Category: Negligence

Couch v Attorney-General: 13 Jun 2008

Nzlii Supreme Court of New Zealand – [1] The victim of a criminal assault claims exemplary damages from the Attorney-General for claimed failures of the Probation Service to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of the parolee who seriously injured her. Her claim has been struck out in the Court of Appeal on the basis that it discloses no cause of action because no duty of care was owed by the Probation Service to her. A further argument that the claim should be struck out on the basis that exemplary damages are not available for negligently causing personal injury did not have to be addressed in the Court of Appeal, because it took the view that no duty of care arose. Whether exemplary damages can be claimed, if a duty of care cannot be excluded, remains a live preliminary issue but is not disposed of in this judgment because the parties did not have time at the hearing to address the point. The question for determination now is whether the Probation Service may owe a duty of care in law to the victim. As the Court is unanimous in resolving this question in favour of the plaintiff, so that the basis on which the claim was struck out in the Court of Appeal falls away, it will be necessary to hold a further hearing on the availability of exemplary damages, if the parties require that matter to be determined before trial. Because the parties may wish to reconsider whether the availability of exemplary damages is suitable for determination before trial, in the light of the discussion in the reasons of the Court about the principles upon which strike-out is appropriate, the appeal is formally adjourned so that memoranda can be filed within one month on that point. If further hearing is required, a fixture will then be made. If further hearing is not necessary, formal orders reinstating the proceedings will be made.
[2] Whether the Probation Service may owe a duty of care to the victim of a criminal assault by a parolee under its supervision is not resolved by New Zealand authority. It falls to be determined in this Court on a strike-out basis, ahead of determination of the facts and before completion of pre-trial processes, including finalisation of the pleadings. Whether the circumstances relied on by the plaintiff are capable of giving rise to a duty of care is the question for the Court. If a duty of care cannot confidently be excluded, the claim must be allowed to proceed. It is only if it is clear that the claim cannot succeed as a matter of law that it can be struck out.
[3] We are of the view that the claim is not so clearly untenable as to be suitable for peremptory determination on untested facts. We are unable to agree with the majority in the Court of Appeal that it should be struck out. We consider that strike-out is premature for reasons similar to those that persuaded Hammond J to dissent in the Court of Appeal.
[4] Although we agree with Tipping J that the claim should not be struck out as disclosing no duty of care, we differ from him in the approach to be taken in ascertaining whether a duty of care can arise in these circumstances. Tipping J suggests that a duty of care to prevent harm inflicted by a third party arises only where the plaintiff, either as an individual or as a member of an ‘identifiable and sufficiently delineated class’, is known to the defendant to be ‘the subject of a distinct and special risk’ of the harm suffered because of particular vulnerability. [1] Requiring such test to be satisfied in all cases where harm results from third party intervention seems to us to introduce undesirable relational rigidity into the general organising principles for the tort of negligence applied in New Zealand in such cases as Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd [2] and South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants and Investigations Ltd, [3] in application of Donoghue v Stevenson [4] and Anns v London Borough of Merton. [5] Whether there is sufficient relationship of proximity between the person injured by a parolee and the Probation Service supervising the parolee turns on a broad inquiry without controlling emphasis on the plaintiff’s membership of an ‘identifiable and sufficiently delineated class’.
[5] Two factors are likely to be key at trial. The first is the background of the Probation Service’s statutory obligations of supervision and control over the parolee, which included the power to control where he worked. The statutory obligations and powers are imposed in substantial part for the protection of the public. We do not think it can be confidently said at this preliminary stage that in carrying out its statutory responsibilities the Probation Service cannot owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, whether as fellow employee of the parolee (the basis upon which her counsel puts it) or indeed as a member of the public. The second factor is the knowledge held as to the risk the parolee presented and the means reasonably available to the Probation Service for avoiding harm through realisation of such risk. Cardozo CJ famously said of duty of care in negligence that ‘risk imports relation’.[6] Because the facts bearing on risk and its avoidance are not yet known, and in the absence of any other clear impediment to the existence of a duty of care (such as might be found if such a duty was inconsistent with the statutory functions of the Probation Service), we consider that to strike out the proceedings would be premature.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
[2008] 3 NZLR 725, [2008] NZSC 45
Nzlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Smith v Leurs 22-Oct-1945
High Court of Australia – The parents of a child denied liability for harm caused by their son using a shanghai.
Held: Dixon J said that: ‘It is, however, exceptional to find in the law a duty to control another’s actions to prevent harm to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.556829

Smith v Leurs: 22 Oct 1945

High Court of Australia – The parents of a child denied liability for harm caused by their son using a shanghai.
Held: Dixon J said that: ‘It is, however, exceptional to find in the law a duty to control another’s actions to prevent harm to strangers. The general rule is that one man is under no duty of controlling another man to prevent his doing damage to a third. There are, however, special relations which are the source of a duty of this nature.’
Latham CJ, Starke, Dixon and McTiernan JJ
(1945) 70 CLR 256, [1945] HCA 27
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Couch v Attorney-General 13-Jun-2008
Nzlii Supreme Court of New Zealand – [1] The victim of a criminal assault claims exemplary damages from the Attorney-General for claimed failures of the Probation Service to exercise reasonable care in the . .
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.556830

Riss v City of New York: 1986

New York Court of Appeals – a young woman who had repeatedly sought police protection against a rejected suitor after repeated threats was blinded by a thug hired by him.
Held: (Keating J dissenting) No action for negligence lay. Individuals, juries and courts are ill-equipped to judge ‘considered legislative-executive decision[s]’ as to how particular community resources should be or should have been allocated to protect individual members of the public.’ The provision of a government service to protect the public from external hazards and to control the activities of criminal wrongdoers was more appropriate for a considered legislative – executive decision, taking into account the limited resources of the community.
240 NE2d 860, 293 NYS2d 897, (1986) 22 NY2d 579
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.556807

Cuffy v City of New York: 1987

New York Court of Appeals – The court set out the elements of a special relationship between a municipality and a plaintiff which would negate a municipality’s claim to immunity: ‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) that party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking.’
(1987) 513 NYS2d 372, (1987) 505 NE2d 937, (1987) 69 NY2d 255
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.556809

Noakes v City of Seattle: 1995

(1995) 895 P2d 842, (1995) 77 Wash App 694, 641 FSupp 2d 168
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.556810

Robinson v West Yorkshire Police: CA 5 Feb 2014

The claimant was a bystander, injured during an arrest on the street by officers employed by the respondent. She now appealed against rejection of her claim in negligence. Held; No duty of care was owed, and that, even if the officers had owed Mrs Robinson such a duty, they had not acted in breach of it, and this case was: was ‘a paradigm example of why the courts are loath to impose a duty towards individual members of the public on the police engaged in their core functions’
Hallett LJ considered that ‘the Caparo test applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence’. In consequence, ‘. . the court will only impose a duty where it considers it right to do so on the facts’. The general principle was that ‘most claims against the police in negligence for their acts and omissions in the course of investigating and suppressing crime and apprehending offenders will fail the third stage of the Caparo test’. That is to say, ‘. . it will not be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty’. That is because ‘the courts have concluded that the interests of the public will not be best served by imposing a duty on to individuals’
Lady Justice Hallett, Vice President of the CACD
[2014] EWCA Civ 15
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Caparo 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 – Desmond v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police CA 12-Jan-2011
The claimant appealed from the rejection of his claim in negligence against the police. He had been arrested on suspicion of a sexual assault, but the investigating officer concluded that he was not responsible for the crime. Despite this, several . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.635203

Desmond v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police: CA 12 Jan 2011

The claimant appealed from the rejection of his claim in negligence against the police. He had been arrested on suspicion of a sexual assault, but the investigating officer concluded that he was not responsible for the crime. Despite this, several years later the allegation was disclosed on an Enhanced Criminal Records Check, impeding his employment as a teacher.
Held: The appeal failed. Police immunity in negligence is not confined to cases of omission.
Leveson LJ President of the Queen’s Bench Division
[2011] EWCA Civ 3, [2011] 1 FLR 1361, [2011] Fam Law 358, [2011] PTSR 1369
Bailii
Police Act 1997 115
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Desmond v The Chief Constable Of Nottinghamshhire Police QBD 1-Oct-2009
The claimant appealed against the striking out of parts of his claim alleging negligence and misfeasance. He had been arrested on suspicion of indecent assault, but then was fully cleared by a third officer. When he later applied for an enhanced CRB . .

Cited by:
Cited – Robinson v West Yorkshire Police CA 5-Feb-2014
The claimant was a bystander, injured during an arrest on the street by officers employed by the respondent. She now appealed against rejection of her claim in negligence. Held; No duty of care was owed, and that, even if the officers had owed Mrs . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.427981

Michael 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 previously. Her family sought damages. The Chief Constable sought to strike out the claim saying no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.
Held: There should be summary judgment in favour of the defendants on the negligence claim for reasons given by Longmore LJ, with which Richards and Davis LJJ agreed. The majority upheld Judge Jarman’s decision that the Article 2 claim should proceed to trial. Davis LJ dissented on that issue. He would have held that on the facts alleged by the claimants there was no possibility that the claim under article 2 could succeed.
Longmore, Richards, Davis LJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 981
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Cited – Caparo 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 – Osman 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, . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.462973

Glamorgan Coal Company Ltd v Glamorganshire Standing Joint Committee: CA 1916

The court considered the duties on police constables to protect property.
Held: Pickford LJ said: ‘[The defendants] are the police authority and have to make proper police arrangements to maintain the peace. If one party to a dispute is threatened with violence by the other party he is entitled to protection from such violence whether his contention in the dispute be right or wrong.’
. . and ‘If one party to a dispute is threatened with violence by the other party he is entitled to protection from such violence whether his contention in the dispute be right or wrong, and to allow the police authority to deny him protection from that violence unless he pays all the expense in addition to the contribution which with other ratepayers he makes to the support of the police is only one degree less dangerous than to allow that authority to decide which party is right in the dispute and grant or withhold protection accordingly. There is a moral duty on each party to the dispute to do nothing to aggravate it and to take reasonable means of self-protection, but the discharge of this duty by them is not a condition precedent to the discharge by the police authority of their own duty.’
Pickford LJ, Viscount Finlay, Lord Carson
[1916] 2 KB 206
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Glamorgan Coal Co v Glamorgan Joint Standing Committee 1915
Bankes LJ said that the duties of police forces include the preservation of the peace, the protection of the inhabitants, and the safeguarding of property within their area. . .

Cited by:
Approved – Glasbrook Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County Council HL 1925
A colliery manager asked for police protection for his colliery during a strike. He wanted police officers to be billeted on the premises. The senior police officer for the area was willing to provide protection by a mobile force, but he refused to . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Cited – Michael 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.276398

Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council: CA 1972

The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in performing all associated tasks.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘If Mr Tapp’s submissions were right, it would mean that if the inspector negligently passes the house as properly built and it collapses and injures a person, the council are liable : but if the owner discovers the defect in time to repair it – and he does repair it – the council are not liable. That is an impossible distinction. They are liable in either case’.
Lord Denning MR
[1972] 1 All ER 462, [1972] 2 WLR 299, [1972] 1 QB 373, [1972] CLY 2352
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Donoghue (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 – Dorset 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 . .
Cited – Rondel v Worsley HL 1967
Need for Advocate’s Immunity from Negligence
The appellant had obtained the services of the respondent barrister to defend him on a dock brief, and alleged that the respondent had been negligent in the conduct of his defence.
Held: The House considered the immunity from suit of . .
Cited – Launchbury v Morgans CA 1971
The wife owned the car. The husband who had drunk to excess drove the car with her permission, causing severe injury to the passengers and his own death. She was not present.
Held: From considerations of policy, as the owner of the family car . .
Cited – SCM (United Kingdom) Ltd v W J Whittall and Son Ltd CA 1970
The defendants’ workmen damaged an electric cable belonging to the electricity board, cutting off several factories, including the plaintiff’s. The defendant sought to have the claim struck out.
Held: The part of the claim arising from . .

Cited by:
Cited – Anns 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 – Murphy 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 . .
Cited – Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited Admn 28-Jan-2000
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they . .
Cited – Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.180551

Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office: CA 1969

[1969] 2 QB 412, [1969] 2 WLR 1008, [1969] 2 All ER 564
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dorset 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.181209

Murray v Nicholls: 1983

A car was driven without stopping out of a side street colliding with another car. One driver was killed and his passengers were injured. They sued the driver’s widow and Strathclyde Regional Council as roads authority. It was averred that, some considerable time before the accident, Strathclyde had caused white lines to be painted at the junction, indicating that priority should be given to traffic in Victoria Place. But the lines had been all but obliterated as a result of road works some months before the accident and they had not been repainted. There were no signs at the junction. The pursuers averred that Strathclyde were in breach of their duty to take reasonable care that roads in their area were maintained in such a condition that persons using them could do so in safety. They had failed to have the lines repainted as soon as was reasonably practicable after the works were completed and they had failed to erect and maintain warning signs.
Held: The pursuers’ averments directed against Strathclyde were irrelevant and so the action against them was dismissed. The previous existence of the white lines at the junction was sufficient to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that, in the absence of such an indication, a vehicle might be driven into Victoria Place without stopping. ‘But while foreseeability is no doubt necessary to found a duty it does not follow from the mere fact of foreseeability that a duty will necessarily arise. No case was cited to me in which a road authority has been held to be at fault merely by reason of failure to mark white lines on the roadway or erect a warning sign at a road junction in a built-up area. The only authority referred to by counsel for the pursuers was Bird v Pearce where the point was expressly reserved. The ratio of the decision whereby the road authority was found to be at fault was that by markings on the road they had created a pattern of traffic flow on which drivers could expect to rely and that the obliteration of the markings caused something of the nature of a trap of which the defendants ought to have given warning. In the present case there is no averment to suggest that either driver was influenced by the existence of the markings at an earlier date. What is said is that because of houses and walls adjacent to the road, those driving northwards towards the junction would have no visibility to the east until they actually reached it, but that is no more than the normal state of affairs in a built-up area. The fact that white lines had been put there before while relevant to the question of foreseeability has no bearing otherwise on the existence of a duty. If the pursuers’ contention were accepted it would open up a wide field for actions against road authorities. It would seem, for instance, to follow that the pedestrian run down when crossing a busy thoroughfare would be entitled to say that his injuries were caused by the failure of the authority to set the machinery in motion for the provision of a pedestrian crossing. If such duties are to be imposed on road authorities, that should in my opinion be done by Parliament and not by courts of law, and in the absence of authority I am not prepared to hold that the power given to a local authority to mark white lines on the roadway and erect warning signs implies a duty to do so at every crossing in a built-up area where there is a considerable volume of traffic.’
1983 SLT 194
Cited by:
Cited – Gorringe 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.195694

