Jameson and Another v Central Electricity Generating Board and others: HL 16 Dec 1998

A joint tortfeasor’s concurrent liability was discharged entirely by a full and final settlement and compromise of the claim against the other tortfeasor if in respect of the same harm. A dependency claim made by the claimant’s executors could not proceed where the deceased had settled his own claim in damages.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Lloyd of Berwick Lord Hoffmann,
Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde
Times 17-Dec-1998, Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] UKHL 51, [2000] 1 AC 455, [1999] 2 WLR 141, [1999] 1 All ER 193
House of Lords, Bailii
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 1(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHeaton and others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society Plc and Another CA 19-May-2000
Where a claimant had settled one claim with one of two joint tortfeasors on an issue which also concerned the action against the second, it was a matter for interpretation of that settlement as to whether or not the claimant could continue the . .
ExplainedHeaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimant had settled one claim in full and final satisfaction against one party, but then sought further damages from the defendant, for issues related to a second but linked contract. The defendant claimed the benefit of the settlement.
CitedCape and Dalgleish v Fitzgerald and others HL 25-Apr-2002
The employee was dismissed. After a compromise of the claims and counter claims, the employers sought damages from their accountants for failing to spot the losses. The accountants then sought to recover the damages awarded from the employee, not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.158983

Caxton Publishing v Sutherland Publishing: HL 1939

The normal measure of damages in conversion is the market value of the goods converted at the date of conversion.
Mere possession is not a conversion. Some act interfering with the true ownrs right must be shown.

Lord Porter
[1939] AC 178, [1938] 4 All ER 389, 108 LJCh 5
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.235497

Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland): HL 11 Jul 2007

The pursuers had been shareholders in a company which sold spring water. The defenders took shares in the company in return for promises as to the promotion and distribution of the bottled water. The pursuers said that they had failed to promote it in the way promised. The company failed. At first instance the judge found for the pursuers, but the defenders succeeded on reclamation.
Held: The pursuers had not done enough to show the misrepresentation alleged, and the claim failed. A critical finding of fact had been made which was unsupported by the evidence.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2007] UKHL 33, 2007 SC (HL) 142
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal FromJohn Stewart Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc OHCS 1-Aug-2003
. .
CitedPeek v Gurney HL 31-Jul-1873
A prospectus for an intended company was issued by promoters who were aware of the disastrous liabilities of the business of Overend and Gurney which the company was to purchase. The prospectus made no mention of a deed of arrangement under which . .
CitedBanque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd CA 1990
A loan was to be made. An agent of the borrower came to know of the fraudulent nature of the loan, but said nothing.
Held: A failure to disclose a known fraud may itself amount to a misrepresentation, but nondisclosure (whether dishonest or . .
CitedPayabi and Another v Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another QBD 1-Apr-1992
A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: ‘But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is . .
CitedAdelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
CitedWatt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .

Cited by:
CitedMcGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.254549

Reeve v Palmer: 25 Jun 1858

It is no answer for an attorney, when sued in detinue for a deed which has been intrusted to him by a client, to say simply that he has lost it.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘The jury have found that he lost it: and I am of opinion that that must be taken to mean, in the absence of any explanation, that he lost it for want of that due and proper care, which it was his duty to apply to the keeping of it, unless it is qualified by circumstances shewing that the loss of the deed could not have been prevented by the application of ordinary care.’

Cockburn Cj
[1858] EngR 892, (1858) 5 CB NS 84, (1858) 144 ER 33
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoReeve v Palmer 1858
In detinue, when the defendant state that he has either lost the deeds or delivered them to the plaintiff, it will be for the jury whether he has in truth lost them ; subject to the question (b), whether, even supposing that he has lost them, he is . .

Cited by:
CitedVolcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa SC 5-Dec-2018
The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.289363

Houchin v Lincolnshire Probation Trust: CA 18 Jun 2014

The appellant a 76 years old life sentence prisoner claimed for misfeasance in public office; and it is brought against the respondent on the ground that it is vicariously liable for the actions of one of its employees, who had recommended his return to closed conditions. He now appealed against summary dismissal of his case

Patten, Lewison, Sharp LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 823
Bailii
England and Wales

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526725

Williams v Owen: QBD 1955

Mr Williams left his car overnight in the hotel garage. A fire broke out and destroyed his car.
Held: The strict liability of an innkeeper was limited to loss of his guest’s goods rather than to their destruction.
As to section 86 of the 1774 Act, he said: ‘I think that this liability of the innkeeper was a custom of the realm. It is true it is embodied in common law rules, but then common law is the legal expression of custom, and it seems to me that that also would be an answer in this particular case. I suppose that by 1774 the legislature had appreciated what Lord Goddard CJ laid down in Sochacki v Sas: ‘Everybody knows fires occur through accidents which happen without negligence on anybody’s part.’ Parliament in 1774 apparently thought it right that they should make it plain that whatever customs or usages there were to the contrary, in this country a man should not be held to be responsible for a fire which occurred accidentally – which I take to mean ‘without negligence on his part.’
Those are two points which I think would be enough to decide that there is in this case no absolute liability on the part of the innkeeper, first, because there was injury to the car and not theft or loss; and, secondly, because, in any event, as it was a fire the Act of 1774 would limit the liability of the innkeeper, so far as a fire is concerned.’

Finnemore J
[1955] 1 WLR 1293
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 86
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSochacki v Sas 1947
A claim was made after the escape of a fire in a domestic fireplace. The defendant had left the room for two or three hours with the fire burning, with no fire guard or fender,
Held: The use was not a non-natural use for a house, the room was . .

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

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.512184

Broxton v McClelland: CA 31 Jan 1995

The defendants issued various applications to strike out the claim, including a claim of abuse of process. The action was being financially maintained by a third party. The defendants contended that the maintainer’s purpose was to oppress and ultimately bankrupt the defendants, and for that reason the action should be struck out as an abuse of process.
Held: The proceedings should not be struck out since the plaintiffs were not seeking to achieve a collateral advantage beyond the scope of the action. The motive for bringing proceedings is irrelevant, and a plaintiff is entitled to seek the defendant’s financial ruin if that would be the consequence of properly prosecuting a legitimate claim.
Simon Brown LJ extracted the following principles from earlier authorities: ‘(1) Motive and intention as such are irrelevant . . : the fact that a party who asserts a legal right is activated by feelings of personal animosity, vindictiveness or general antagonism towards his opponent is nothing to the point. . (2) Accordingly the institution of proceedings with an ulterior motive is not of itself enough to constitute an abuse: an action is only that if the Court’s processes are being misused to achieve something not properly available to the plaintiff in the course of properly conducted proceedings. The cases appear to suggest two distinct categories of such misuse of process:
(i) The achievement of a collateral advantage beyond the proper scope of the action – a classic instance was Grainger -v- Hill where the proceedings of which complaint was made had been designed quite improperly to secure for the claimants a ship’s register to which they had no legitimate claim whatever. The difficulty in deciding where precisely falls the boundary of such impermissible collateral advantage is addressed in Bridge LJ’s judgment in Goldsmith -v- Sperrings Limited at page 503 D/H.
(ii) The conduct of the proceedings themselves not so as to vindicate a right but rather in a manner designed to cause the defendant problems of expense, harassment, commercial prejudice or the like beyond those ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.
(3) Only in the most clear and obvious case will it be appropriate upon preliminary application to strike out proceedings as an abuse of process so as to prevent a plaintiff from bringing an apparently proper cause of action to trial.’

