants claimed in negligence against the Home Office after its advisers had wrongly advised the first defendants that the claimants’ travel documents were not valid. The claim was struck out, and the claimants appealed. The strike out was . .
CitedMichael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated CA 19-Dec-2000
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant’s rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation . .
CitedSouth Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants and Investigations Ltd 1992
(New Zealand) Proximity in the law of negligence may consist of various forms of closeness – physical, circumstantial, causal or assumed: ‘It involves considering the relationship from the perspective of both the defendant and the claimant. At root, . .
CitedParkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust CA 11-Apr-2001
A mother had undergone a negligent sterilisation, and in due course she gave birth to a disabled child.
Held: The right to bodily integrity is the first and most important of the interests protected by the law of tort. The cases saying that . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006
Preliminary Report of Risk – No Duty of Care
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. He said that a report had identified the risks. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.193885

The Bodo Community and Others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd: TCC 20 Jun 2014

15,000 or more claimants and claims on behalf of children, sought damages at common law and statutory compensation under the law of Nigeria in relation to oil spills from pipelines said to have been caused by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria in the Niger Delta and said to affect people living in or with connections to neighbouring areas known as Bodo and Gokana.

Akenhead J
[2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .

Cited by:
Principal judgmentThe Bodo Community and Others v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd TCC 4-Jul-2014
Subsidiary judgment identifying on which issues the parties had respectively won or lost so as to allow apportionment of costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533821

Beasley v Alexander: QBD 27 Jul 2012

Sir Raymond Jack
[2012] EWHC 2197 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
LiabilityBeasley v Alexander QBD 9-Oct-2012
beasley_alexanderQBD2012
The parties had disputed liability for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. The court had held the defendant liable, but held over the assessment of damages. The defendant sought to refer to the fact of his offer of settlement when . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence, Personal Injury

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.463325

Condon v Basi: CA 30 Apr 1985

The parties were playing football. The defendant executed a late dangerous and foul tackle on the plaintiff breaking his leg. The defendant was sent off, and the plaintiff sued.
Held: Those taking part in competitive sport still owed a duty of care to others taking part with them. The standard of care was objective and matched the circumstances. If a player fell below the normal and expected standards he should expect to be held liable. There was an obvious breach of the defendant’s duty of care because he showed a reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s safety and his conduct fell far below the standards which might reasonably be expected of anyone playing the game. ‘The standard is objective, but objective in a different set of circumstances. Thus there will of course be a higher degree of care required of a player in a First Division football match than of a player in a Fourth Division football match.’

Sir John Donaldson MR, Stephen Brown LJ, Glidewell J
[1985] 2 All ER 253, [1985] 1 WLR 866, [1985] EWCA Civ 12
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedRootes v Shelton 1965
(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ said: ‘By engaging in a sport or pastime the participants may be held to have accepted risks which are inherent in that sport or pastime: the tribunal of fact can make its own assessment of what the accepted . .

Cited by:
CitedBlake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
CitedCaldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald CA 27-Jun-2001
The claimant, a professional jockey, had been injured when he was unseated as a result of manoeuvres by two fellow jockeys. At trial the judge identified five principles: ‘[1] Each contestant in a lawful sporting contest (and in particular a race) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.188813

Houghton v Stannard: QBD 29 Oct 2003

Mr Justice Mckinnon
[2003] EWHC 2666 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRouse v Squires CA 22-Mar-1973
. .
CitedDymond v Pearce CA 13-Jan-1972
A motorcyclist crashed into the rear of a lorry stationary on the carriageway. The plaintff said that the parking of the lorry was a nuisance, and that if it had not been so parked, there would have been no accident.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedRegina v Jones, Planter and Pengelly 1991
. .