Allen v Bloomsbury Health Authority: 1993

The plaintiff sought damages after a failed sterilisation. She had been apprehensive during the pregnancy that the child might be handicapped, and in the event the child suffered from temper tantrums, a speech defect and slight dyslexia.
Held: Damages of andpound;2500 was awarded in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenities, of which general damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities up to the birth were andpound;1250. Nothing was awarded in respect of the fact that the child had these disabilities. andpound;2500 was awarded because it was the sum which the defendants conceded was proper. The court should award all such expenses as might reasonably be incurred for the education and upkeep of the unplanned child, having regard to the condition in life of the child and the reasonable requirements of the child. That would include expensive schools if that was how the child’s siblings had been educated, even though this might result in ‘a very substantial claim’.
Brooke J
[1993] 1 All ER 651, [1992] 3 Med LR 257, (1992) 13 BMLR 47
Cited by:
Applied – Nunnerley and Another v Warrington Health Authority and Another QBD 26-Nov-1999
Where negligent advice lead to the birth of a disabled child who would not otherwise have been conceived, the damages to be awarded could include the costs of educating and otherwise caring for the child beyond the age of eighteen. Such duties did . .
Cited – MacFarlane and Another v Tayside Health Board HL 21-Oct-1999
Child born after vasectomy – Damages Limited
Despite a vasectomy, Mr MacFarlane fathered a child, and he and his wife sought damages for the cost of care and otherwise of the child. He appealed a rejection of his claim.
Held: The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.180538

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire: CA 1988

Glidewell LJ
[1988] 1 QB 60
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.219423

Jarvis v Hampshire County Council: CA 23 Nov 1999

A child who did not receive sufficient education appropriate to his disability (dyslexia), did not acquire a right to claim in damages against the education authority. This applies both to claims of misfeasance in public office and in negligence. The authority owed him no direct duty of care. The claim of misfeasance implied dishonesty which would have to be clearly supported.
Times 23-Nov-1999, Gazette 17-Dec-1999
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Phelps 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.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Phelps 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.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.82500

Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 2 May 2002

The claimant sought damages, alleging that an accident occurred as a result of the defendant highway authority’s negligence in failing to mark the road properly. A ‘Slow’ sign had become faded and had not been maintained.
Held: The judge had failed to apply the Lavis case, which had held that such omissions were not a duty imposed on the authority under the 1980 Act, and accordingly they were not negligent for having failed to do so. There were not such exceptional circumstances as would be needed to find such a duty. The sign would have been ‘no more than a warning of the need to do that which should have been obvious to her in any event as she drove up from the dip.’
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice May and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Times 16-May-2002, Gazette 30-May-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 595, [2002] RTR 446
Bailii
Highways Act 1980 41, Road Traffic Act 1988 39
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Lavis v Kent County Council QBD 18-Feb-1992
The plaintiff had received serious injuries whilst riding his motor cycle at a road junction for which the defendants were responsible. He alleged that they were liable to him for failing to ensure that proper warning signs were placed at the . .
Cited – Larner v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council CA 20-Dec-2000
The duty on a local authority to promote road safety did not remove from them the discretion as to how that duty was to be implemented. A claim that the authority had failed to place certain signage, and that an accident had occurred which might not . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Gorringe 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.171183

W v Essex County Council and Another: HL 17 Mar 2000

A foster child was placed with a family. The child had a history of abusing other children, but the foster parents, who had other children were not told. The foster child caused psychiatric damage to the carers.
Held: It was wrong to strike out the claim. It was actionable. The psychiatric damage pleaded was not necessarily too remote. That would be a matter for the judge at trial. ‘Whether the nature of the council’s task is such that the court should not recognise an actionable duty of care, in other words that the claim is not justiciable, and whether there is a breach of the duty depend, in the first place, on an investigation of the full facts known to, and the factors influencing the decision of, the defendants.’
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Gazette 30-Mar-2000, Times 17-Mar-2000, [2000] UKHL 17, [2000] 2 All ER 237, [2000] 2 WLR 601, [2001] 2 AC 592, [2000] 1 FLR 657, [2000] 1 FCR 568, (2000) 53 BMLR 1, [2000] BLGR 281
HL, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – W 1-6 v Essex County Council and Another CA 2-Apr-1998
A Local Authority had a duty of care to a fostering family when allocating children. A child was known to have a history of sexual abuse and was fostered with a family with other children, and no warning had been given.
Foster parents sued the . .

Cited by:
Cited – A 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 . .
Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
Cited – Phelps 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.
Cited – Mitchell 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 . .
Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.90209

Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party): CA 16 Feb 1994

A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The Highway Authority could be liable in negligence for failing to achieve a remedy to a situation which it knew to be dangerous, but that no additional duty was owed, under its statutory duty to maintain the highway, to execute works on private land. Kennedy LJ ‘I agree with the judge that the statutory duty to maintain the highway does not extend to work on land not forming part of the highway. There is no definition of highway in the Act of 1980 beyond that in section 328(1), where it is defined as meaning ‘the whole or a part of a highway, other than a ferry or waterway,’ but the common law definition is that a highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage. It seems to me that despite what is contained in the other statutory provisions to which we have been referred it would be stretching the meaning of both ‘highway’ and ‘maintain’ if this court were to say that in order to comply with its duty to maintain the highway authority had to remove an obstruction to visibility situated on adjoining land. In my judgment sections 79 and 154 are merely sections which enable the highway authority to carry out functions which go beyond the scope of section 41. Accordingly I conclude that the judge was right not to find any relevant breach of statutory duty.’
Nourse, Kennedy and Roch L.JJ
Times 08-Mar-1994, Gazette 13-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 467, [1994] 1 WLR 1124
lip
Highways Act 1980 41(1) 328(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .
Considered – Anns 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 . .
Considered – Murphy 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 . .
Distinguished – East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
Distinguished – Sheppard v Glossop Corporation CA 1921
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Stovin 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 . .
Cited – Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Network Rail Infrastructure Limited QBD 30-Oct-2003
A driver had crashed through a barrier before a bridge, and descended into the path of a train. Ten people died. He now sought a contribution order against the Secretary of State for the condition of the barrier which was said to be faulty.
Cited – Kane v New Forest District Council CA 13-Jun-2001
A pedestrian walked from a footpath into the road and was hit by a car. She sought damages from the highway authority, saying that they had allowed vegetation to grow to an extent to make it impossible to be seen. As a second tier appeal, the . .
Cited – Thoburn v Northumberland County Council CA 19-Jan-1999
The claimant alleged that the defendant by allowing a flood across a road not to be cleared was in breach of their statutory duty under the 1980 Act.
Held: Though the blockage was not entirely on the Highway, the nature and extent of it was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.89578

Woodbridge School v Chittock: CA 27 Jun 2002

A child on a school skiing trip, had been injured whilst skiing on-piste, but unsupervised. The school appealed a finding of liability.
Held: The teachers and supervisors owed the same duty of care as a reasonably careful parent with some knowledge and understanding of the dangers of skiing. Allowance had to be made for the child’s own level of competence and the duties to the rest of the group. There was no duty to ensure his safety against injury from skiing mishaps such as those that might result from his own misjudgment or inadvertence when skiing unsupervised on-piste. The court set out the detailed standard of care owed by a school to its pupils.
Auld LJ said: ‘Where there are a number of options for the teacher as to the manner in which he might discharge that duty, he is not negligent if he chooses one which, exercising the Bolam test (1957] 1 WLR 582), would be within a reasonable range of options for a reasonable teacher exercising that duty of care in the circumstances.’
Lord Justice Auld
Times 15-Jul-2002, Gazette 22-Aug-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 915, [2003] PIQR P6
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kearn-Price v Kent County Council CA 30-Oct-2002
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: . .
Cited – Connor v Surrey County Council CA 18-Mar-2010
The claimant teacher said that she suffered personal injury from stress after the board of governors improperly failed to protect her from from false complaints. The Council now appealed against an award of substantial damages.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.174115

Wheat v E Lacon and Co Ltd: HL 1966

The Appellant’s husband, fell while going down the back stairs of a public house called ‘The Golfer’s Arm’ at Great Yarmouth. He was found lying on the floor of the vestibule at the bottom of the stairs and died later. She appealed against rejection of her claim and appeal.
Held: The word ‘occupier’ has a different meaning according to the subject matter in which it is employed. Lord Pearson used the phrase ‘control associated with and arising from presence in and use of activity in the premises.
There can be more than one occupier of the same premises for the purpose of the 1957 Act.
Lord Denning defined an occupier for the purposes of the Act by examples the second of which was:- ‘Secondly, where an owner let floors or flats in a building to tenants, but did not demise the common staircase or roof or some other parts, he was regarded as having retained control of all parts not demised by him. Accordingly he was held to be under a duty in respect of those retained parts to all persons coming lawfully on to the premises… But the old cases still apply so as to show that the Landlord is responsible for all parts not demised by him, on the ground that he is regarded as being sufficiently in control of them to impose on him a duty of care to all persons coming lawfully on to the premises.’ and ‘the structure was reasonably safe including the handrail and that the system of lighting was efficient, but I doubt whether they were bound to see that the lights were properly switched on or the rugs laid safely on the floor.’
Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Denning, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Pearce, Lord Pearson
[1966] AC 552, [1966] UKHL 1, [1965] 3 WLR 142
Bailii
Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harris v Birkenhead Corporation CA 12-Nov-1975
A four year old child had fallen from a second-story window in a derelict house owned by the defendant, and suffered serious injury. The house and others had been purchased by compulsion for intended clearance. The Corporation appealed against a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.242622

Hayes and Another v Dodd: CA 7 Jul 1988

The court considered what damages might be paid for inconvenience and distress.
Purchas LJ, Staughton LJ, Waller LJ
[1988] EWCA Civ 8, [1990] 2 All ER 815
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
Cited – Watts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .
Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.252501

Bird v Holbrook: CCP 9 May 1828

Whether a trespasser who was injured could recover or not depends at common law upon whether notice had been given him of the presence of those dangers on the defendant’s land. Burrough J said: ‘The Plaintiff was only a trespasser: if the Defendant had been present, he would not have been authorised even in taking him into custody, and no man can do indirectly that which he is forbidden to do directly.’
Burrough J, Best CJ
(1828) 4 Bing 628, [1828] EngR 580, (1828) 130 ER 911
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.180981

Thornbridge Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: QBD 27 Nov 2015

The claimant, Thornbridge Limited, seeks damages for losses which it alleges it suffered as a result of entering into an interest rate swap with Barclays Bank PLC in 2008. The claimant alleges that the defendant was negligent and/or in breach of contract and/or in breach of statutory duty in respect of information and advice given to the claimant in relation to the swap.
Held: The claim failed: ‘This is in my view a case based on hindsight and a loan agreement which did not operate as the parties intended. As I have found on the evidence before me, it is not a case of a claimant being advised to enter, or being misled into entering, into a swap which in the circumstances was unsuitable. ‘
Moulder HHJ
[2015] EWHC 3430 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.556970

Pritchard v Clwyd County Council: CA 16 Jun 1992

The plaintiff was injured wading through a flooded street. She claimed damages alleging a failure to maintain the storm water sewers. The defendants appealed a finding that they were responsible, and she appealed a contributory negligence apportionment at 50%
As to res ipsa loquitur: ‘there is, as it seems to me, an inherent difficulty where an allegation is made against two separate authorities each under different and separate duties in respect of different installations in saying that because water collected on the highway that is indicative of a failure of each of them to carry out their public duty. I have always understood that in order to show that the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies it is necessary for it to be shown that the event upon which reliance is placed was first of all more consistent with the failure to carry out a duty or to take care on the part of the defendant, and secondly that it pointed to a particular defendant as having been at fault, and that if all that was shown was that one of a number of persons might have been responsible then the maxim had no application, for it could not be shown that the event was under the exclusive control of the defendant alleged to be liable.’
Stocker, Beldam LJJ
[1992] EWCA Civ 22
Bailii
Control of Pollution Act 1974 22
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Burgess v Northwich Local Board 1880
In the context of the duty of a local parish to maintain a highway, Lindley J said: ‘An occasional flooding, even if it temporarily renders a highway impassable, is not sufficient to sustain an indictment for non-repair.’
Counsel accepted . .
Cited – Burnside v Emerson CA 1968
A car crashed as a result of running into a pool of storm-water lying across the road. The pool had been caused by the authority’s failure properly to maintain the drainage system, which had become blocked.
Held: The claim succeeded. Diplock . .
Cited – Haydon v Kent County Council CA 1978
Impacted snow and ice had built up on a steep, narrow, made-up footpath from Monday to Thursday during a short wintry spell. The plaintiff slipped and broke her ankle. The highway authority operated a system of priorities. Their resources were fully . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 October 2021; Ref: scu.653365

Cooke v Midland and Great Western Railway Co: HL 1 Mar 1909

(on Appeal From The Court of Appeal In Ireland) A railway company possessed a turntable in an otherwise vacant field. The field adjoined a public road from which it was imperfectly fenced. The field was commonly frequented by trespassers, chiefly children, whom the railway company took no effective steps to exclude. The turntable, which was not locked, was made to revolve by children, and the plaintiff, a four year old child, was seriously injured thereby, and sought damages. He: In these circumstances there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the railway company to support the jury’s verdict for the plaintiff.
Orse: Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, and Collins
[1909] UKHL 1027, 46 SLR 1027, [1909] UKLawRpAC 7, [1909] AC 229
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.620574

Davis v Hassan: 1967

All cases calling for attribution of liaibility where an emergency vehicle is in collision with another vehicle fall to be decided on their own facts.
[1967] 117 NLJ 72
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance CA 8-Oct-1997
A driver who had crossed through a green traffic light but had collided with an ambulance was 60 per cent contributorily negligent. He had failed to hear the ambulance, had failed to see it, and had ignored unusal driving of other motorists.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.224493