Simon Brown LJ
Unreported, 31 January 1995, [1995] EMLR 485
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoBroxton v McClelland 6-Nov-1992
. .
CitedGrainger v Hill CEC 1838
Misuse of Power for ulterior object
D1 and D2 lent C 80 pounds repayable in 1837, secured by a mortgage on C’s vessel. C was to be free to continue to use the vessel in the interim but the law forbade its use if he were to cease to hold its register. In 1836 the Ds became concerned . .
CitedGoldsmith v Sperrings Ltd CA 1977
Claims for Collateral Purpose treated as abuse
The plaintiff commenced proceedings for damages for libel and an injunction against the publishers, the editors and the main distributors of Private Eye. In addition, he issued writs against a large number of other wholesale and retail distributors . .
CitedSpeed Seal Ltd v Paddington CA 1985
The court was asked whether the defendant should be permitted to add to his pleadings a counterclaim asserting that the action was brought in bad faith for the ulterior motive of damaging the defendants’ business, and not for the protection of any . .

Cited by:
CitedLand Securities Plc and Others v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm) CA 18-Dec-2009
The claimants wanted planning permission to redevelop land. The defendant firm of solicitors, their tenants, had challenged the planning permission. The claimants alleged that that opposition was a tortious abuse because its true purpose was to . .
CitedDhir v Saddler QBD 6-Dec-2017
Slander damages reduced for conduct
Claim in slander. The defendant was said, at a church meeting to have accused the client of threatening to slit her throat. The defendant argued that the audience of 80 was not large enough.
Held: ‘the authorities demonstrate that it is the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.384387

Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Another v Eurotrust International Ltd and others: PC 10 Oct 2005

(Court of Appeal of the Isle of Man) Defendants appealed a finding of dishonest assistance in the activities of Barlow Clowes.
Held: The judge had been able to reach the conclusions on the basis of the evidence. The appeal of the deemster succeeded, and the order was restored.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, the standard by which the law determines whether it is dishonest is objective. If by ordinary standards a defendant’s mental state would be characterised as dishonest, it is irrelevant that the defendant judges by different standards. The Court of Appeal held this to be a correct state of the law and their Lordships agree.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 WLR 1476, [2006] 1 All ER 333, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225, [2005] WTLR 1453
Bailii, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRoyal Brunei Airlines SDN BHD v Tan PC 24-May-1995
(Brunei) The defendants were a one-man company, BLT, and the one man, Mr Tan. A dishonest third party to a breach of trust was liable to make good a resulting loss even though he had received no trust property. The test of knowledge was an objective . .
CitedTwinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others HL 21-Mar-2002
Solicitors acted in a loan, giving an undertaking as to its application. In breach of that undertaking they released it to the borrower. The appellants appealed a finding of liability as contributors to the breach.
Held: ‘Money in a . .
CitedManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
CitedRegina v Lucas (Ruth) CACD 1981
People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) . .
Not approvedBrinks Ltd v AbuSaleh and Others (No 3) ChD 23-Oct-1995
A person must know of the existence of an obligation of trust to be liable as an accessory to an act in breach of that trust. A person cannot be liable for dishonest assistance in a breach of trust unless he knows of the existence of the trust or at . .

Cited by:
CitedAbouRahmah and Another v Abacha and others QBD 28-Nov-2005
Claims were made as to an alleged fraud by some of the respondents. . .
CitedJules Rimet Cup Ltd v The Football Association Ltd. ChD 18-Oct-2007
The parties disputed on preliminary issues the ownership of the rights in the trade mark ‘World Cup Willie’. The claimant had set out to register the mark, and the defendant gave notice of its intention to oppose. The claimant now alleged threat and . .
CitedAttorney General for Jersey v O’Brien (Jersey) PC 14-Feb-2006
(Court of Appeal of Jersey) The appellant had been convicted of laundering the proceeds of her husband’s drug trafficking. The Attorney-General now appealed against her successful appeal on sentence and confiscation order. Both she and her husband . .
CitedIvey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.231105

Francis, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: CA 23 May 2014

Appeal against rejection of claim for damages after alleged unlawful detention in immigration detention centre pending examination of immigration status.

Moore-Bick, Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
[2014] EWCA Civ 718, [2015] 1 WLR 567, [2014] WLR(D) 240
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedNouazli, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Apr-2016
The court considered the compatibility with EU law of regulations 21 and 24 of the 2006 Regulations, and the legality at common law of the appellant’s administrative detention from 3 April until 6 June 2012 and of bail restrictions thereafter until . .
CitedO, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525869

Hannon and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: ChD 16 May 2014

The claimants alleged infringement of their privacy, saying that the defendant newspaper had purchased private information from police officers emplyed by the second defendant, and published them. The defendants now applied for the claims to be struck out, saying that they should have been brought in defamation, and were accordingly time barred, that the action was an abuse of process.
Held: The action was one in a developing area of law, and the defendants would have to meet not only the usual high standards required to establish abuse, but there are clear requirements of additional caution in such an area. The application to dismiss failed.