Cited by:
CitedHughes v Guise Motors Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
The claimant’s car had cut out while being driven on a motorway. The driver had been able to pull onto chevrons at a junction but not onto the hard shoulder. The defendant drove into the rear of the vehicle.
Held: The driver had attempted to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Negligence

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.263159

Saunders v Holborn District Board of Works: QBD 1895

Mr Saunders was injured when he slipped on an icy pavement, and claimed damages.
Held: A breach of the duty to remove snow did not give rise to a private law cause of action, any more than a breach of the duty to maintain the highway. Before the 1891 Act (Charles J) ‘it was not the duty of the sanitary authority to take any steps to clear the streets of ice and snow.’ It was a duty, which ‘formerly rested upon the householders.’ (Mathew J)

Charles J, Mathew J
[1895] 1 QB 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGoodes v East Sussex County Council HL 16-Jun-2000
The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road.
Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Negligence

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244698

Helen Green v DB Group Services (UK) Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2006

The claimant sought damages from her former employers, asserting that workplace bullying and harassment had caused injury to her health. She had had a long term history of depression after being abused as a child, and the evidence was conflicting, but she said that the renewed depression arose after many low level acts of exclusion by fellow employees.
Held: The claim succeeded. The claimant ‘was subjected to a relentless campaign of mean and spiteful behaviour designed to cause her distress’ and ‘the connection between the nature of the employment of the women in question and the behaviour in issue was so close that it would be just and reasonable to hold the defendant liable for it. ‘ and ‘Bullying can take many forms. As I have already observed, and as was acknowledged by the claimant, the incidents upon which she relies when viewed individually are not of major significance. It is their cumulative effect that is of importance. His behaviour to her was domineering, disrespectful, dismissive, confrontatory, and designed to undermine and belittle her in the view of others. I am satisfied that such a course of conduct pursued over a considerable period amounted to bullying within the ordinary meaning of the term. ‘ Accordingly the claimant stands to be compensated for two major episodes of depressive disorder followed by a period of four years in which she has not been well enough to return to work and in which her capacity to enjoy life to the full has been seriously disrupted in particular by the relapse in her condition in 2004. She is also entitled to be compensated for the degree to which her vulnerability to depressive disorder has been increased.

The Honourable Mr Justice Owen
[2006] EWHC 1898 (QB), [2006] IRLR 764
Bailii
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1 7
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGarrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedBernard v The Attorney General of Jamaica PC 7-Oct-2004
PC (Jamaica) The claimant had been queuing for some time to make an overseas phone call at the Post Office. Eventually his turn came, he picked up the phone and dialled. Suddenly a man intervened, announced . .
CitedBarlow v Borough of Broxbourne QBD 2003
The claimant sought damages alleging having been bullied and harassed at work.
Held: The questions to be determined when considering whether alleged bullying and harassment give rise to a potential liability in negligence were: ‘(i) whether . .
CitedSutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
CitedThomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .

Cited by:
ApprovedHammond v International Network Services UK Ltd QBD 1-Nov-2007
Peter Coulson QC J said that in order to establish harassment under the 1997 Act, there must be conduct:
i) which occurs on at least two occasions;
ii) which is targeted at the claimant;
iii) which is calculated in an objective sense . .
CitedRayment v Ministry of Defence QBD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging harassment by officers employed by the defendant. An internal investigation had revealed considerable poor behaviour by the senior officers, and that was followed by hostile behaviour. The defendant had put up . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Personal Injury, Employment, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.244131

Palmer v Durnford Ford: QBD 1992

The plaintiff had consented to judgment for his opponent in a case against both the supplier and a repairer of a lorry tractor unit. They subsequently sued an engineering expert on the ground that his incompetent report had led them to advance claims on a basis that was invalid, and their solicitors for negligence in engaging an incompetent expert. The expert persuaded the district judge to strike out the claim against him on the ground that he was immune from suit.
Held: Witnesses are immune from suit in relation to their conduct as witnesses. Mr. Simon Tuckey QC said: ‘Generally I do not think that liability for failure to give careful advice to his client should inhibit an expert from giving truthful and fair evidence in court. I can see no good reason why an expert should not be liable for the advice which he gives to his client as to the merits of the claim, particularly if proceedings have not been started, and a fortiori as to whether he is qualified to advise at all.’

Mr. Simon Tuckey QC
[1992] QB 483, [1992] 2 WLR 407, [1992] 2 All ER 122
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGeneral Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
CitedJones v Kaney SC 30-Mar-2011
An expert witness admitted signing a joint report but without agreeing to it. The claimant who had lost his case now pursued her in negligence. The claimant appealed against a finding that the expert witness was immune from action.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Negligence

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.245756