Talbot v Berkshire County Council: CA 23 Mar 1993

In a motor accident, both driver and passenger were injured. The passenger sued the driver. The driver’s insurers, without notice to the driver, made a third party claim against the Berkshire County Council, claiming contribution as between joint tortfeasors but including no claim for the driver’s own injuries. The driver later discovered his insurer’s action and himself sought damages from the council.
Held: A cause of action estoppel, which estops a plaintiff pursuing a second action which could have been combined with a first action, applied to an action for personal injuries to prevent a motorist suing a highway authority. The insurers’ solicitors appeared to have been negligent but the claim against the county council should be struck out unless there were special circumstances, and in this case there were not.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘There can be no doubt that the [driver’s] personal injury claim could have been brought at the time of [the passenger’s] action. It could have been included in the original third party notice issued against the council (R.S.C., Ord. 16, r. 1(b)(c)); it could have been started by a separate writ and consolidated with or ordered to be tried with [the passenger’s] action: Ord. 4, r. 9. The third party proceedings could have been amended at any time before trial and perhaps even during the trial to include such a claim, notwithstanding that it was statute-barred, since it arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the cause of action in respect of which relief was already claimed, namely, contribution or indemnity in respect of [the passenger’s] claim: Ord. 20, r. 5. In my opinion, if it was to be pursued, it should have been so brought.’ and

‘The rule is thus in two parts. The first relates to those points which were actually decided by the court: this is res judicata in the strict sense. Secondly, those which might have been brought forward at the time, but were not. The second is not a true case of res judicata but rather is founded on the principle of public policy in preventing multiplicity of actions, it being in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation: the court will stay or strike out the subsequent action as an abuse of process.’
Stuart-Smith LJ, Mann LJ, Nourse LJ
Times 23-Mar-1993, [1994] QB 290
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – C (A Minor) v Hackney London Borough Council CA 10-Nov-1995
The mother had claimed in damages for the injuries to her health from the landlord authority’s failure to repair. Her child then brought a subsequent action in respect of his own injuries. The authority claimed the action should be stopped as res . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Cited – Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent CA 14-May-1998
The claimant had brought and lost an action relating to his dismissal by the defendant, who now appealed against an order that he was not estopped from bring a second claim on a different basis namely race discrimination, disapplying the rule in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.89696

James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 25 Jul 2018

The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from economic and reputational harm. Four officers arrested a suspected terrorist who later alleged mistreatment. The officers were cleared after investigation, but the arrestee then issued a civil claim against the chief constable. The officers suffered threats of violence against themselves. The CC settled the claim and complained of their refusing to give evidence without protection. The officers now alleged failures in the Commissioners duty of care to them.
Held: The Commissioner’s appeal was granted. The imposition of the claimed duty would not be fair, just or reasonable.
Although employees would normally have no entitlement to disclosure of privileged material in the possession of their employer relating to the defence of the original proceedings, the effective defence of proceedings by the employees against the employer brought on the basis that the earlier proceedings were conducted in breach of duty may well require waiver of privilege in order to demonstrate the contrary. This has the potential to undermine the effective conduct of the defence of the original claim against the employer in that the possibility of such a claim in negligence and the likelihood of having to waive privilege may well inhibit frank discussion between the employer and his legal advisers.
Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC. Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge JJSC
[2018] UKSC 40, [2018] 1 WLR 3945, [2018] 1 WLR 4021, [2018] IRLR 954, [2018] ICR 1353, [2018] WLR(D) 529, UKSC 2017/0003
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Mar 6 am Video, SC 2018 Mar 6 pm Video, SC 2018 Mar 7 am Video, SC 2018 Mar 7 pm Video
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – James-Bowen and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 1-May-2015
The claimants were police officers, subject to disciplinary proceedings after a complaint by an arrested terrorist subject that he had been assaulted. The allegations were dismissed, but they now complained that the respondent had not implemented . .
Appeal fom – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis CA 30-Nov-2016
Appeal against the order of Jay J. striking out the particulars of claim and entering judgment for the respondent, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, in an action brought against him by the four appellants, all of whom were, at the time . .
Cited – Caparo 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 – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – White, 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 . .
Cited – Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International HL 12-Jun-1997
Allowance of Stigma Damages
The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination.
Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that . .
Cited – Stevens v University of Birmingham QBD 31-Jul-2015
. .
Cited – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd SC 18-Mar-2015
The claimant’s husband had been lost from the defendant’s ship at sea. The defendant had contracted to pay compensation unless the loss was by suicide. They so determined. The court was now asked whether that was a permissible conclusion in the . .
Cited – Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council CA 26-Jul-2000
The employee sought damages for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, even though she remained throughout the employment of the Council against whom she was bringing proceedings.
Held: Her remaining in employment was a factor . .
Cited – Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 21-Nov-2014
Diplomat withdrawn from post following allegations of inappropriate conduct . .
Cited – Eastwood and another v Magnox Electric plc; McCabe v Cornwall County Council and others HL 15-Jul-2004
The first claimants were long standing employees. Mr Eastwood fell out with his manager, who disciplined him using false statements. When Williams refused to provide a false statement he too was disciplined. Each claimed damages for the injury to . .
Cited – Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Cited – Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys SC 19-Dec-2012
The claimant’s employment by the bank had been terminated. The parties disputed the sums due, and the date of the termination of the contract. The court was asked ‘Does a repudiation of a contract of employment by the employer which takes the form . .
Cited – HM 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. . .
Cited – Crossley v Faithfull and Gould Holdings Ltd CA 16-Mar-2004
The employee claimant was to retire. On his employer’s negligent advice he resigned and opted for discretionary benefits.
Held: The employer owed no general duty of care to an employee’s financial interests. Nor could a term requiring such a . .
Cited – Donoghue (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 – Hedley 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 . .
Cited – Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
Cited – JD 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 . .
Exemplar – Mohidin and Others v Commissioner of The Police of The Metropolis and Others QBD 27-Jan-2016
. .
Cited – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .
Cited – Steel 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 . .
Cited – ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Others CA 16-May-2017
Appeal from order striking out claim at common law as disclosing no reasonably arguable duty of care. The claimant’s father, whilst detained as a mental patient had been diagnosed with Huntington’s Disease, but the defendant, knowing that the . .
Cited – Dennis and Sons Ltd v West Norfolk Farmers Manure and Chemical Co-operative Co Ltd ChD 1943
Shareholders were entitled to disclosure of an accountants’ report concerning the rights and duties of the board commissioned by the directors, notwithstanding that by the time the report was received the shareholders had commenced proceedings . .
Cited – Willers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Cited – CIA Barca de Panama SA v George Wimpey and Co Ltd CA 1980
Claim to Legal Professional Privilege Lost
Barca and Wimpey had been 50/50 joint venturers through the medium of a company called DLW which had provided services to oil companies in the Middle East, including the Aramco Group. Wimpey agreed to buy out Barca’s interest in DLW on terms which . .
Cited – Dian AO v Davis, Frankel and Mead QBD 2005
Application was made for the disclosure of documents from an earlier court case involving the defendants.
Held: The application as made was disallowed. The right thing to do was to identify the documents it sought with reasonable precision and . .
Cited – Commercial Union Assurance Co plc v Mander QBD 1996
Moore-Bick J provided the following example: ‘Although in many cases a relationship between two parties which supports common interest privilege will be one which also gives each of them a right to obtain disclosure of confidential documents . .
Cited – Dian AO v Davis Frankel and Mead 2005
Moore-Bick J discussed the principle of open justice, saying that the highest importance was to be attached to the principle and that it was for that reason that in ‘all but exceptional cases’ hearings are conducted in public, judgment is delivered . .

Cited by:
Cited – Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust SC 10-Oct-2018
The claimant had been assaulted. He presented at the defendant hospital with head injuries. Despite his complaints he said he was not treated properly, being told to wait five hours at reception, and went home. Later an ambulance was delayed and he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.620135

Michael 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 parents now appealed against rejection of their claims.
Held: The appeals failed (Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissenting) The court said that the situation did not warrant a departure from the ordinary application of common law principles that a defendant will not in general be made liable for harm to a claimant caused by the conduct of a third party.
Lord Toulson made clear that Lord Bridge’s speech in Caparo was not intended to be a universal rule: ‘What emerges [from the post-Anns decisions] is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of ‘proximity’ or ‘neighbourhood’ and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other. But it is implicit in the passages referred to that the concepts of proximity and fairness embodied in these additional ingredients are not susceptible of any such precise definition as would be necessary to give them utility as practical tests, but amount in effect to little more than convenient labels to attach to the features of different specific situations which, on a detailed examination of all the circumstances, the law recognises pragmatically as giving rise to a duty of care of a given scope.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President , Lord Mance , Lord Kerr , Lord Reed , Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2015] 1 AC 1732, [2015] UKSC 2, [2015] 2 WLR 343, [2015] Med LR 171, [2015] 2 All ER 635, [2015] HRLR 8, UKSC 2013/0043
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videoa Summary
Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934, Fatal Accidents Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Michael 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 . .
Cited – Glamorgan Coal Company Ltd v Glamorganshire Standing Joint Committee CA 1916
The court considered the duties on police constables to protect property.
Held: Pickford LJ said: ‘[The defendants] are the police authority and have to make proper police arrangements to maintain the peace. If one party to a dispute is . .
Cited – Glasbrook Brothers Limited v Glamorgan County Council HL 1925
A colliery manager asked for police protection for his colliery during a strike. He wanted police officers to be billeted on the premises. The senior police officer for the area was willing to provide protection by a mobile force, but he refused to . .
Cited – Rice v Connolly 1966
No Legal Duty to Assist a Constable
At common law there is no legal duty to provide the police with information or otherwise to assist them with their inquiries. Lord Parker set out three questions to be answered when asking whether there had been an obstruction of an officer in the . .
Cited – Knightley v Johns and others CA 27-Mar-1981
There had been an accident in a tunnel, blocking it. The defendant inspector ordered a traffic constable to ride into the tunnel on his motorcycle against the flow of traffic. The constable crashed and sought damages for negligence against the . .
Cited – Rigby and another v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire 1985
The police were found liable to pay damages for negligence having fired a gas canister into the plaintiffs’ gunsmith’s hop premises in order to flush out a dangerous psychopath. There had been a real and substantial fire risk in firing the canister . .
Cited – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
Cited – Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police HL 30-Jul-2008
Police Obligations to Witnesses is Limited
A prosecution witness was murdered by the accused shortly before his trial. The parents of the deceased alleged that the failure of the police to protect their son was a breach of article 2.
Held: The House was asked ‘If the police are alerted . .
Cited – Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir HL 18-Feb-1878
The owner of land injured by operations authorised by statute ‘suffers a private loss for the public benefit’, and in the absence of clear statutory authority is unable to claim: ‘It is now thoroughly well established that no action will lie for . .
Cited – Donoghue (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 – East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
Cited – Hedley 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 . .
Cited – Rondel v Worsley HL 1967
Need for Advocate’s Immunity from Negligence
The appellant had obtained the services of the respondent barrister to defend him on a dock brief, and alleged that the respondent had been negligent in the conduct of his defence.
Held: The House considered the immunity from suit of . .
Cited – Dorset 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 . .
Cited – Anns 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 – Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
Cited – Caparo 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 – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .
Cited – Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 16-Nov-1994
The Court upheld decisions striking out actions for negligence brought by claimants who had been arrested and held in custody during criminal investigations which were later discontinued. The Crown Prosecution Service owes no general duty of care to . .
Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc CA 20-Mar-1997
Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler . .
Cited – Duff v Highland and Islands Fire Board SCS 3-Nov-1995
(Scots) Firemen were not immune from suit for negligence as are police; no discretion. Lord Macfadyen observed obiter that he would have rejected a submission that the defenders did not owe to the owners of property affected by a fire which they . .
Cited – Osman 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, . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Northumbria v Costello CA 3-Dec-1998
A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal . .
Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Cited – OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport QBD 22-Jul-1997
Coastguard Not liable in Negligence
Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became . .
Cited – Kent v Griffiths and others CA 3-Feb-2000
A doctor attended the home of a patient suffering from an asthma attack and called for an ambulance to take her immediately to hospital. The control replied ‘Okay doctor.’ After 13 minutes the ambulance had not arrived and the patient’s husband made . .
Cited – Burnett v Grampian Fire and Rescue Service SCS 9-Jan-2007
SCS At this debate on a preliminary plea the court was asked to decide if Grampian Fire and Rescue Service owed a duty of reasonable care to Mr Burnett when fighting a fire which caused to his property. Mr . .
Cited – Mitchell 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 . .
Cited – Schuster v City of New York 1958
Court of Appeals of New York – The victim was a public spirited young man whose murder had no obvious explanation other than retribution for his cooperation with the police.
Held: It may be possible to create a case of circumstantial evidence . .
Cited – Riss v City of New York 1986
New York Court of Appeals – a young woman who had repeatedly sought police protection against a rejected suitor after repeated threats was blinded by a thug hired by him.
Held: (Keating J dissenting) No action for negligence lay. Individuals, . .
Cited – Cuffy v City of New York 1987
New York Court of Appeals – The court set out the elements of a special relationship between a municipality and a plaintiff which would negate a municipality’s claim to immunity: ‘(1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, . .
Cited – Noakes v City of Seattle 1995
. .
Cited – Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 16-Aug-2001
Constitutional Court of South Africa – The applicant had been assaulted by a man awaiting trial for attempted rape. Both police and prosecutor had recommended bail despite a history of sexual violence. She applicant sued the ministers responsible . .
Cited – Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality)
Commissioners of Police 30-Aug-1990
Ontario – High Court of Justice, Divisional Court – Negligence — Duty of care — Police not warning potential victim of serial rapist due to stereotypical belief that her hysterical response to warning would scare off rapist and make apprehension . .
Cited – Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board 4-Oct-2007
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Torts – Negligence – Duty of care – Police investigation – Whether police owe duty of care to suspects in criminal investigations – If so, standard of care required by police . .
Cited – Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton 26-Sep-2003
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal – Subject: Delict – police – legal duty to exercise reasonable care in considering, investigating and recommending application for firearm licence – liability for shooting by unfit person to whom firearm licence . .
Cited – Smith v Leurs 22-Oct-1945
High Court of Australia – The parents of a child denied liability for harm caused by their son using a shanghai.
Held: Dixon J said that: ‘It is, however, exceptional to find in the law a duty to control another’s actions to prevent harm to . .
Cited – Couch v Attorney-General 13-Jun-2008
Nzlii Supreme Court of New Zealand – [1] The victim of a criminal assault claims exemplary damages from the Attorney-General for claimed failures of the Probation Service to exercise reasonable care in the . .
Cited – Heaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company CA 30-Jul-1883
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill
The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff.
Held: The defendant had . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Cited – Kaye v Robertson CA 16-Mar-1990
A newspaper reporter and photographer invaded the (famouse) plaintiff’s hospital bedroom, purported to interview him and took photographs.
Held: The law of trespass provided no remedy because the plaintiff was not owner or occupier of the room . .
Cited – Woodland 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 . .
Cited – Davis v Radcliffe PC 5-Apr-1990
(Isle of Man) Misfeasance in public office.
Held: No duty of care was owed by financial regulators towards investors. . .
Cited – Murphy 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 . .
Cited – Stovin 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 . .
Cited – Gorringe 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 . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Greenfield, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Feb-2005
The appellant had been charged with and disciplined for a prison offence. He was refused legal assistance at his hearing, and it was accepted that the proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of article 6 of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Cited – Steel 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 . .
Cited – Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust SC 10-Oct-2018
The claimant had been assaulted. He presented at the defendant hospital with head injuries. Despite his complaints he said he was not treated properly, being told to wait five hours at reception, and went home. Later an ambulance was delayed and he . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.541954