Mann J
[2014] EWHC 1580 (Ch), [2015] EMLR 1
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
CitedWoodward v Hutchins CA 1977
An injunction was sought to restrain publication of confidential information about a well-known pop group, starring Tom Jones and Engelbert Humperdinck. As the group’s press agent, the defendant’s role had been to see that the group received . .
CitedKhashoggi v Smith CA 15-Jan-1980
The plaintiff attempted to prevent a housekeeper from disclosing allegedly confidential information acquired during her employment.
Held: Sir David Cairns said: ‘But when it is apprehended that what a former employee has disclosed, or is about . .
CitedFoaminol Laboratories Ltd v British Artide Plastics Ltd 1941
There is no justification for artificially excising from the damages recoverable for breach of contract that part of the financial loss which might or might not be the subject of a successful claim in defamation. A claim for mere loss of reputation . .
CitedLonhro Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 6-Oct-1993
The plaintiff sought to amend a conspiracy claim, based on arrangements to publish defamatory statements, by adding a claim for damage to reputation and feelings.
Held: Such a claim could not be made in conspiracy. A Plaintiff’s motives in . .
CitedTillery Valley Foods v Channel Four Television, Shine Limited ChD 18-May-2004
The claimant sought an injunction to restrain the defendants broadcasting a film, claiming that it contained confidential material. A journalist working undercover sought to reveal what he said were unhealthy practices in the claimant’s meat . .
CitedDixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA 8-Jul-2004
The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway.
Held: The court had . .
CitedAsh and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
CitedTerry (previously LNS) v Persons Unknown QBD 29-Jan-2010
The claimant (then known as LNS) had obtained an injunction to restrain publication of private materials.
Held: There was insufficient material to found an action in confidence or privacy. An applicant was unlikely to succeed either at an . .
CitedBell-Booth Group Ltd v Attorney General 1989
There were alternative cases put in defamation and negligence.
Held: negligence could not operate in that sort of case. . .
CitedLonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 27-Jul-1993
Defamatory statements causing pecuniary loss may give rise to an action in tort only. The boundaries set by the tort of defamation are not to be side-stepped by allowing a claim in contract that would not succeed in defamation. A claimant cannot, by . .
CitedMosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-Jul-2008
mosley_newsgroupQBD2008
The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
CitedIn re Kavanagh KBD 1949
Before her bankruptcy the bankrupt had sued her former solicitor for breach of confidence. The claim was pending at the date of her bankruptcy but later settled on terms which involved the defendant paying damages. The bankrupt claimed that the . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
CitedIn re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
CitedAxel Springer Ag v Germany ECHR 7-Feb-2012
ECHR Grand Chamber – A German newspaper had published a story or stories about the arrest and conviction of a well-known TV actor, together with photographs, and various restraining-type orders had been issued by . .

Cited by:
CitedRichard v The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 18-Jul-2018
Police suspect has outweighable Art 8 rights
Police (the second defendant) had searched the claimant’s home in his absence in the course of investigating allegations of historic sexual assault. The raid was filmed and broadcast widely by the first defendant. No charges were brought against the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525499

Waryoba, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 13 May 2014

The claimant sought damages alleging false imprisonment by the defendant in that he had been held at an immigration control centre. It had been lawful at first, being held after release from prison and pending deportation, but the extent of his detention had exceeded what was lawful.

Nissen QC
[2014] EWHC 1496 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Prisons

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525494

Hegazy and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: QBD 10 Feb 2014

The claimants alleged false imprisonment, assault and race discrimination
Several claimants made assorted claims against the police, and sought to have admitted various events as similar fact evidence.

Sir David Eady
[2014] EWHC 235 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521122

S, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 28 Jan 2014

The claimant, ‘S’, claimed damages for his alleged unlawful immigration detention in Corby Police Station and Colnbrook and Harmondsworth IRCs between 3 December 2011 and 21 March 2012 and for the alleged series of significant breaches by the defendant, of the policies relating to immigration detention, the detaining of those suffering from serious mental illness and of the treatment and conditions of detention of such immigration detainees.
The background facts
The claimant, a Ghanaian, had been unlawfully resident in the UK since 19 February 2005. He had lawfully entered the UK on a 6-month visitor’s visa and a valid passport. He remained as an unlawful overstayer and in the nearly 7 years he had overstayed, he is not recorded as having worked, drawn any benefits or committed any crime. He was arrested by the police in Corby where he was living in accommodation provided for free by his Church on 3 December 2011 having been brought to their attention on 2 December 2011 behaving in a strange fashion in the street. His unlawful status came to light when one of the officers who had observed him in the street checked his details against the UKBA computerised details and ascertained that he was an unlawful overstayer.
No passport, valid or invalid, was found in the claimant’s possession and, from the outset, he was considered to be subject to and fit for administrative removal and his arrest and detention were made and maintained on that basis. There were four separate stages in his detention: his arrest and acceptance into police custody in Corby Police Station (‘CPS’) between 3 and the early hours of 5 December 2011- a total of about 34 hours whilst enquiries were made and the decision was being taken to detain him by officers of the Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Local Immigration Team (‘CNLIT’) and then arrangements were being made to transfer him to an Immigration Removal Centre (‘IRC’); between 5 and the early hours of 14 December 2011 in Colnbrook IRC when he was transferred to Harmondsworth IRC; between 14 December 2011 and 10 February 2012 when he was detained in Harmondsworth whilst CNLIT was responsible for his case and between 10 February and 21 March 2012 when he was detained in Harmondsworth in the Detained Fast Track whilst the Harmondsworth DFT team was responsible for his case.
He was released from detention on the orders of an Immigration Judge who had been listed to hear his asylum appeal in the DFT in Harmondsworth at the outset of the hearing on discovering from his appearance, behaviour, demeanour and from reading the two psychiatric reports that had been prepared for the hearing that he was unfit to participate in the hearing, was lacking in capacity and was incapable of representing himself – he was unrepresented at the hearing.
S’s mental illness
S’s behaviour immediately prior to his arrest and behaviour whilst in detention are now known to have been symptoms of florid and largely untreated psychosis which has been diagnosed as paranoid Schizophrenia with symptoms of cognitive impairment, perplexity, suspiciousness and severe depressive symptoms requiring stabilisation with the use of antipsychotic and mood stabilisation medication and other appropriate treatment following a lengthy period of assessment in a hospital setting. This illness had, it can now been seen, started to develop some months earlier but was, until his arrest, wholly untreated and its florid and fluctuating state had become active just before, or as a result of, his arrest. The illness was only finally brought under control after S had been released from detention and had been treated by a community-based psychiatric team between March and October 2012.
Unlawful detention
S’s claim is based on a series of allegations to the effect that his detention from the outset and throughout was unlawful because it infringed the SSHD’s related and intertwined policies of detention and detention of those suffering from mental illness. In short, S was suffering from a serious mental illness which could not be managed satisfactorily or at all by either Colnbrook or Harmondsworth IRCs and which clearly precluded his being removed from the UK in the foreseeable future. In order to consider this case, it has been necessary to examine in considerable detail the entire periods of detention – which lasted for 110 days counting the day of arrest and of release from detention. In essence, S’s case was that he was never properly assessed save on two occasions by an independently instructed psychiatrist who attended at Harmondsworth IRC on 21 December 2011 and 6 March 2012 but whose reports were completely ignored by those responsible for his detention until the Immigration Judge who considered his second report which had been included in the hearing bundle for his appeal hearing on 21 March 2012. He was considered from the outset to be fit for detention, for participation in his – as it turned out – lengthy immigration and asylum claims and proceedings, for removal and for flying and, although unfit for all of those activities, was left virtually untreated throughout the period of detention.
The findings
The inevitably lengthy and factually complex judgment examines the claimant’s claims in four stages: (1) a consideration with specific findings of fact of each of the four stages of detention; (2) an analysis of the claimant’s claim and of the various legal issues that arose in the consideration of the claim; (3) a consideration of the general features of the claim and (4) a detailed discussion and series of findings.
The result
The overall conclusion is that the claimant’s detention was throughout unlawful and that each of the decisions taken to detain and to confirm his detention were also unlawful as being Wednesbury unreasonable, and unlawful as having failed to take into account highly significant facts related to the claimant’s mental health.
Particular failings arose from the failure by Immigration Officers to visit or interview the claimant whilst he was in CPS; by Colnbrook Healthcare Centre to report, and to ensure that its locum psychiatrist, who correctly assessed the claimant but whose assessment was never reported to anyone or acted upon, issued or caused to be issued a revised IS91 and a Rule 35 report (these were never issued); by Harmondsworth Healthcare Centre who failed to treat or manage the mental illness of the claimant throughout his time in Harmondsworth; and by the various Immigration Officers who failed to pick up and give effect to the evidence of S’s serious mental illness and to obtain further details from all three detention locations which would have highlighted it.
In addition to establishing that his detention was unlawful, the claimant has established that those responsible for his detention and for his assessment, treatment and illness management in detention were in breach of his rights that were protected by articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
The claimant is entitled to substantial damages for his unlawful detention, since he would not have been held in detention for any part of the claimed period had the SSHD operated its policies lawfully, and if necessary additional damages for the sustained breaches of articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The damages for unlawful detention will need to reflect not only the period of unlawful detention but also the conditions under which the claimant was detained and an additional award to provide just satisfaction will be needed for the breaches of articles 3 and 8 if and to the extent that the claimant’s damages for unlawful detention do not fully and fairly reflect satisfaction for the matters giving rise to those breaches.
Damages
The claimant’s damages will now have to be assessed if these cannot be agreed. Given the complexity of that assessment process, I will myself undertake that assessment – either by a paper assessment following the receipt of further evidence and submissions or at an oral hearing if that is sought and granted. I will give directions for this assessment at the handing down hearing of this judgment which will have built into them an initial period during which the parties are to attempt to reach agreement on the award figure and thereby avoid a further hearing altogether.

[2014] EWHC 50 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520773

Das, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others: CA 28 Jan 2014

The claimant said that his continued immigration detention became unlawful on his being diagnosed with a mental health condition.
Held: Beatson LJ discussed the meaning of the phrase ‘satisfactory management’ He said he as inclined to accept the Home Secretary’s contention that, if the management of the illness in an IRC was likely to prevent its deterioration, it would be satisfactory even if treatment was available in the community which was likely to secure its improvement.

Moses, Beatson, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 45, [2014] WLR(D) 39, [2014] 1 WLR 3538
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedO, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520769

UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corporation: CA 1984

The defendant invited the plaintiff to take part in a syndicated loan. The defendant’s assistant secretary signed a letter to the plaintiff making representations, now claimed to be fraudulent. The defendant succeeded at first instance arguing that the signature was not that of the bank, and that even if it was, the action would be statute barred.
Held: The court refused to strike out the claim. A company itself made a representation, if it produced a document which was signed by an authorised officer or agent acting within the scope of his actual authority. This applied to bind the defendant bank. The nature of a syndicated loan was a fiduciary arrangement, and the obligations on a lead bank were continuing for limitation purposes, time did not run, and the obligation was not time barred. The issue would be settled at trial when it was established when the defendant could be said to have come to know of the alleged deceit.

Ackner LJ
[1984] QB 713, [1984] 1 WLR 508, [1984] CLY 1579
England and Wales
Citing:
ExplainedSwift v Jewsbury and Goddard 1874
. .
ExplainedHirst v West Riding Banking Co CA 1901
The representation on which the claim made was was in a letter signed by the branch manager of the defendant bank and the court evidently assumed that this could not be equated with the bank’s own signature.
Held: The action against the bank . .
ConsideredForster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .

Cited by:
CitedNykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .
CitedPegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Banking, Limitation, Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181338

The Secretary of State for Justice v MM: CA 29 Mar 2017

Power of FTT to deprivie patient of liberty

Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
Held: The orders made by the UT were set aside. There is no ‘umbrella’ power that can be exercised by the tribunal to authorise a patient’s deprivation of liberty outside hospital. It is accordingly inappropriate for a tribunal to do so, whether by direct or indirect means (for example, by the use of declarations to provide for an asserted lacuna in the statutory scheme). There is no lacuna in the scheme. However practicable and effective it may be to provide for a tribunal to have such a power, for example to improve access to justice to a specialist and procedurally appropriate adjudication, Parliament has not provided for the same.

Sir James Munby, President, Lady Justice Gloster, Vice-President, and Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President
[2017] EWCA Civ 194
Bailii
Mental Health Act 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v KC and C Partnership NHS Foundation Trust UTAA 2-Jul-2015
Mental Health : All
The local authority had sought an order under the 2005 Act seeking a personal welfare order on the basis that it would be in KC’s best interests for him to move to a proposed placement (the Placement) on the terms of a care . .
CitedP (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
Appeal fromMM v WL Clinic and Another UTAA 23-Nov-2015
Mental Health : All – whether for the purposes of Article 5 a restricted patient who has the capacity to do so can give a valid consent to the terms of a conditional discharge that, when it is implemented, will on an objective assessment create a . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department, Regina (on the Application of) v Mental Health Review Tribunal Admn 20-May-2002
The Court considered the meaning of ‘discharge’ from a mental health hospital. Elias J held that it meant ‘discharge from detention in hospital’, so that there could be a discharge on condition of residence in another hospital: but he also held that . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Health, Human Rights

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.581298

Robertson v The Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd: PC 10 Dec 1909

High Court of Australia – The Plaintiff paid a penny on entering the wharf to stay there till the boat should start and then be taken by the boat to the other side. The Defendants were admittedly always ready and willing to carry out their part of this contract. Then the Plaintiff changed his mind, and wished to go back. The rules as to the exit from the wharf by the turnstile required a penny for any person who went though. This the Plaintiff refused to pay, and he was by force prevented from going through the turnstile. He then claimed damages for assault and false imprisonment,
Otherwise: Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd

[1909] UKPC 1, [1909] UKPC 58, [1910] AC 295, [1909] UKLawRpAC 62
Bailii, Bailii, Commonlii
Australia
Cited by:
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.245719

Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others: SC 22 Apr 2015

The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the pleaded facts, Mr Chopra and Mr Nazir were the directing organ of Bilta under its constitution. They constituted the board. Mr Chopra was also the sole shareholder. As between Bilta and Jetivia it was common ground on the pleadings that they were the ‘directing mind and will’ of Bilta for all purposes, and certainly in relation to those of its functions which are relevant in these proceedings.
Held: The defendant company and director failed in their appeals, both in relation to the illegality defence and in relation to section 213. The plea of ex turpi causa non oritur actio was not available to the directors of a company in a defence to an action against them by the company for acts involvig breaches of their duties as directors.
Lord Mance said: ‘ it is certainly unjust and absurd to suggest that the answer to a claim for breach of a director’s (or any employee’s) duty could lie in attributing to the company the very misconduct by which the director or employee has damaged it. A company has its own separate legal personality and interests. Duties are owed to it by those officers who constitute its directing mind and will, similarly to the way in which they are owed by other more ordinary employees or agents. All the shareholders of a solvent company acting unanimously may in certain circumstances (which need not here be considered, since it is not suggested that they may apply) be able to authorise what might otherwise be misconduct towards the company. But even the shareholders of a company which is insolvent or facing insolvency cannot do this to the prejudice of its creditors, and the company’s officers owe a particular duty to safeguard the interest of such creditors. There is no basis for regarding the various statutory remedies available to a liquidator against defaulting officers as making this duty or its enforcement redundant.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKSC 23, [2015] WLR(D) 182, UKSC 2013/0206, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 61, [2015] 1 BCLC 443, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 281, [2015] BVC 20, [2015] 2 WLR 1168, [2015] BCC 343, [2015] 2 All ER 1083
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others CA 31-Jul-2013
Defendants appealed against refusal of their request for a summary striking out for lack of jurisdiction, of the claims against them arising from their management of the insolvency of the first defendant. . .
CitedBowman v Secular Society Limited HL 1917
The plantiff argued that the the objects of the Secular Society Ltd, which had been registered under the Companies Acts, were unlawful.
Held: The House referred to ‘the last persons to go to the stake in this country pro salute animae’ in 1612 . .
At first Instance (1)Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nazir and Others ChD 17-May-2010
The sixth defendant resisted a claim against it saying that matters between them were governed by a framework agreement which provided for matters to be resolved by arbitration. The claimant resisted, denying the arbitration agreement and saying . .
At first Instance (2)Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Appeal fromBilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .
CitedAbrath v North Eastern Railway Co HL 15-Mar-1886
The plaintiff had brought an action against the company of malicious prosecution. It was rejected by the jury and again on appeal.
Held: The appeal failed. In an action for damages for the tort of malicious prosecution one of the elements of . .
CitedThe Citizens Life Assurance Company Limited v Brown PC 6-May-1904
(New South Wales) A malicious libel was alleged. The life assurance company was vicariously liable in respect of a libel contained in a circular sent out by a person who was employed by the company under a written agreement as its ‘superintendent of . .
CitedWest Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodds CA 1988
If a company continues to trade whilst insolvent but in the expectation that it would return to profitability, it should be regarded as trading not for the benefit of the shareholders, but for the creditors also. If there is a possibility of . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
CitedLennard’s Carrying Company Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company Limited HL 1915
The House was asked as to when the acts of an individual became those of his employer under section 502 (‘any loss or damage happening without (the ship owner’s) actual fault or privity’).
Held: Viscount Haldane LC said: ‘It must be upon the . .
CitedEl Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Plc and Another ChD 3-Jan-1993
A non active director may still be company’s ‘directing mind’. The doctrine of attributing the actions of individuals to a company is that ‘Their minds are its mind; their intention its intention; their knowledge its knowledge.’
Tracing was no . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
CitedEl Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Ltd CA 2-Dec-1993
The court was asked whether, for the purposes of establishing a company’s liability under the knowing receipt head of constructive trust, the knowledge of one of its directors can be treated as having been the knowledge of the company.
Held: . .
CitedMeridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v The Securities Commission Co PC 26-Jun-1995
(New Zealand) Lord Hofmann said: ‘There is in fact no such thing as the company as such, no ‘ding an sich’, only the applicable rules. To say that a company cannot do something means only that there is no one whose doing of that act would, under the . .
Not to be followedMoore Stephens (A Firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL 30-Jul-2009
The appellants had audited the books of the respondent company, but had failed to identify substantial frauds by an employee of the respondent. The auditors appealed a finding of professional negligence, relying on the maxim ex turpi causa non . .
CitedHounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
CitedLes 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 . .
CitedAbrath v North Eastern Railway Company CA 22-Jun-1883
A claim was brought against the company for malicious prosecution. The jury acquitted it. And the plaintiff appealed.
Held: The judge’s direction had been correct.
Bowen LJ said: ‘Wherever a person asserts affirmatively as part of his . .
CitedJC Houghton and Co v Northard, Lowe and Wills HL 1927
The court was asked whether the knowledge of the directors of the latter company should be attributed to it, with the effect that the latter company could and should be treated as estopped from denying that it had consented to a particular . .
CitedRegina v ICR Haulage Ltd KBD 1944
A company can be guilty of conspiracy, in this case to defraud. Both the managing director and, through him, the haulage company were convicted of conspiracy to defraud. His acts ‘were the acts of the company and the fraud of that person was the . .
CitedMoore v I Bresler Ltd KBD 1944
The company had been required to make a return for revenue purposes (purchase tax) and the statute made it an offence to make a false return with intent to deceive. The company was charged with such, but responded that the action was of employees . . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd 1945
The court considered the liability of a company under provisions being, ‘with intent to deceive, made use . . of a document which was false in a material particular’
Held: The General Manager was capable of acting or speaking as the company; . .
CitedBelmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd CA 1979
The company directors operated an elaborate scheme to extract value from Belmont by causing it to buy the shares of a company called Maximum at a considerable overvalue. This was a breach of the fiduciary duties of the directors. They sought to . .
CitedRe Hampshire Land Company 9-Jul-1896
A company had borrowed from a building society. The borrowing was not properly authorised by resolution of the shareholders in general meeting The court was asked whether whether the knowledge of the company secretary common to both the company and . .
CitedLloyd v Grace, Smith and Co HL 1912
Mrs Lloyd delivered the title deeds of her cottages at Ellesmere Port to the solicitors’ managing clerk, who defrauded her.
Held: Vicarious liability can extend to fraudulent acts or omissions if those were carried out in the course of the . .
CitedTesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass HL 31-Mar-1971
Identification of Company’s Directing Mind
In a prosecution under the 1968 Act, the court discussed how to identify the directing mind and will of a company, and whether employees remained liable when proper instructions had been given to those in charge of a local store.
Held: ‘In the . .
CitedAshmore, Benson, Pease and Co v A V Dawson Ltd CA 1973
By acquiescing in the overloading of the hauliers’ lorries, the consignors’ assistant transport manager and his assistant made the haulage contract unenforceable at the instance of the consignors, who were unable to recover when a lorry toppled over . .
CitedAttorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1982) CACD 1984
Two men were charged with theft from a company which they wholly owned and controlled. The court considered the actions of company directors in dishonestly appropriating the property of the company, and whether since the title to the goods was . .
CitedRoyal Brunei Airlines SDN BHD v Tan PC 24-May-1995
(Brunei) The defendants were a one-man company, BLT, and the one man, Mr Tan. A dishonest third party to a breach of trust was liable to make good a resulting loss even though he had received no trust property. The test of knowledge was an objective . .
CitedLancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 3-Apr-1996
The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedSafeway Stores Ltd and Others v Twigger and Others CA 21-Dec-2010
The court was asked whether, when a company had been fined for anti-competitive practices, the company could then recover the penalties from the directors and senior employees involved.
Held: The undertaking was not entitled to recover the . .
CitedAberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers HL 1854
The plaintiff needed a large quantity of iron chairs (rail sockets) and contracted for their supply over an 18-month period with Blaikie Bros a partnership. Thomas Blaikie was the managing partner of Blaikie Bros and a director and the chairman of . .
CitedSalomon v A Salomon and Company Ltd HL 16-Nov-1896
A Company and its Directors are not same paersons
Mr Salomon had incorporated his long standing personal business of shoe manufacture into a limited company. He held nearly all the shares, and had received debentures on the transfer into the company of his former business. The business failed, and . .
CitedBowman v Secular Society Limited HL 1917
The plantiff argued that the the objects of the Secular Society Ltd, which had been registered under the Companies Acts, were unlawful.
Held: The House referred to ‘the last persons to go to the stake in this country pro salute animae’ in 1612 . .
CitedBrink’s Mat Ltd v Noye CA 1991
The proceeds of the theft of gold bullion from a warehouse owned by the plaintiffs were laundered through the bank account of a company called Scadlynn Ltd with Barclays Bank. The directors and sole shareholders of Scadlynn were signatories of the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Gomez HL 3-Dec-1992
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of . .
CitedHall v Hebert 29-Apr-1993
(Canadian Supreme Court) After they had been drinking heavily together, Mr Hebert, who owned a car, allowed Mr Hall to drive it, including initially to give it a rolling start down a road on one side of which there was a steep slope. The car . .
CitedSouth 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 . .
CitedMarks and Spencer Plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
The claimant had tripped against a weather strip which protruded by less than 1 cm above the surface of doorway of the staff exit from one of the defendant’s stores. It was a permanent fixture and, as such, was part of the construction of the floor. . .
CitedMarks and Spencer plc v Palmer CA 9-Oct-2001
A shopper carrying some heavy bags tripped and fell over a weather strip, which was proud of the floor at an exit door to the extent of some 8 to 9.5 mm high. The recorder had said that, once he was satisfied that the claimant came into contact with . .
CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section . .
CitedRalph Schmid (Acting As Liquidator of The Assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel ECJ 16-Jan-2014
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Insolvency proceedings – Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency – . .

Cited by:
CitedBurnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
CitedRoyal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti SC 27-Nov-2019
‘if a person in the hierarchy of responsibility above the employee determines that she (or he) should be dismissed for a reason but hides it behind an invented reason which the decision-maker adopts, the reason for the dismissal is the hidden reason . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Torts – Other, Limitation

Leading Case

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.545696

P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar: SC 19 Mar 2014

Deprivation of Liberty

P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult male, again without capacity, also complained as to the arrangements for his care, and the lack of restraint on the deprivation of his liberty. The Court now considered the criteria for judging whether the living arrangements made for a mentally incapacitated person amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Held: (Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hodge JJSC dissenting) A person suffering a mental incapacity has no lesser rights to personal freedom than someone with capacity. The appeals of P and Q succeeded. An arrangement which would amount to a deprivation of liberty for a person with capacity is equally a deprivation of liberty of someone without. Any system providing such restrictions must include periodic and independent checks to verify that any such restriction remained necessary and in their personal best interests.
The phrase ‘deprivation of liberty’ when used to apply to living arrangements for a person without capacity was to be construed as providing the same protection as Article 5 of the Convention. Though each case was to be decided as a matter of the particular facts.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 19, (2014) 17 CCL Rep 5, [2014] HRLR 13, [2014] 2 WLR 642, [2014] 2 All ER 585, [2014] WLR(D) 140, [2014] 2 FCR 71, [2014] PTSR 460, [2014] COPLR 313, UKSC 2012/0068, [2014] AC 896, (2014) 137 BMLR 16, [2014] Med LR 321
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Mental Capacity Act 2005 64(5), European Convention on Human Rights 5
England and Wales
Citing:
At CoPA Primary Care Trust v P and Others Misc 21-Dec-2009
(Court of Protection) The court was asked whether, if P could be found to lack mental capacity where he should live, where there was an essential conflict between representatives of the State who owe statutory duties to P on the one hand, and the . .
See AlsoCheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 18-Nov-2011
. .
Appeal fromCheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 9-Nov-2011
The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent . .
See AlsoCheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .
CitedP and Q v Surrey County Council CA 28-Feb-2011
The appellant sisters, both with substantial learing disabilities appealed against a declaration that the arrangements made for their care by the respondent did not amount to a deprivation of their liberty. In either case, they would only be allowed . .

Cited by:
AppliedIn re X and Others (Deprivation of Liberty) CoP 7-Aug-2014
inreX_dolCoP1408
The court considered the practical and procedural implications for the Court of Protection of what was expected too be a large increase in its case-load which following the Supreme Court’s decision in Surrey County Council v P where it was held that . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Justice v MM CA 29-Mar-2017
Power of FTT to deprivie patient of liberty
Two patients who had been confined to a secure hospital, appealed against orders which would continue to restrict their liberty upon being conditionally released. The parties now disputed the jurisdiction of the FTT to make such an order.
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.522603

Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd: HL 30 Jun 1914

The claimant, a miner, said that his work was dangerous, and threw down his tools. He now sought damages saying that his employer had falsely imprisoned him by failing to bring him to the surface until the end of his shift.
Held: The employee’s appeal against dismissal of his claim failed. The existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, including an implied obligation on the defendants to take the plaintiff up to the surface at the end of his shift, and left no room for such a claim in tort.