Tame v New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited: 5 Sep 2002

Austlii (High Court of Australia) Tame v New South Wales
Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Motor accident – Clerical error by police constable in recording driver’s blood alcohol content – Psychotic depressive illness caused by driver learning of mistake – Whether duty of care owed by police constable to driver – Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable – Whether sole determinant of duty – Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty – Normal fortitude – Sudden shock – Direct perception – Immediate aftermath.
Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited
Negligence – Duty of care – Psychiatric injury – Death of child – Assurances of constant supervision of child made by employer to parents – Whether duty of care owed by employer of child to parents – Whether psychiatric injury reasonably foreseeable – Whether sole determinant of duty – Other control mechanisms for imposition of duty – Normal fortitude – Sudden shock – Direct perception – Immediate aftermath.
Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan JJ
[2002] HCA 35, [2002] 211 CLR 317, [2002] 191 ALR 449, [2002] 76 ALJR 1348
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.566221

Moulton v Poulter: CA 1930

The defendant land owner and occupier knew of the presence of the trespassing children.
Held: He was liable for injury to the trespassing child by a tree was felled negligently. The defendant had: ‘cut the last root by which the tree was supported, knowing that the tree would fall in about two minutes and that children were standing round, without giving any warning. It has been found by the County Court Judge that the defendant in so behaving was negligent, and that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was due to that negligence. The case may, I think, be compared to one in which, while blasting operations are going on and people are standing round, a man engaged in the work fires a blast without giving any previous warning. It seems to me that the man firing the blast would clearly be guilty of a breach of duty to these people even though they were trespassers, because he would have done an act which might do them an injury and would have done it without warning. In a case such as that the person who is about to do a dangerous act is under a duty to warn even trespassers.’
Scrutton LJ
[1930] 2 KB 183
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183314

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council: SCS 30 Jun 2005

Outer House
Lord Bracadale
[2005] ScotCS CSOH – 84, 2005 Rep LR 101, 2005 SCLR 920, 2005 GWD 34-645, 2006 Hous LR 8, 2005 SLT 1100
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mitchell 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.381480

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills: PC 21 Oct 1935

(Australia) The Board considered how a duty of care may be established: ‘All that is necessary as a step to establish a tort of actionable negligence is define the precise relationship from which the duty to take care is deduced. It is, however, essential in English law that the duty should be established; the mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act gives in itself no cause of action. If the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury was intentional so long as the other party is merely exercising a legal right; if the act involves lack of due care, again no case of actionable negligence will arise unless the duty to be careful exists.’ and ‘the appellant is not required to lay his finger on the exact person in all the chain who was responsible, or specify what he did wrong. Negligence is found as a matter of inference from the existence of the defect taken in connection with all the known circumstances’
Lord Wright said: ‘Mr. Greene further contended on behalf of the manufacturers that if the decision in Donoghue’s case [1932] AC 562, 591, were extended even a hair’s-breadth, no line could be drawn, and a manufacturer’s liability would be extended indefinitely. He put as an illustration the case of a foundry which had cast a rudder to be fitted on a liner: he assumed that it was fitted and the steamer sailed the seas for some years: but the rudder had a latent defect due to faulty and negligent casting, and one day it broke, with the result that the vessel was wrecked, with great loss of life and damage to property. He argued that if Donoghue’s case were extended beyond its precise facts, the maker of the rudder would be held liable for damages of an indefinite amount, after an indefinite time, and to claimants indeterminate until the event. But it is clear that such a state of things would involve many considerations far removed from the simple facts of this case. So many contingencies must have intervened between the lack of care on the part of the makers and the casualty that it may be that the law would apply, as it does in proper cases, not always according to strict logic, the rule that cause and effect must not be too remote: in any case the element of directness would obviously be lacking. Lord Atkin deals with that sort of question in Donoghue’s case where he refers to Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K.B. 253, 259: he quotes the commonsense opinion of Mathew L.J.: ‘It is impossible to accept such a wide proposition, and, indeed, it is difficult to see how, if it were the law, trade could be carried on.’
In their Lordships’ opinion it is enough for them to decide this case on its actual facts.’
Lord Wright also said: ‘a thing is sold by description, though it is specific, so long as it is sold not merely as the specific thing, but as a thing corresponding to a description ‘
Lord Wright
[1935] All ER Rep 209, [1936] AC 85, 105 LJPC 6, 154 LT 185, [1935] UKPC 2, [1935] UKPC 62
Bailii, Bailii
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Hedley 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 . .
Cited – McTear 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 . .
Cited – Watson v Fram Reinforced Concrete Co (Scotland) Ltd HL 1960
A workman had been injured through the breaking of a defective part in the machine with which he was working. He brought an action of damages against his employers, and later convened as second defenders the manufacturers of the machine, who had . .
Cited – Marc 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 . .
Cited – Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd CA 15-Dec-1989
The defendant auctioneer sold a painting to the plaintiff which turned out to be a forgery. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that it had not relied upon the attribution, saying that there had been a breach of the requirement that the paintig . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.216360

Pilkington v Wood: 1953

The plaintiff bought freehold land from a seller conveying as beneficial owner, the defendant acting as the plaintiff’s solicitor in the transaction. When the plaintiff later tried to sell the property he found the title was defective, the seller having been the trustee of the property and having committed a breach of trust in buying it himself. In the plaintiff’s action against the defendant solicitor for negligence, the latter admitted negligence but contended that before suing him the plaintiff ought to have mitigated his damage by suing the seller on an implied covenant of title.
Held: The plaintiff was not obliged, even under an indemnity against his costs, to undertake ‘complex litigation’. Even accepting that the seller was solvent and therefore worth suing, it was clear that the seller would both resist the claim and also claim over against his own solicitors and it was not clear that the plaintiff had a good claim against the seller.
Harman J: ‘I do not propose to attempt to decide whether an action against [the seller] would lie or be fruitful. I can see it would be one attended with no little difficulty. I am of opinion that the so-called duty to mitigate does not go so far as to oblige the injured party, even under an indemnity, to embark on a complicated and difficult piece of litigation against a third party. The damage to the plaintiff was done once and for all directly the voidable conveyance to him was executed. This was the direct result of the negligent advice tendered by his solicitor, the defendant, that a good title had been shown; and, in my judgment, it is no part of the plaintiff’s duty to embark on the proposed litigation in order to protect his solicitor from the consequences of his own carelessness.’
Harman J
[1953] Ch 770, [1953] 2 All ER 810
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Walker v Geo H Medlicott and Son (a Firm) CA 19-Nov-1998
The claimant said that the defendant solicitor had negligently failed to include in the will a specific devise of property in his favour.
Held: A beneficiary who alleged negligent failure of a will draftsman to include a gift to him in a will . .
Cited – Powell v Haywards (a Firm) CA 18-Feb-1999
Solicitors appealed against an order for payment of damages for professional negligence. The solicitors said that the plaintiff should have mitigated her damages.
Held: The plaintiffs had not failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their . .
Cited – Olafsson v Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages after the defendant had negligently failed to arrange for the service of the claimant’s defamation proceedings on a defendant in Iceland leaving the action time barred.
Held: The Claimant had not acted unreasonably . .
Cited – Joyce v Bowman Law Ltd ChD 18-Feb-2010
The claimant asserted negligence by the defendant licensed conveyancers in not warning him of the effect of an option in the contract. He had been advised that it would allow him to choose to buy additional land, but it was in fact a put option. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.241680

White and Another v Jones and Another: CA 5 Mar 1993

A solicitor’s liability in negligence extends to a potential beneficiary of the will, from delay in making a will.
Gazette 16-Jun-1993, Times 09-Mar-1993, Independent 05-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – White and Another v Jones and Another HL 16-Feb-1995
Will Drafter liable in Negligence to Beneficiary
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – White and Another v Jones and Another HL 16-Feb-1995
Will Drafter liable in Negligence to Beneficiary
A solicitor drawing a will may be liable in negligence to a potential beneficiary, having unduly delayed in the drawing of the will. The Hedley Byrne principle was ‘founded upon an assumption of responsibility.’ Obligations may occasionally arise . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.90459

Mather v British Telecommunications Plc: SCS 30 May 2000

The pursuer sought damages for injury to her mental health, alleging it was sustained as a consequence of the fault of the defenders et separatim the fault of an employee of the defenders.
Lord Osborne
[2000] ScotCS 141
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.163881

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol and Company Ltd: HL 21 Feb 1962

Damages were sought after the death of the pursuer’s husband working for the respondent. The trial judge had been satisfied that even if the defendants had performed their duty at common law and pursuant to statute, and had provided the deceased steel erector with a safety harness, he would not have worn it, even working 70ft above ground, and he therefore suffered no loss as a consequence of the breach of duty complained of.
Held: The claim failed. The House, applying the ‘but for’ test held that the breach of duty did not cause his death. Once the employer is shown to be in breach of duty to provide equipment, the assumption is that it would have been used, because a reasonable employee would use it, unless the employer proves otherwise.
Lord Reid said: ‘In the end when all the evidence has been brought out it rarely matters where the onus originally lay: The question is which way the balance of probability has come to rest’.
Lord Chancellor, Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Devlin
[1962] UKHL 3, [1962] 1 WLR 295, [1962] 1 All ER 623, [1961] UKHL 8, 1962 SLT 121, 1962 SC (HL) 70
Bailii
Factories Act 1937
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
Cited – Hampshire Police v Taylor CA 9-May-2013
The officer had been cut by glass when clearing out a cannabis factory. The risk assessment had identified only a need for latex gloves. She said that given the environment heavier garden gloves should have been provided. The Chief Constable . .
Cited – Durkin v DSG Retail Ltd and Another SC 26-Mar-2014
Cancellation of Hire Finance Contract
The claimant had bought a PC with a finance agreement with the respondent. He rejected it a day later, but the respondent refused to cancel the credit agreement. The respondent had threatened to report his non-payment to credit reference companies, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.248544

IFE Fund Sa v Goldman Sachs International: ComC 21 Nov 2006

A claim advanced depended on the defendant having owed a duty to provide information. Toulson J said: ‘[The claimant] relies on the publication of the SIM [i.e. a Syndicate Information Memorandum] to give rise to the alleged duty of care. The relevant paragraphs of the SIM are not in my view to be characterised in substance as a notice excluding or restricting a liability for negligence, but more fundamentally as going to the issue whether there was a relationship between the parties (amounting to or equivalent to that of professional adviser and advisee) such as to make it just and reasonable to impose the alleged duty of care’.
Toulson J
[2006] EWHC 2887 (Comm), [2007] 1 Lloyds Rep 264
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – IFE Fund Sa v Goldman Sachs International CA 31-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.246732

Curran v Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association: HL 1987

The claimant bought a property. The previous owner had had it refurbished with a grant, but it now appeared that that work had been defective. He sought damages in negligence from the defendant grant paying authority for having paid out the full amount of the grant without having withheld under the Order a sum to cover the necessary works of repair.
Held: The statutory power to withhold part payment was exercisable in favour of the defendants only, and they had no duty of care to a subsequent purchaser of the property. No duty was imposed on the Council where the purpose of the statutory scheme was to protect the public:
Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1987] 2 All ER 13, [1987] 2 WLR 1043, [1987] AC 718
Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (1976 No 1780) 47(2)(3) 60(5)
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Distinguished – Anns 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.188819

Sutradhar 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 claim in negligence. The claimant appealed summary judgment against him.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘the existence of a relevant duty of care aside, one of the other formidable difficulties in the claimant’s path would be to show that it was negligent of BGS, in the context of a report which did not purport to be a certificate of the potability of drinking water, not to have questioned the current orthodoxy that it was unnecessary to test for arsenic.’ and ‘if ever there were a case which is bound to fall at the proximity hurdle this surely is it. Whatever is required to constitute a sufficient proximity to support a duty of care – and I acknowledge the imprecision of the concept and the many criticisms it has attracted down the years-it is not to be found on any possible view of the facts here.’
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
[2006] UKHL 33, Times 07-Jul-2006, [2006] 4 All ER 490
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Le Lievre v Gould CA 6-Feb-1893
Mortgagees of the interest of a builder under a building agreement, advanced money to him from time to time, relying upon certificates given by a surveyor as to stages reached. The surveyor was not appointed by the mortgagees, and there was no . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Perrett 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 . .
Cited – Candler v Crane Christmas and Co CA 15-Dec-1950
Though the accounts of the company in which the plaintiff had invested had been carelessly prepared and gave a wholly misleading picture of the state of the company, the plaintiff could not recover damages. A false statement, carelessly, as . .
Cited – Hedley 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 . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others CA 26-Mar-2002
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when he was murdered by a gang of white youths. He said that the police treatment of him exacerbated the post traumatic stress he suffered.
Held: His claim failed. The allegations against the police might . .
Cited – Parkinson 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 – Clay 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 . .
Cited – Caparo 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 – Michael 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – D Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.242980

Solloway v Hampshire County Council: CA 1981

Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as to the foreseeability of there being pockets of clay in the gravel upon which the damaged houses predominantly sat. Another issue concerned the question whether any operation on the trees, short of felling them, would have eliminated the risk posed by the roots if there were exceptionally dry weather and if those roots were passing through clay. At first instance, judgment was given for the plaintiffs in nuisance.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The judge had been wrong to hold that damage to the plaintiff’s house from the tree roots was a reasonably foreseeable risk. The existence of clay pockets under a house such that of the plaintiff was no more than an outside chance, and balancing that risk with the steps that would have been necessary for the defendants to have dealt with the risk, there was no breach of duty on the part of the defendant council.
Dunne LJ said: ‘The duty in respect of the nuisance arises if the encroachment of the roots is known, or ought to be known, to the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the tree and its maintenance, if the encroachment is such as to give rise to a reasonably foreseeable risk that such encroachment will cause damage.’
Sir David Cairns said: ‘To say that a risk of damage is reasonably foreseeable means that it is foreseeable, not merely as a theoretical possibility but as something, the chance of which occurring, is such that a reasonable man would consider it necessary to take account of it. The risk of being struck by lightning when one goes for a walk is not a reasonably foreseeable risk. I should be prepared to hold that the risk in this case was not a reasonably foreseeable risk. If, however, it could be said to be a reasonably foreseeable risk, I am satisfied that it was a risk, such that the cost and inconvenience of taking any effective steps to remove it or reduce it would be quite out of proportion to that risk. There is nothing in the evidence to show that No. 72 Shirley Avenue was any more at risk than any other house in the Avenue. Nor is there anything to show that any operation on the trees, short of felling, would have made the roots safe if there were exceptionally dry weather and if the roots of any particular tree were passing through clay’.
Dunne LJ, Sir David Cairns
(1981) 79 LGR 449, [1981] 1 WLR 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .

Cited by:
Cited – Kirk and others v London Borough of Brent CA 8-Dec-2005
The defendant council had obtained a strike out of the claimant’s assertion that they were responsible in nuisance for damages caused by tree roots.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the striking out of his claim succeeded. While the simple . .
Cited – Delaware Mansions Limited and others v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster HL 25-Oct-2001
The landowner claimed damages for works necessary to remediate damage to his land after encroachment of tree roots onto his property.
Held: The issue had not been properly settled in English law. The problem was to be resolved by applying a . .
Cited – Berent v Family Mosaic Housing and Others TCC 25-May-2011
The claimant sought damages for subsidence to her property allegedly caused by the roots of trees on the defendants’ properties. Two large plane trees stood in the pavement outside the house and about 12 metres from it. . .
Cited – LE Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The Council appealed against a finding that it was liable for damage to the claimant’s property caused by the roots of trees on the highway maintained by the appellant. The Council asked whether it was the correct defendant having acted as agent for . .
Cited – Solloway v Hampshire County Council CA 1981
Tree root damage had occurred following two successive very hot and dry summers in 1975 and 1976, in an area where the subsoil was almost all gravel but where, as it happened, under the plaintiff’s house there were pockets of clay. An issue arose as . .
Cited – Robbins v London Borough of Bexley CA 17-Oct-2013
robbins_bexleyCA1013
The claimant said that his house had been damaged by tree roots for which the appellant was responsible. The trees were 33 metres from the house.
Held: The appeal failed. The immediate cause of the damage was a failure to do something which . .
Cited – Hurst and Another v Hampshire County Council CA 19-Jun-1997
A Local Authority is liable for any damage to adjacent property caused by the roots of a tree growing on the verge of a public highway.
Held: Pre-adoption trees vest in the highway authority for all purposes. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.241665

Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK Llp: SC 18 Jun 2021

Was the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the break costs claimed by the Appellant fell outside the scope of the Respondent’s duty of care as professional accountants?
Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 20, [2021] 3 WLR 81
Bailii, Bli Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
At ComC – Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK Llp ComC 2-May-2018
claim for damages by a building society caused by the admitted negligence of its accountant. . .
Appeal from – Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK Llp CA 30-Jan-2019
Liability of an auditor for losses incurred on long term interest rate swap agreements which were entered into in reliance upon negligent accounting advice and which were closed out at a loss when the negligent advice came to light. . .
Decided together – Khan v Meadows SC 18-Jun-2021
‘ A woman approaches a general medical practice for testing to establish whether she is a carrier of a hereditary disease. Tests which are inappropriate to answer that question are arranged. A general medical practitioner when informing her of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.663389

Dunne v North Western Gas Board: CA 1964

Works carried out by virtue of a statutory authority are a recognised exemption to liability under the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher. The defendant’s liability in Rylands: ‘could simply have been placed on the defendants’ failure of duty to take reasonable care’.
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is excluded for works constructed or conducted under statutory authority.
Sellers LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said: ‘Where there is a mandatory obligation . . there would be, in our opinion, no liability if what had been done was that which was expressly required by statute to be done or was reasonably incidental to that requirement and was done without negligence.’
Sellers LJ
[1964] 2 QB 806
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Rylands 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:
Cited – Transco 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.188032

Thames Cruises Limited v George Wheeler Launches Limited, Kingwood Launches Limited: ChD 16 Dec 2003

The parties had previously worked to gether to provide ferry services on the Thames. A new tender to operate the services was not submitted. It was alleged that the Defendants had inequitably seized for themselves a business opportunity which the parties had agreed to secure jointly, and that the new licence was held in trust for all parties.
Held: There was no partnership; each company operated separately. Even so, the defendants were in breach of the agreement they made to make a joint tender and it was not conscionable for them to have made a bid without reference to the Claimant and to retain the benefit of that bid without recompense to the Claimant.
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
[2003] EWHC 3093 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .
Cited – Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
banner_luffCA2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
Cited – Weiner v Harris CA 18-Nov-1909
The plaintiff, a manufacturing jeweller, was accustomed to send articles of jewellery to F, a retail jeweller, for sale on the terms of a letter written by F to the plaintiff, in which F, after acknowledging that he had had from the plaintiff ‘on . .
Cited – London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others CA 22-Mar-2002
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement . .
Cited – Hampton and Sons v Garrard Smith (Estate Agents) CA 2002
(Year?) A joint venture can give rise to an obligation for good faith as between the parties. . .
Cited – Brostoff v Clarke Kenneth Leventhal 11-Mar-1996
No partnership between supposed partners where genuinely separate businesses were carried on. . .
Cited – Seager v Copydex (No. 2) CA 1969
. .
Cited – Island Holdings Ltd v Birchington Engineering Co Ltd 7-Jul-1981
Two prospectively separate purchasers in a later ‘subject to contract’ arrangement between them had replaced their earlier concluded agreement as to how a property, if acquired, would be dealt with.
Held: Effect was to be given to the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.188916

Playboy Club London Limited and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa: CA 18 May 2016

The club brought an action against the bank as to a reference given on behalf of a customer. They had certified him ‘good’ for 1.6m pounds, despite his having no funds in his account.
Laws, Longmore, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 457, [2016] WLR(D) 266, [2016] 2 BCLC 442, [2016] 1 WLR 3169
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Playboy Club London Ltd and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant casino alleged negligence by the defendant bank in a reference it had given for a mutual customer, leading to substantial losses. The requests was made on behalf of the claimant by a third party acting as its undisclosed agent. The . .
At QBD – Playboy Club London Ltd and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant casino alleged negligence by the defendant bank in a reference it had given for a mutual customer, leading to substantial losses. The requests was made on behalf of the claimant by a third party acting as its undisclosed agent. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.564451

Heine v Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH: 14 Nov 2003

(Second Chamber for Civil Matters of the Arnsberg Regional Court, Germany) The Plaintiff claimed damages and compensation for pain due to harm to his health from smoking cigarettes manufactured by the Defendant. He also sought information about the addition of addiction-promoting substances and a finding with regard to consequential damages. He cited the Defendant’s failure to provide warnings, product manipulation and a fundamental flaw in the cigarette product.
Held: There was no liability from the point of view of producer liability due to a fault in construction or instruction: ‘There is no construction fault in cigarettes. Cigarettes are not a faulty product, in spite of the health risks arising from their consumption. The dangers arising from this have indisputably been known to consumers and the Plaintiff for a long time and were consciously accepted. Everyone knows that in the long term smoking can lead to serious, potentially even fatal harm to health, that it can lead to addiction which makes it hard to stop smoking. Consumers cannot justifiably expect that cigarettes are constructed in such a way that they do not give rise to these dangers. For instance, in the jurisdiction which this chamber follows it has long been recognised that the producer does not have to avert dangers which are typically linked with the use of a product and known to the users or recognised and accepted by them […]. The decisive aspect therefore is that smokers are responsible for their own acts. They must themselves bear the consequences of their independent behaviour and cannot pass them on to the cigarette manufacturers.’ and ‘The Defendant has also not committed a so-called instruction fault by neglecting warnings on his products. The Plaintiff did not concretely assert that the Defendant had not met the legal duty of information and this is not evident. There are no further duties of information for the Defendant. . . The manufacturer of a product must only indicate the most important features. He must not meet any special duties of information if certain product risks are generally known. . . However, all risks linked with the consumption of cigarettes have been known to the consumers for a long time. This also includes the possible addictive effect of cigarette consumption. This does not concern special knowledge – such as how health is harmed by cigarette consumption. Therefore the judiciary has basically unanimously rejected a further duty of information […]. Thus there does not have to be separate information about an allegedly addiction-increasing effect of additives. Because the effect of these substances, i.e. in lay terms that smoking is addictive – as always – is not news to the consumer.’
2 O 294/02
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McTear 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.226701

Farstad 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 engine and igniting. The defenders sought contributions from the pursuers for the failings of its own employees, and from third party charterparties.
Held: After a debate on the assumed facts, Lord Ordinary, Lord Hodge, held that Enviroco was not entitled to a contribution from Asco.
Lord Hodge
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 63, 2008 GWD 14-267, [2008] CSOH 63, 2008 SLT 703
Bailii
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 3(2)
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Singer v Gray Tool Co (Europe) Ltd 1984
. .
Cited – Dormer v Melville Dundas and Whitson Ltd 1990
. .
Cited – Taft v Clyde Marine Motoring Co Ltd 1990
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd and Another SCS 1-May-2009
. .
See also – Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S ChD 22-May-2009
. .
See Also – Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S CA 18-Dec-2009
A company which would otherwise undoubtedly be the subsidiary of another company ceased to be so when the shares in the former company were charged by the latter company to a Scottish bank. . .
See also – Farstad Supply As v Enviroco Ltd SC 5-May-2010
The defendants (E) were liable to F after a serious offshore accident, but sought a contribution from a third party (A), the main charterers, seeking to rely on section 3(2) o the 1940 Act saying that ‘if sued they might have been liable’. The court . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267128

Crossley v Faithfull and Gould Holdings Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2004

The employee claimant was to retire. On his employer’s negligent advice he resigned and opted for discretionary benefits.
Held: The employer owed no general duty of care to an employee’s financial interests. Nor could a term requiring such a standard of care be implied within the contract. Rather than focus upon necessity, it was better to before such a standard term could be implied, the court should assess its reasonableness, fairness, and the appropriate balance between employer and employee. Given that the House of Lords had recently refused to introduce such a substantial implied term, it would be wrong for the Court of Appeal to do so.
Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Dyson LJ, Thomas LJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 293, Times 29-Mar-2004, Gazette 08-Apr-2004
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board HL 1991
The plaintiffs were junior doctors employed by the respondents. Their terms had been collectively negotiated, and incorporated the Regulations. During the period of their employment different regulations had given and then taken way their right to . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others HL 7-Jul-1994
The plaintiff, who worked in financial services, complained of the terms of the reference given by his former employer. Having spoken of his behaviour towards members of the team, it went on: ‘his former superior has further stated he is a man of . .

Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.196573

Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police: HL 1989

Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the investigations properly or expeditiously and they sued for loss of overtime payments which they would otherwise have received during their periods of suspension.
Held: The claim failed. It would be contrary to public policy to prejudice the fearless and efficient discharge by police officers of their vitally important public duty of investigating crime by requiring them to act under the shadow of a potential action for damages for negligence by the suspect.
Lord Bridge dealing with the question of whether the police owe a duty of care to a suspect in carrying out a criminal investigation observed that: ‘One must therefore ask the question whether foreseeable injury to the suspect may be caused on the hypothesis either that he has never been charged or, if charged, that he has been acquitted at trial or on appeal, or that his conviction has been quashed on an application for judicial review. It is, I accept, foreseeable that in these situations the suspect may be put to expense, or may conceivably suffer some other economic loss, which might have been avoided had a more careful investigation established his innocence at some earlier stage. However, any suggestion that there should be liability in negligence in such circumstances runs up against the formidable obstacles in the way of liability in negligence for purely economic loss. Where no action for malicious prosecution would lie, it would be strange indeed if an acquitted defendant could recover damages for negligent investigation. Finally, all other considerations apart, it would plainly be contrary to public policy, in my opinion, to prejudice the fearless and efficient discharge by police officers of their vitally important public duty of investigating crime by requiring them to act under the shadow of a potential action for damages for negligence by the suspect. If no duty of care is owed by a police officer investigating a suspected crime to a civilian suspect, it is difficult to see any conceivable reason why a police officer who is subject to investigation under the Regulations of 1977 should be in any better position.’ and ‘ . . it is not reasonably foreseeable that the negligent conduct of a criminal investigation would cause injury to the health of the suspect, whether in the form of depressive illness or otherwise.’
The availability of the tort of misfeasance in public office is one reason justifying the non-actionability of a claim in negligence where there is an act of maladministration: ‘where no action for malicious prosecution would lie, it would be strange indeed if an acquitted defendant could recover damages for negligent investigation.”

The availability of the tort of misfeasance in public office was one reason justifying the non-actionability of a claim in negligence for an act of maladministration: ‘I do not regard this as an occasion where it is necessary to explore, still less to define, the precise limits of the tort of misfeasance in public office. It suffices for present purposes to say that it must at least involve an act done in the exercise or purported exercise by the public officer of some power or authority with which he is clothed by virtue of the office he holds and which is done in bad faith or (possibly) without reasonable cause. The decision to suspend the plaintiff Park under regulation 24 was taken by the deputy Chief Constable. If this had been done maliciously in the sense indicated, this would certainly be capable of constituting the tort of misfeasance in public office. But it was conceded that no malice is alleged against the deputy Chief Constable and that malice on the part of Grant cannot be imputed to him. The pleaded case must therefore stand or fall according as to whether it identifies any act done by Grant in the exercise or purported exercise of a power or authority vested in him as investigating officer which was infected by the malice pleaded against him. I can find no such act identified by the pleading.
No formal application to amend the pleading was made in the course of the argument, but at a late stage a document was placed before your Lordships indicating a pleading of additional particulars under paragraphs 22 and 24 which the plaintiff might seek leave to add by way of amendment if those two paragraphs in the statement of claim were allowed to stand. The particulars which it is suggested might be added under paragraph 24 would read:
‘From an early stage (the date whereof the plaintiff cannot further particularise until after discovery and/or interrogatories herein) Grant knew or believed that there were no proper grounds for suspending the plaintiff yet procured the imposition of and/or the continuation of the suspension by continuing the investigation and giving misleading and/or incomplete reports concerning the same.’
It is evident that if a police officer investigating suspected criminal or disciplinary offences makes a false report to his superior officer which is defamatory of the suspect and that report is made maliciously so as to lose its status of qualified privilege, the suspect has a cause of action in tort against the author of the report. But the tort is defamation not misfeasance in public office, since the mere making of a report is not a relevant exercise of power or authority by the investigating officer. I express no opinion as to whether in those circumstances the Chief Constable would be vicariously liable under section 48(1) of the Act of 1964. However that may be, the suggested additional particulars under paragraph 24 of the statement of claim would do nothing to validate the pleading of misfeasance in public office and obviously fall far short of disclosing a reasonable cause of action in defamation.’ ‘
Lord Bridge of Harwich
[1989] AC 1228, [1989] 1 All ER 1025, [1989] 2 WLR 624
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cornelius v Hackney London Borough Council CA 25-Jul-2002
The applicant sought damages from the council for misfeasance in public office. Protracted litigation had followed his dismissal after he had attempted to bring allegations of misconduct within the authority to the attention of a council committee. . .
Cited – Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 15-May-2001
The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to . .
Cited – Three 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 . .
Cited – Barnard v Restormel Borough Council CA 6-Feb-1998
The council appealed a refusal to strike out the proceedings. The claimant alleged misfeasance in a planning decision giving a competitor consent to development. He said the mayor had deceived the planning committee as to the need to consider the . .
Cited – Watkins v Secretary of State for The Home Departmentand others CA 20-Jul-2004
The claimant complained that prison officers had abused the system of reading his solicitor’s correspondence whilst he was in prison. The defendant argued that there was no proof of damage.
Held: Proof of damage was not necessary in the tort . .
Cited – Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others HL 21-Apr-2005
The claimant was with Stephen Lawrence when they were both attacked and Mr Lawrence killed. He claimed damages for the negligent way the police had dealt with his case, and particularly said that they had failed to assess him as a victim of crime, . .
Cited – Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others ChD 20-Nov-1996
Sir Richard Scott discussed the tort of misfeasance in public office as described in Calveley: ‘I would agree that the tort of misfeasance in public office does require that the misconduct complained of should be sufficiently connected with the . .
Cited – French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .
Cited – An Informer v A Chief Constable CA 29-Feb-2012
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages against the police. He had provided them with information, but he said that they had acted negligently and in breach of contract causing him financial loss. The officer handling his . .
Cited – Michael 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 . .
Cited – SXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.182998

ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Others: CA 16 May 2017

Appeal from order striking out claim at common law as disclosing no reasonably arguable duty of care. The claimant’s father, whilst detained as a mental patient had been diagnosed with Huntington’s Disease, but the defendant, knowing that the claimant might also have the condition decided not to override medical confidence and inform her. The claimant was then diagnosed with the inheritable conition, but at a time when she was pregnant.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the claim could proceed.
Gloster VP CA, Underhill, Irwin LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 336
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.583967

Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Another: ComC 30 May 2012

The claimant said that her husband, serving as an officer on the defendant’s ship was lost overboard as a result of the defendant’s negligence.
Held: The claim under the 1976 Act failed, but the court awarded the contractual sum claimed.
As to the defendant’s suggestion that the case was one of suicide: ‘In considering whether the cause of Mr Braganza’s death was accident or suicide the Court must bear in mind that suicide, although not a crime in English law, is ‘still a drastic action which often leaves in its wake serious social, economic and other consequences’; per Watkins LJ in R v West London Coroner ex parte Gray [1988] QB 467 at pp. 477-8. It was therefore common ground that before a finding of suicide is made there must be evidence of sufficient cogency commensurate with or proportionate to the seriousness of the finding’. Applying this to the evidence: ‘Suicide is no more than a possibility. It is not, in my judgment, more likely than not to have happened. Many people have financial worries and worse and do not commit suicide. Mr Braganza had no history of depression or illness. Moreover, his participation in the daily work meeting on 10 May 2009 was entirely normal. His discussion with the Master about the weather, the open Man Diesel maintenance letter on his desk with his reading glasses on top and the emails sent late at night to Mr Farquhar and the Second Engineer all paint a picture of a conscientious engineer with his mind on the job. He left no suicide note. Given the serious nature of a finding of suicide I do not consider that the evidence before the Court is sufficiently cogent to warrant such a finding on the balance of probabilities’.
Teare J
[2012] EWHC 1423 (Comm), [2012] ICR D39
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v West London Coroner ex parte Gray CA 1988
Before a coroner’s jury could reach a verdict of unlawful killing, it had to be satisfied ‘that the act or omission of a single person must amount to unlawful conduct which was a substantial cause of death’, although Rule 42 of the Coroners Rules . .

Cited by:
Main Judgment – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Another AdCt 15-Jun-2012
The judge considered the award of costs where the claimant had succeeded in some part of her claim, but failed in others. . .
Appeal from – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and Others CA 22-Mar-2013
The claimant widow sued in negligence after the disappearance overboard of her husband from the respondent’s ship. The court had found insufficient evidence to establish the cause of death, either as to negligence as suggested by the claimant, or as . .
At Commercial Court – Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd SC 18-Mar-2015
The claimant’s husband had been lost from the defendant’s ship at sea. The defendant had contracted to pay compensation unless the loss was by suicide. They so determined. The court was now asked whether that was a permissible conclusion in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.459902

Mullaney v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 15 May 2001

The claimant police officer was severely injured making an arrest. He claimed damages from the respondent for contributory negligence of other officers in failing to come to his assistance.
Held: If a police officer owes a duty of care to another police officer and if he is in breach of that duty the relevant chief police officer is liable provided that the breach is committed in the course of his `employment’ The chief constable should be treated as owing to his officers the same duties as an employer owes to his employees, subject to such considerations of public policy as arise on the facts of a particular case. The chief constable was in breach of his non-delegable or personal duty owed to the claimant as his quasi-employer because, although a safe system was devised, it was not safely operated.
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Clarke And Mr Justice Bodey
[2001] EWCA Civ 700, Times 09-Jul-2001
Bailii
Police Act 1996 88(1), Police (Health and Safety) Act 1997, Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 51A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
Cited – Dorset 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 . .
Cited – Ancell and Another v McDermott and Others CA 17-Mar-1993
Police are under no duty to warn road users of a hazard on road. The police have no general liability in negligence for reasons of public policy. . .
Cited – Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police HL 1989
Police officers brought an action in negligence against a Chief Constable on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them had been negligently conducted. They claimed that the investigating officers had negligently failed to conduct the . .
Cited – Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers QBD 1991
The court struck out as disclosing no cause of action a claim by a police officer who was injured while policing the miners’ strike and who alleged that the police officer in charge had deployed his men negligently.
Held: The officer in charge . .
Cited – Swinney and Another v Chief Constable of Northumbria CA 22-Mar-1996
The plaintiff, a woman and her husband, had passed on information in confidence to the police about the identity of a person implicated in the killing of a police officer, expressing her concern that she did not want the source of the information to . .
Cited – Capital and Counties Plc and Another v Hampshire County Council; Etc CA 20-Mar-1997
Three cases were brought against fire services after what were said to be negligent responses to call outs. On one, the fire brigade was called to a fire at office premises in Hampshire. The fire triggered the operation of a heat-activated sprinkler . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Northumbria v Costello CA 3-Dec-1998
A woman police officer was attacked by a prisoner in a cell. She sought damages for the failure of a senior officer nearby not to come to her aid, and from the chief constable under his vicarious liability.
Held: The chief constable’s appeal . .
Cited – OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport QBD 22-Jul-1997
Coastguard Not liable in Negligence
Eight children with a teacher and two instructors set off on a canoeing trip but did not return. They got into difficulties at sea. Two became separated from the rest. The canoes capsized and sank. Some tried to swim ashore. Two more members became . .
Cited – White, 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 . .
Cited – Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Kent v Griffiths and Others (No 2) CA 10-Feb-2000
An ambulance service could be liable in negligence in respect of its response to an emergency call-out where for no good reason there was an unreasonable delay in responding, and the servivice had accepted the call. The ambulance service was . .
Cited – McDermid v Nash Dredging and Reclamation Co Ltd HL 2-Jul-1986
The Court explained the duty of an employer towards his employees as regards their safety: ‘an employer owes to his employee a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the system of work provided for him is a safe one. Secondly, a provision . .

Cited by:
Cited – Michael 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 . .
Cited – James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 25-Jul-2018
The Court was asked whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (‘the Commissioner’) owes a duty to her officers, in the conduct of proceedings against her based on their alleged misconduct, to take reasonable care to protect them from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.147546

Geyer v Downs and another: 1977

(High Court of Australia) A pupil suffered injuries when hit by a softball bat by a fellow pupil at playing the game in the school playground before school. There was no supervision. The jury awarded the appellant damages. The verdict was set aside by the court of appeal.
Held: The appeal to the High Court was allowed: ‘It was urged for the respondent that there was no duty of supervision owed to the children before ‘school hours’. That expression was taken in the present case to mean the period of time beginning at 9.00 am, at which the ‘Daily Routine’ stated that the playgrounds were to be supervised. Reliance was also placed upon the departmental instruction 5.2.4.1 as set out, supra, which it was said produced the result that the headmaster had no power or authority to require teachers to supervise the playground otherwise than during the hours 9.00 am to 3.30 pm as set out in that instruction. It was said therefore that the headmaster could not be regarded as negligent by failing to take measures to provide supervision of the playground prior to 9.00 am when he had no authority to direct any teacher to be present to perform that function. So to regard the case is to take an unduly restricted view of the relevant circumstances. There is no case which lays down that there is no duty of supervision prior to ‘school hours’, however that expression may be understood. The point seems to have been seldom referred to. In Ward v Hertfordshire County Council [1970] 1 All ER 535 at 538; [1970] 1 WLR 356 at 361, Salmon LJ expressly reserved the question whether lack of supervision could give rise to a cause of action in a case where the injury occurs at 8.50 am but ‘the school does not start until 8.55 am’. There seems no basis for treating it as a rule that there can be no duty of supervision outside ‘ordinary school hours’ or ‘before school started’. The question must depend upon the nature of the general duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. It is not enough to look only at the departmental instructions and to say that the duty of supervision arises only during the periods referred to in those instructions.’
Murphy and Aickin JJ
[1977] 17 ALR 408
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Kearn-Price v Kent County Council CA 30-Oct-2002
The claimant was injured, being hit in the face by a football in a school playground. It was before school started. There had been accidents, and there were rules which had not been enforced. The school appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.214302

Hartley v British Railways Board: CA 2 Feb 1981

A railway servant was responsible for manning a station building. He left it unattended without telling his employers that he was doing so and he left a coal fire burning inside in an open stove. The stove was piled high with coal and a burning coal fell from it and set fire to the building. When the fire brigade were called by the railway authorities, they inquired whether the building was occupied and were told that it was. Consequently, on arrival at the scene, the plaintiff fireman was sent in to search the building for the servant believed to be still inside and in the course of the search he sustained the injuries which were the subject of the claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The employee’s negligence was responsible for the fire, but they founded their attribution of liability to the employers on the additional element of negligence on the part of the servant in failing to inform his employers that he was leaving the building unattended at a time when he was supposed to be on duty there. It was this failure, as the Court of Appeal held, which led foreseeably to the unnecessary search of the building by the plaintiff fireman and hence to his injury.
Times 02-Feb-1981
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ogwo v Taylor HL 19-Nov-1987
A firefighter sought damages for personal injuries from the party negligent in starting a fire, suffered while attending it.
Held: A property owner owes a duty of care to firemen, not, by his negligence, to start a fire, or to create special . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.546996

Merrington v Ironbridge Metal Works Ltd: QBD 1952

The plaintiff fireman was injured when fighting a fire at a factory where the defendants had allowed large quantities of fine dust containing aluminium and carbon particles to accumulate. The plaintiff was injured by a dust explosion caused by the defendants allowing their premises to be in a condition which created ‘exceptional and serious risks’ of fire and explosion.
Held: The court rejected the defence of volenti. The injury was suffered by a fireman who was under a duty to go to the scene of the fire and could not therefore be described as ‘volens’.
Hallett J said: ‘This may be a convenient moment to say emphatically that I do not accept the submission of leading counsel for the plaintiff that, if a fireman sustains injury as the result of performing his duty at a fire, he ipso facto becomes entitled to recover compensation from any person whose carelessness has caused the fire in question.’ and ‘a real assent to the assumption of risk without compensation must be shown by the circumstances . . If, however, a man acts under the compulsion of a duty, such consent should rarely, if ever, be inferred, because a man cannot be said to be ‘willing’ unless he is in a position to choose freely.’
Hallett J
[1952] 2 All ER 1101, (1953) 117 JP 23
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ogwo v Taylor HL 19-Nov-1987
A firefighter sought damages for personal injuries from the party negligent in starting a fire, suffered while attending it.
Held: A property owner owes a duty of care to firemen, not, by his negligence, to start a fire, or to create special . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.546995