Viscount Haldane LC
[1914] UKHL 2, [1915] AC 67
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHerd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd CA 1913
The court granted the appeal against the success of a false imprisonment claim by an employee of a coal-mining company, whose complaint was based on his employers’ refusal to comply with his request to take him to the surface, after he had . .

Cited by:
MentionedPrison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.265977

Gaviria-Manrique v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 16 Jan 2014

Claim for judicial review seeking declarations that his detention by the defendant for two separate periods during 2008 was unlawful and claims an entitlement to damages for more than a nominal sum.

Judge Sycamore
[2014] EWHC 33 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Prisons, Damages

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519790

Excalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others: ComC 10 Sep 2013

Excalibur claimed to be entitled to an interest in a number of oil fields in Kurdistan, which are potentially extremely profitable, and of which the Shaikan field is the most important. The claim was for specific performance of a ‘Collaboration Agreement’ pursuant to which Excalibur claimed its entitlement to an interest in the fields or to damages which, as finally put, were said to be of the order of US $ 1.6 billion.
Held: The claim failed on every point, whether put in contract, which was the primary claim, or in tort, where five causes of action were pursued: interference with contract, interference with business relations, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by misrepresentation and fraud by concealment. The claim did not fail narrowly or on the basis of abstruse legal doctrine upon which two views might be possible. It failed because Excalibur had failed to establish any contract with Gulf.

Christopher Clarke LJ
[2013] EWHC 2767 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoExcalibur Ventures Llc v Texas Keystone Inc and Others ComC 28-Jun-2011
The court gave its reasons for the grant of an order restraining the claimant from also pursuing arbitration proceedings at the International Court of Arbitration.
Held: Gloster J was, found on the evidence then before her a strong arguable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.518979

Ratcliff v McConnell and Jones: CA 30 Nov 1998

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: 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. The existence of a duty had to be determined by reference to the likelihood of the trespasser’s presence in the vicinity of the danger at the actual time and place of danger to him.
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.’

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Mummery
Times 03-Dec-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 670, [1997] EWCA Civ 2679
Bailii
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDonoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
CitedHampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
CitedOvu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land, Negligence

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136077

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: CA 2 Feb 2006

The claimant a young boy fell from a fire escape on the defendant’s building. He suffered brain damage and in later life was convicted of sexual offences.
Held: His claim failed: ‘there was no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile or had anything wrong with it as a fire escape and I do not think it can be said that the claimant here suffered his injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises. ‘ Justice Lewison said: ‘The threshold question is not whether there is a risk of suffering injury by reason of the state of the premises. It is whether there is a risk of injury by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises. Thus in order for the threshold question to be answered in the affirmative it must be shown that the premises were inherently dangerous. ‘

Mummery LJ, Longmore LJ, Lewison J
[2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR 653
Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Carlgarth 1927
Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used.’ and ‘Another distinction is that in a . .
CitedYoung v Kent County Council QBD 14-Mar-2005
The claimant a child had climbed the wall of a school building and on to the roof to collect a ball. He then fell through a skylight.
Held: Asking whether the state of the premises posed a danger: ‘yes, they did. The roof was an inherently . .
CitedDonoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
CitedLewis v Six Continents Plc CA 2006
The claimant was injured after falling from a sash window in the defendant’s hotel. He appeal against refusal of his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant’s argument, if followed to its conclusion, would result in every window having to . .
CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .

Cited by:
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
CitedOvu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.238247

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council: HL 24 May 2000

An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, that the possibility of injury to children playing on such an object was foreseeable. The judge had also found a particular danger of an older boy seeking to prop it up and repair it. The council had argued that this latter event was unforseeable.
Held: The Court of Appeal had not been justified in disturbing the Judge’s finding of fact. Given the ingenuity of children for mischief, mischief which went beyond that foreseen, but which was of the same type, was capable of leaving the authority liable under the Act.
There was no social value or cost saving to the Council in creating a risk by leaving a derelict boat lying about. It was something which they ought to have removed whether it created a risk of injury or not. They were liable for an injury which, though foreseeable, was not particularly likely. Foreseeability does not denote a fixed point on the scale of probability.

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Times 24-May-2000, Gazette 08-Jun-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1082, [2000] UKHL 31, [2000] 3 All ER 409
House of Lords, Bailii
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v London Borough of Sutton, ex parte Jolley CA 19-Jun-1998
The plaintiff, a boy, was injured when playing on a derelict boat left on council land. The council appealed an award of damages against it.
Held: A local authority may be liable for injury caused by a derelict boat not removed from their land . .
First instanceJolley v Sutton London Borough Council QBD 1998
The claimant, a boy was injured when playing around a boat abandoned on land owned by the defendant. He had propped it up to attempt a repair, and was crushed when it fell on him. He said that in not removing the boat they had been negligent.
CitedDonoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson HL 26-May-1932
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability
The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a . .
CitedBolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
CitedHughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .

Cited by:
CitedGroom v Selby CA 18-Oct-2001
The defendant negligently failed to discover the claimant’s pregnancy. A severely disabled child was born. The question was as to the responsibility for payment of excess costs of raising a severely disabled child, a claim for economic loss. The . .
CitedTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s . .
CitedThe Attorney General v Hartwell PC 23-Feb-2004
PC (The British Virgin Islands) A police officer had taken the police revolver, and used it to shoot the claimant. It was alleged that the respondent police force were vicariously liable for his acts and also . .
CitedGabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council CA 24-Mar-2004
The claimant (aged 6) sought damages after being hurt when other children playing on a building site threw stones from the site, hitting him as he passed by.
Held: The case raised questions of law and it was incumbent on the judge to provide . .
CitedIslington London Borough Council v University College London Hospital NHS Trust CA 16-Jun-2005
The local authority sought repayment from a negligent hospital of the cost of services it had had to provide to an injured patient. They said that the hospital had failed to advise the patient to resume taking warfarin when her operation was . .
CitedLondon General Holdings Ltd and others v USP Plc and Another CA 22-Jul-2005
Copyright was claimed in a draft legal agreement. Infringement was established, but the court was asked to look at the assessment of damages.
Held: ‘what is the basis upon which damages for breach of copyright are awarded? The question cannot . .
CitedJebson 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 . .
CitedCorr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
CitedHone v Six Continents Retail Ltd CA 29-Jun-2005
The employer appealed a finding that it was liable in damages for negligence to the claimant, and employee who suffered psychiatric injury cause by stress at work. He said he had been left to work very excessive hours, between 89 and 92 hours a . .
CitedJohnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.82576