F-D v The Children and Family Court Advisory Service: QBD 11 Jun 2014

The Claimant sought damages for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and for a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998. He said that the negligence of the defendant’s officer in managing his case had led to him losing contact with his child.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the resources made available to Cafcass in the London area were limited and, as a result, reporting officers were under enormous pressure and the time lag for reports was as he stated. Cafcass simply cannot be blamed or said to be negligent where, as I accept was the case, they simply did not have sufficient resources or staff to cope with the demands of the Courts’
Bidder QC J
[2014] EWHC 1619 (QB)
Bailii
riminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 11 12(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.526601

Wood v Law Society: QBD 28 Jul 1993

The claimant said that her several complaints to the Law Society about her former solicitor had been negligently handled.
Held: There is no general duty of care owed to clients, or opponents, of solicitors on the part of the Law Society, as to the manner in which they exercise their duties and discretions under the Solicitor’s Act.
Otton J
Independent 29-Jul-1993, Times 30-Jul-1993
Solicitors Act 1974
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Wood v Law Society CA 1-Mar-1995
The solicitor had acted for the client in a series of loans, and had not disclosed his own directorship in one or more of the companies. His firm later acted for the lender in recovering possession form their former client. The claimant made several . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.90587

Hughes v Percival: 1883

The parties were neighbouring householders with a party wall. A builder working in the defendant’s house negligently cut into the party wall, causing the partial collapse of both the defendant’s house and the Plaintiff’s house next-door.
Held: Lord Blackburn said: ‘The first point to be considered is what was the relation in which the defendant stood to the plaintiff. It was admitted that they were owners of adjoining houses between which was a party-wall the property of both. The defendant pulled down his house and had it rebuilt on a plan which involved in it the tying together of the new building and the party-wall which was between the plaintiff’s house and the defendant’s, so that if one fell the other would be damaged. The defendant had a right so to utilize the party-wall, for it was his property as well as the plaintiff’s; a stranger would not have had such a right. But I think the law cast upon the defendant, when exercising this right, a duty towards the plaintiff. I do not think that duty went so far as to require him absolutely to provide that no damage should come to the plaintiff’s wall from the use he thus made of it, but I think that the duty went as far as to require him to see that reasonable skill and care were exercised in those operations which involved a use of the party-wall, exposing it to this risk. If such a duty was cast upon the defendant he could not get rid of responsibility by delegating the performance of it to a third person. He was at liberty to employ such a third person to fulfil the duty which the law cast on himself, and, if they so agreed together, to take an indemnity to himself in case mischief came from that person not fulfilling the duty which the law cast upon the defendant; but the defendant still remained subject to that duty, and liable for the consequences if it was not fulfilled. This is the law I think clearly laid down in Pickard v Smith 10 CB (NS) 470, and finally in (1881) Dalton v Angus 6 App Cas 740. But in all the cases on the subject there was a duty cast by law on the party who was held liable.’
Lord Blackburn
(1883) 8 App Cas 443, [1881-85] All ER 44, (1883) 8 AC 443
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woodland 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.516945

David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another: SCS 14 Mar 2013

Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient knowledge of the facts to state a claim.
Held: The Court recalled the interlocutor below and allowed a proof before answer on prescription and the effect of section 11(3). They followed the approach in GGHB and Glasper but rejected the submission that the fact that there had been an explosion in a building meant that it had been caused by negligence. Because the maxim of res ipsa loquitur applied where the cause of the accident was not known, an action based on the maxim was the antithesis of the requirement in Glasper, namely ‘awareness, not only of the fact of loss having occurred, but of the fact that it is loss caused by negligence.’
Lady Paton, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lady Smith
[2013] ScotCS CSIH – 19, 2013 SC 391, 2013 GWD 11-237, 2013 SLT 413
Bailii
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 11(3)
Scotland
Citing:
See Also – ICL Plastics Ltd and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 11-Mar-2005
The applicants were concerned at the decision to exclude them from their premises to investigate the cause of an explosion leading to the collapse of the factory. . .
Appeal from – David T Morrison and Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SCS 9-Mar-2012
Outer House – Opinion – In May 2004 an explosion at the defenders factory caused nine deaths. A pipeline carrying LPG gas had not been assessed for risks. Morrison owned neighbouring premises which were damaged. They began an action for damages. The . .
Cited – Glasper v Rodger SCS 1996
First Division – Inner House – Lord President Hope said: ‘In our opinion the lack of awareness which requires to be established for the purposes of section 11(3) of the 1973 Act is a lack of awareness that a loss has occurred caused by an act, . .
Cited – Dunlop v McGowans HL 6-Mar-1980
The landlord of a block of flats needed vacant possession to pursue redevelopment. The respondent solicitors failed to give the necessary notice in good time, delaying the development by a year. The landlord appellant delayed five years before . .
Cited – Greater Glasgow Health Board v Baxter Clark and Paul SCS 1990
Outer House Court of Session – Lord Clyde held (obiter) that the ordinary and natural meaning of the phrase ’caused as aforesaid’ included the distinct ingredient of causation by negligence: ‘The question is one of the interpretation of section . .
Cited – AMN Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd and others SCS 20-Jun-2008
Outer House – The phrase ‘aware . . that loss, injury or damage caused as aforesaid had occurred’ as meaning ‘aware . . that a stateable prima facie claim . . could properly be advanced against someone’ the resolution of that issue will ultimately . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2021; Ref: scu.472119

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council: QBD 24 Nov 1993

A local authority has no duty of care in negligence as to the education of children beyond its statutory obligations to children in its care.
Independent 23-Dec-1993, Times 24-Nov-1993
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – M and Another v Newham London Borough Council and Others; X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council CA 24-Feb-1994
A local authority was not liable in damages for breach of a statutory duty in Social Services. The policy which has first claim on the loyalty of the law is that wrongs should be remedied. The court would not go so far as to hold that the education . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2021; Ref: scu.90641

Musgrove 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 defence if the fire started accidentally but was then continued and not extinguished by the negligence of the householder.
Bankes LJ set out of the common law before liability for fire was restricted by statute, saying: ‘A man was liable at common law for damage done by fire originating on his own property (1) for the mere escape of the fire; (2) if the fire was caused by the negligence of himself or his servants, or by his own wilful act; (3) upon the principle of Rylands v Fletcher. This principle was not then known by that name, because Rylands v Fletcher was not then decided; but it was an existing principle of the common law as I shall show presently.’ Filliter v Phippard had decided that a fire negligently begun was not protected by the statute; and asked: ‘Why, if that is the law as to the second head of liability, should it be otherwise as to the third head, the liability on the principle of Rylands v Fletcher? If that liability existed, there is no reason why the statute should alter it and yet leave untouched the liability for fire caused by negligence or design. That the principle of Rylands v Fletcher existed long before that case was decided is plain. In Vaughan v Menlove Tindal CJ says: ‘There is a rule of law which says you must so enjoy your own property as not to injure that of another.’ Park J says: ‘Although the facts in this case are new in specie, they fall within a principle long established, that a man must so use his own property as not to injure that of others.’ Rylands v Fletcher is merely an illustration of that old principle, and in my opinion Lush J was right in saying that this case, if it falls within that principle, is not within the protection of the statute.’
Warrington LJ approved the comment of Lush J at first instance: ‘If this motor car with the petrol in its tank was potentially dangerous, such as a man’s own fire, then it was the defendant’s duty to see that the potential danger did not become an actual danger causing damage to his neighbour. The Act of Geo. 3 is no protection against that liability.’
Duke LJ used different reasoning. Although he applied Rylands v Fletcher applied, he went on to consider whether the fire was accidental for the purposes of section 86. He said: ‘I do not see how this case can be taken out of the principle of Rylands v Fletcher, which was thus stated by Lord Cairns LC in the very words of Blackburn J: ‘The true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril.’ He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default or perhaps that it was the consequence of vis major or the act of God. In the present case there was petrol which was easily convertible into an inflammable vapour; there was the apparatus for producing a spark; and added to those there was a person supposed to control the combustion but inexperienced and unequal to the task. Taking together the presence of the petrol, and the production of the inflammable gas, or those combustibles together with the inexperience of the person placed in charge of them, it is impossible to say that this is not an instance of the principle laid down by Blackburn J.’
. . ‘That would dispose of this case but for the defendant’s contention that he is excused by s. 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774. In my opinion the terms of that enactment fall far short of showing a definite intention to relieve a defendant in such a case as this. The actions against which the statute gives protection are in respect of fires which shall accidentally begin. I have the greatest doubt whether this fire began accidentally at any stage. If it was all one fire, it was begun not accidentally but intentionally. If progressive stages may be regarded it was not a fire which began accidentally without negligence at the stage when it became a conflagration involving goods and premises. The question may some day be discussed whether a fire, spreading from a domestic hearth, accidentally begins within the meaning of the Act, if such a fire should extend so as to involve the destruction of property or premises. I do not covet the task of the advocate who has to contend that it does. In the present case the fire, so far as it was a means of mischief, resulted from the negligent omission to turn off the petrol tap, an act which would have stopped the flow of petrol. All the witnesses who had any experience of such matters drew a distinction between fire in a carburettor, where the vapour can be instantly out off, and such a fire as occurred in this case. The learned judge has found that this fire was due to negligence. I cannot disagree with him. Whatever may be the effect of the Act of Geo. 3 upon the nice questions that have been discussed, this case is outside any possible protection of that statute.’
Bankes LJ, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ
[1919] 2 KB 43
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Musgrove v Pandelis 1919
Mr Musgrove rented rooms above a domestic garage, in which Mr Pandelis kept a car. Mr Pandelis sent his chauffeur, Mr Coumis, to clean the car. Mr Coumis had to move the car within the garage. For that purpose he went to the bonnet and turned on the . .
Cited – Vaughan v Menlove 1837
The defendant had been advised of the probable consequences of allowing a stack of damp hay, which he had erected without proper ventilation, to remain in this condition. Subsequently the hay spontaneously ignited damaging the plaintiff’s house. At . .
Cited – Rylands 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 – Filliter v Phippard 9-Dec-1847
Lord Denman CJ considered a 1707 Act restricting liability for fire damage: ‘The Act contemplates the probability of fires in cities and towns arising from three causes, the want of water, the imperfection of party walls, and the negligence of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Transco 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Wrong in part – Stannard (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 . .
Cited – Job Edwards Ltd v Birmingham Navigations Proprietors CA 1924
Land next to the canal was used for the deposit of refuse by trespassers. The mound spread until, for a fee, it was dumped also across the canal. It caught fire, and the fire spread toward the canal. By agreement the parties got together to put out . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2021; Ref: scu.188044

Verlander v Devon Waste Management and Another: CA 27 Jun 2007

Auld LJ commented on the analysis in Stephens of the need for a judge to decide the evidence before him: ‘Perhaps I can, without damage to that analysis, summarise it by reducing it to two main propositions. First, a judge should only resort to the burden of proof where he is unable to resolve an issue of fact or facts after he has unsuccessfully attempted to do so by examination and evaluation of the evidence. Secondly, the Court of Appeal should only intervene where the nature of the case and/or the judge’s reasoning are such that he could reasonably have been able to make a finding one way or the other on the evidence without such resort.
. . When this court in Stephens v Cannon used the word ‘exceptional’ as a seeming qualification for resort by a tribunal to the burden of proof, it meant no more than that such resort is only necessary where on the available evidence, conflicting and/or uncertain and/or falling short of proof, there is nothing left but to conclude that the claimant has not proved his case. The burden of proof remains part of our law and practice — and a respectable and useful part at that — where a tribunal cannot on the state of the evidence before it rationally decide one way or the other.5 In this case the Recorder has shown, in my view, in his general observations on the unsatisfactory nature of the important parts of the evidence on each side going to the central issue, particularly that of Mr Verlander, that he had considered carefully whether there was evidence on which he could rationally decide one way or the other. It is more than plain from what he has said and why, that he concluded he could not. Further, more detailed analysis by him of the evidence and rehearsal of his views on it would, in my view, have been otiose.’
Auld, Rix and Moses LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 835, [2021] 4 WLR 89
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .

Cited by:
Cited – ETI Euro Telecom International Nv v Republic of Bolivia and Another CA 28-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in an international investment dispute arbitration. An injunction had been sought to prevent repatriation of assets to Bolivia.
Held: The international system of arbitration was not subject to any national law and did . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.259138

Gawler v Raettig: CA 3 Dec 2007

The parties had resolved their claims of negligence, but asked the court to set the level of contributory negligence even though the appeal was academic.
Held: The court refused leave to appeal, but stated that its judgment could be reported. Sir Anthony Clarke MR concluded: ‘Thus the court was of the view (in Bowman v Fels) that, even though the litigation was private, if it was in the public interest to entertain the appeal, the court would be free to do so. This seems to me at bottom to be the correct approach. However, although as has been observed several times, the case involved public law duties, I do not read it as limiting the exception to each case, provided that the hearing of the appeal is in the public interest.’ and approved Professor Zuckerman who said : ‘In sum, the hearing of appeals that are no longer determinative of the rights of the parties will depend on whether the matter is of general public interest and whether entertaining an appeal is the most effective way of resolving the issue and promoting the overriding objective.’ He continued: ‘the court will not entertain an appeal between private parties in private litigation unless it is in the public interest to do so. Moreover, this is likely to be a very rare event, especially where the rights and duties to be considered are private and not public. Indeed, so far as I am aware, if we permitted this appeal to proceed, it would be the first case in which the court had ever considered such an appeal, since (as stated above) Bowman v Fels was a case involving an issue of public law.
All will depend upon the facts of the particular case . . ‘
Sir Anthony Clarke MR
2007 WL 5116827, [2007] EWHC Civ 373
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stanton v Collinson QBD 2-Mar-2009
The claimant was severely injured when a car driven by the defendant crashed. No-one was wearing a seat belt. The driver died. The driver’s estate argued that the claimant was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt. The claimant said . .
Cited – Stanton v Collinson QBD 2-Mar-2009
The claimant was severely injured when a car driven by the defendant crashed. No-one was wearing a seat belt. The driver died. The driver’s estate argued that the claimant was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt. The claimant said . .
Cited – Hutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .
Main Appeal – Gawler v Raettig (Leave) CA 3-Dec-2007
Application for leave to appeal. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.322733

Business Computers International Ltd v Registrar of Companies: ChD 1988

A winding up petition was served at an address which was not that of the plaintiff’s registered office, and nobody appeared at the hearing. A winding up order was made against the plaintiff company, which now sued the solicitors who had misserved the petition in negligence in respect of the losses said to have been sustained as a result of the order.
Held: The claim failed.
There is an inherently antagonistic relationship between adverse litigants which makes it inappropriate for the law to recognise a duty of care by one adverse party, or his legal representative, to another party. The safeguards in such a case must be found in the rules and procedures that govern litigation.
Scott J said: ‘Is it just and reasonable that a plaintiff should owe a duty of care to a defendant in regard to service of the originating process? I do not think that it is. The plaintiff and the defendant, the petitioner and the respondent, are antagonists. The plaintiff, or the petitioner, is seeking a legal remedy in an adversarial system. The system stipulates the rules and requirements that must be observed by the two parties. The plaintiff must issue his process and must serve it on the defendant. If there is default in service the process must be struck out. If an order is obtained without the prescribed rules or regulations having been observed, the order may be discharged or set aside, sometimes by an application at first instance, sometimes on appeal. The prosecution of the action or of the petition is subject throughout its career from institution to final judgment to judicial control. Service of process is a step, in the prosecution. It must usually be proved before an order can be obtained against an absent defendant. The proposition that a duty of care is owed by one litigant to another and can be superimposed on the checks and safeguards that the legal system itself provides is, to my mind, conceptually odd. The safeguards against ineffective service of process ought to be, and I think must be, found in the rules and procedures that govern litigation. The rules and procedures require that, save on ex parte applications, proof of service be shown before an order is made against an absent party. If the proof of service is false, be it through negligence or design, an order may be made that should not have been made. The injured party’s remedy is to have the order set aside. An action for damages cannot be based on the falsity of the proof of service. Nor, in my judgment, can the adequacy of the efforts made to effect service be subjected to a tortious duty of care.’ and ‘In my judgment, there is no duty of care owed by one litigant to another as to the manner in which the litigation is conducted, whether in regard to service of process or in regard to any other step in the proceedings. The safeguards against impropriety are to be found in the rules and procedure that control the litigation and not in tort. I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiff’s statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the second defendant and ought to be struck out.’
Scott J
[1988] Ch 229, [1987] 3 All ER 465, [1987] 3 WLR 1134
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 3-Feb-2004
The claimant had obtained orders against two companies who banked with the respondent. Asset freezing orders were served on the bank, but within a short time the customer used the bank’s Faxpay national service to transfer substantial sums outside . .
Cited – Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc CA 22-Nov-2004
The claimant had obtained judgment against customers of the defendant, and then freezing orders for the accounts. The defendants inadvertently or negligently allowed sums to be transferred from the accounts. The claimants sought repayment by the . .
Cited – HM 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. . .
Cited – Trent 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 . .
Cited – Connolly-Martin v Davis CA 27-May-1999
A claim was brought by a party against counsel for his opponent who had gone beyond his authority in giving an undertaking for his client.
Held: The claim had no prospect of success, and had been struck out correctly. Counsel offering to the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.192633

Boothman v British Northrop Ltd: CA 1972

Once relevant fault on the part of the plaintiff has been established, a reduction on account of his fault in the damages recoverable is obligatory Stephenson LJ: ‘Speaking for myself, I do not find that the words of section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 give any support to the view that the court can disregard negligence on the part of a plaintiff contributing to an accident if it thinks it just and equitable so to do. What the section says is that ‘the damages recoverable in respect thereof’ – that is, in respect of damage suffered by any person ‘as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person’ – ‘shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share of the responsibility for the damage’.
It has been held that the principle of de minimis applies to this as to other branches of the law and that where the contribution of a plaintiff’s negligence is virtually negligible it should be disregarded and the damages should be awarded him in full. If one looks at the words of section 1 (1) of the Act of 1945 they do not seem to leave much room for an application of the de minimis principle. But they certainly, in my view, do not encourage, and I very much doubt if they permit, not a reduction ‘to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable’ but no reduction at all because the court thinks it just and equitable that there should be no reduction. The judge having found (as I think, rightly) contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, I do not think it is open to Mr Carman to argue that even if that finding stands he should not have his damages reduced at all.’
Stephenson LJ
[1972] KIR 113
Law reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Badger v The Ministry of Defence QBD 16-Dec-2005
The widow of the deceased sought damages after his exposure to asbestos whilst working for the defendant. He had contracted lung cancer. The defendant argued that the deceased had continued to smoke knowing of the risks, and that he had made a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.237431

Heaton v Herzog: CA 13 Nov 2008

The court considered an accident caused when a motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed along a main road, collided with a car that emerged from a side road. The driver of the car had not looked right as she moved out of the side road.
Held: After referring to Dolby, Sir William Aldous said: ‘If she had done that which Russell LJ said that she should have done, she would have continued to look right before moving off and during the manoeuvre. She would then have seen the motorcycle and could have taken action to stop her car before an accident became unavoidable.’
Sir William Aldous
[2008] EWCA Civ 1636, [2009] RTR 30
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dolby v Milner CA 1996
Russell LJ said: ‘It is to be observed that at no stage in the judgment does the judge refer to and emphasise, as in my judgment he should have done, the fact that the plaintiff here was emerging from a minor road onto a major road, and was . .

Cited by:
Cited – Armsden v Kent Police CA 26-Jun-2009
The claimants sought damages as personal representatives after the deceased died when her car was hit by a police car responding to an emergency call. The defendant appealed a finding of negligence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.368609

Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners Llp and Others: ComC 26 Jun 2020

The court as asked ‘Does an agent for a named taxpayer, acting expressly as such in submitting the taxpayer’s tax refund claim to a national tax authority, owe some duty of care to the tax authority in respect of the statements included in the tax refund claim form, or in respect of the taxpayer’s honesty?’
Mr Justice Andrew Baker
[2020] EWHC 1624 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.652441

Vasey v Surrey Free Inns Plc: CA 5 May 1995

The claimant had been refused entry to the nightclub and in a temper he had kicked the door and damaged glass in it. Employees of the defendants’ nightclub, two employed as doormen, pursued the group of whom the claimant was one, to a public car park nearby and seriously assaulted the claimant.
Held: ‘. . the conduct of the assailants was a reaction to the damage to the door. There is no evidence that it related to some private quarrel or incident which occurred subsequently to and unrelated to the performance of the employee’s duty . . The evidence of the plaintiff to which I have referred, makes it plain that they wished to teach a lesson to the person who had caused that damage. That was the sole purpose of the attack. It was, of course, an unlawful and unauthorised manner of carrying out the duty to which I have referred, but I have no doubt that such is what it was. They were not pursuing their own purpose.’ and, as to responsibility in negligence for the doormen,’. . it is part of the duty of a manager of such an establishment to exercise proper control over such men to prevent, so far as he reasonably can, unwarranted assaults on customers. Moreover, as Mr. Coleman was inclined to accept, it is reasonably foreseeable that, if he fails in that duty, a person who was offered some provocation may be assaulted and injured.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1996] PIQR 373
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
Cited – Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc SC 2-Mar-2016
The claimant had been assaulted and racially abused as he left a kiosk at the respondent’s petrol station by a member of staff. A manager had tried to dissuade the assailant, and the claim for damages against the supermarket had failed at first . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.214876

Henry v Thames Valley Police: CA 14 Jan 2010

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after he had been injured when a police car following him ran over his leg. He had been riding a motorcycle and apparently seeking to escape them. He had stopped and was talking to one officer, and placing the cycle on its stand, when the second officer drove the car forward trapping him.
Held: The judge had failed to assess the evidence correctly. Though the officer was entitled to use his car to impede an escape, he was not entitled to do so in a way which injured the person being stopped. The claimant had not faltered but was injured dismounting the motorcycle in an ordinary fashion. He was not given sufficient room, and the officer was primarily liable, with a contributing liability of 40% from the claimant.
‘What matters in a civil action is whether the defendant’s actions were negligent in that they fell below the expected standard of reasonable skill or care. It may be wise to avoid any argument about whether there has been an error of judgment.’ (Pill LJ dissenting on the result)
Pill, Arden, Smith LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 5
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Marshall 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 . .
Cited – Simpson v Peat 1952
As to the offence of driving without due care and attention, Lord Goddard said: ‘The expression ‘error of judgment’ is not a term of art; it is in fact one of the vaguest possible description: it can be used colloquially to describe either a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.392850

Ratcliff v McConnell and others: CA 7 Nov 1997

The claimant, a nineteen year old student climbed into a college property in the early hours of the morning, and then took a running dive into the shallow end of a swimming pool, suffering severe injuries. He was accompanied by friends and had been drinking, though he was not drunk.
Held: The Act did not include the duty to safeguard the claimant from the consequences of his own folly.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘It is unfortunate that a number of high-spirited young men will take serious risks with their own safety and do things that they know are forbidden, Often they are disinhibited by drink and the encouragement of friends. It is the danger and the fact that it is forbidden that provides the thrill. But if the risk materialises they cannot blame others for their rashness.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
[1997] EWCA Civ 2679, [1999] 1 WLR 670
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Ratcliff v G R McConnell and E W Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed, 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 appeal . .
See also – Ratcliff v G R McConnell and E W Jones CA 30-Nov-1998
A trespasser having climbed into grounds at night and dived into a swimming pool without knowing the depth accepted responsibility for his own acts. The dangers of diving into shallow water were known to adults and there was no need for a warning. . .
Cited – Jebson v Ministry of Defence CA 28-Jun-2000
The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents . .
Cited – Cockbill v Riley QBD 22-Mar-2013
cockbill_rileyQBD2013
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 April 2021; Ref: scu.143078

Burrows v Rhodes: 1899

The plaintiff was induced to enlist in the Jameson Raid of 1895, contrary to section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, by the defendants’ fraudulent representation that it had the sanction of the Crown (which would have made it lawful). Kennedy J held that no claim for damages could be founded on an act ‘if the act is manifestly unlawful or the doer of it knows it to be unlawful as constituting either a civil wrong or a criminal offence.’
Kennedy J
[1899] 1 QB 816
Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 11
Cited by:

  • Cited – Lane v Holloway CA 30-Jun-1967
    In the context of a fight with fists, ordinarily neither party has a cause of action for any injury suffered during the fight. But they do not assume ‘the risk of a savage blow out of all proportion to the occasion. The man who strikes a blow of . .
    [1967] 3 All ER 129, [1968] 1 QB 379
  • Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
    Ex turpi causa explained
    The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
    [2014] UKSC 55, [2015] 1 AC 430, [2014] WLR(D) 452, [2014] BUS LR 1217, [2014] 3 WLR 1257, UKSC 2012/0158, [2015] 1 All ER 671, [2015] RPC 10

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 December 2020; Ref: scu.258461

Houghland v R R Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd: CA 1962

A passenger’s bag had been placed in one coach that had broken down was intended to be transferred to a second coach. When the second coach arrived at the passenger’s destination the bag was not in the hold.
Held: The duty of care of a bailee is the standard one. It is for the person in possession of the goods to prove any loss or damage to goods in their possession is not caused by their own actions or fault.
Where the defendant’s possession of the goods was unintentional and there was no lack of care, detinue will not lie.
Ormerod LJ said ‘once the failure of the bailee to hand over the articles in question has been proved, there is a prima facie case, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover unless the defendant can establish a defence to the satisfaction of the court’
Bankes LJ said: ‘I think that the law still is that, if a bailee is sued in detinue only, it is a good answer for him to say that the goods were stolen without any default on his part, as the general bailment laid in the declaration pledges the plaintiff to the proof of nothing except that the goods were in the defendant’s hands and were wrongfully detained . .’
References: [1962] CLY 157, [1962] 2 All ER 159, [1962] 1 QB 694
Judges: Ormerod LJ, Bankes LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Coldman v Hill CA 1918
    A bailee of cattle who had without negligence let them escape and be lost.
    Held: he was blameless in detinue but negligent in that he had failed to inform the owner of the loss as soon as possible, a duty which the court found to arise out of . .
    (120 LT 412, [1919] 1 KB 443, [1918] All ER Rep 438)

This case is cited by:

  • Dictum applied – Chaudry v Prabhakar CA 1988
    The plaintiff sued a friend of hers for wrongly advising her that a car she was thinking of buying was in good condition.
    Held: An agent, even a volunteer, owed a duty of care appropriate for those circumstances. The measurement was objective, . .
    ([1989] 1 WLR 29, [1988] 3 All ER 718)
  • Cited – Thakrar v The Secretary of State for Justice Misc 31-Dec-2015
    County Court sitting at Milton Keynes. The claimant prisoner sought damages saying that his personal property had been damaged whilst in the care of the defendant.
    Held: The claims succeeded in part. Some damage was deliberate. There was a . .
    (, [2015] EW Misc B44)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193403

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

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

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

This case is cited by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bird v Holbrook: 1828

References: (1828) 4 Bing 628
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL (lip, [1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, Bailii, [1972] UKHL 1)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 180981

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge Willemstad”: 9 Dec 1976″

References: [1976] HCA 65, (1976) 136 CLR 529
Links: Austlii
Coram: Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.
Ratio: Austlii (High Court of Australia) Negligence – Duty of care – Foreseeability of harm – Economic loss not consequential upon damage to person or property – Damage to property of one person – Economic loss suffered by person as a result – Pipeline carrying oil to plaintiff’s depot – Damaged by defendant’s negligence – Supply interrupted – Pipeline and depot owned by different persons – Expense incurred by plaintiff in arranging alternative means of delivery – Whether recoverable – Remoteness of loss or damage.
Shipping and Navigation – Action in rem – Action against ship – Negligence – Master not sued as defendant – Appearance entered by master – No proprietary interest in ship – Whether master liable to judgment.
A pipeline was damaged and the owner of the terminal (who was not the owner of the pipeline) incurred expense in transporting refined oil to the terminal while the pipeline was out of use.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover that expense from the dredger which had damaged the pipeline. Jacobs J said that the duty of care owed to the owner of the pipeline was also owed to ‘a person whose property was in such physical propinquity to the place where the acts of omissions of the dredge . . had their physical effect that a physical effect on the property of that person was foreseeable as the result of such acts or omissions’.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: Australia

Last Update: 13-Jul-18
Ref: 331084