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others: HL 31 Jul 2003

The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed liability, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The risk of injury arose, not from any danger due to the state of the defendants’ premises, or to things done or omitted to be done on those premises, but from the claimant’s own misjudgment in attempting to dive in water that was too shallow. This was not a risk that gave rise to any duty on the defendants’ part and that, in any event, it had not been a risk in respect of which the defendants might reasonably have been expected to afford the claimant protection. The dangers were signposted, and therefore the 1957 Act did not apply. Under the 1984 Act, the question was whether there was a difference between someone whose entry to the property was as a trespasser, and someone who having entered property lawfully, became a trespasser after by acting outside the terms of the licence. There should not be a difference, and nor should the authority be required to take greater steps than they had to prevent others taking risks which were obvious.
Lord Hoffmann said why the voluntary assumption of risk was a complete answer to his claim: ‘I think it will be extremely rare for an occupier of land to be under a duty to prevent people from taking risks which are inherent in the activities they freely choose to undertake upon the land. If people want to climb mountains, go hand-gliding or swim or dive in ponds or lakes, that is their affair. Of course the landowner may for his own reasons wish to prohibit such activities. He may think that they are a danger or inconvenience to himself or others. Or he may take a paternalistic view and prefer people not to undertake risky activities on his land. He is entitled to impose such conditions, as the Council did by prohibiting swimming. But the law does not require him to do so.
My Lords, as will be clear from what I have just said, I think that there is an important question of freedom at stake. It is unjust that the harmless recreation of responsible parents and children with buckets and spades on the beaches should be prohibited in order to comply with what is thought to be a legal duty to safeguard irresponsible visitors against dangers which are perfectly obvious. The fact that such people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty to take other steps to protect them. I find it difficult to express with an appropriate moderation my disagreement with the proposition of Sedley LJ that it is ‘only where the risk is so obvious that the occupier can safely assume that nobody will take it that there will be no liability’. A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice, as in the case of employees whose work requires them to take the risk, or some lack of capacity, such as the inability of children to recognise danger (Herrington v British Railways Board [1972] AC 877) or the despair of prisoners which may lead them to inflict injury on themselves: Reeves v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2003] UKHL 47, Times 01-Aug-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] 3 WLR 705, [2004] 1 AC 46, [2003] NPC 102, [2003] 32 EGCS 68, [2003] 3 All ER 1122, [2004] PIQR P8
Bailii, House of Lords
Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 1, Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromTomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and Another CA 14-Mar-2002
The claimant was injured swimming in a lake in a park. Warning signs clearly indicated that the lake was dangerous for swimming.
Held: The authority were liable. They knew that the lake was attractive to swimmers, and that the signs were . .
CitedHillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd HL 1936
Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the . .
CitedDonoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited CA 27-Feb-2003
The claimant had decided to go for a midnight swim, but was injured diving and hitting a submerged bed. The landowner appealed a finding that it was 25% liable. The claimant asserted that the defendant knew that swimmers were common.
Held: The . .
CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedStaples v West Dorset District Council CA 5-Apr-1995
There was no duty of care on a landowner to warn of obvious danger on Lyme Regis Cobb. The quay clearly dangerous for anyone to see. . .
CitedOverseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
CitedJolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
CitedDarby v National Trust CA 29-Jan-2001
The claimant’s husband drowned swimming in a pond on the National Trust estate at Hardwick Hall. Miss Rebecca Kirkwood, the Water and Leisure Safety Consultant to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, gave uncontradicted evidence, which . .
CitedBolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 11-Feb-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedStevenson v Glasgow Corporation 1908
Lord M’Laren said: ‘in a town, as well as in the country, there are physical features which may be productive of injury to careless persons or to young children against which it is impossible to guard by protective measures. The situation of a town . .
CitedHastie v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1907
There are certain risks against which the law, in accordance with the dictates of common sense, does not give protection – such risks are ‘just one of the results of the world as we find it’. . .
CitedGlasgow Corporation v Taylor HL 18-Nov-1921
A father brought an action for damages for the death of his son who had eaten poisonous berries growing in one of the defenders’ public parks. The plants were easily accessible from a children’s play area and it was said that the defender had a duty . .
CitedCotton v Derbyshire District Council CA 20-Jun-1994
No notice warning of danger was necessary on a public right of way for an obviously dangerous cliff. The Court upheld the decision of the trial judge dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for damages for serious injuries sustained from falling off a . .
CitedKarl Andrew Whyte v Redland Aggregates Limited CA 27-Nov-1997
The appellant dived into a disused gravel pit and struck his head on an obstruction on the floor of the pit. The Court dismissed his appeal that he was not entitled to damages.
Held: ‘In my judgment, the occupier of land containing or bordered . .
CitedBartrum v Hepworth Minerals and Chemicals Limited QBD 1984
The claimant dived from a ledge on a cliff. In order to avoid shallow water he knew that he had to dive out into the pool but he failed to do so and fractured his neck.
Held: The court dismissed his claim for damages saying ‘So far as the Act . .

Cited by:
CitedSimonds v Isle of Wight Council QBD 23-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages, having been injured at a school sports day. The school had carried out a risk asessment and acknowledged a risk of injury.
Held: Not every risk identified could or should be controlled. The injury occurred whilst . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedSandhar, Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions QBD 19-Jan-2004
The claimant asserted a common law duty on the respondent to maintain a roadway free of frost.
Held: No such common law duty existed. Where parliament has conferred a discretionary power, ‘ . . the minimum preconditions for basing a duty of . .
CitedJane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe.
Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users . .
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
CitedHampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London and Another Admn 26-Apr-2005
Swimmers sought to be able to swim unsupervised in an open pond. The authority which owned the pond on Hampstead Heath wished to refuse permission fearing liability for any injury.
Held: It has always been a principle of the interpretation of . .
CitedKeown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust CA 2-Feb-2006
The claimant a young boy fell from a fire escape on the defendant’s building. He suffered brain damage and in later life was convicted of sexual offences.
Held: His claim failed: ‘there was no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile or had . .
CitedCorr v IBC Vehicles Ltd CA 31-Mar-2006
The deceased had suffered a head injury whilst working for the defendant. In addition to severe physical consequences he suffered post-traumatic stress, became more and more depressed, and then committed suicide six years later. The claimant . .
CitedJL, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice; Regina (L (A Patient)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 26-Nov-2008
The prisoner was left with serious injury after attempting suicide in prison. He said that there was a human rights duty to hold an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this.
Held: There existed a similar duty to hold an enhanced . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
CitedHelena Partnerships Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-May-2012
The company had undertaken substantial building works and sought associated tax relief. The court was asked whether, following a change in the company’s memorandum and articles of association, the company, a registered social landlord, remained a . .
CitedHarvey v Plymouth City Council CA 29-Jul-2010
The Council appealed against a finding of liability under the 1957 Act after the claimant was injured after jumping over a fence to flee hving to pay a taxi, and falling down a steep slope onto a car park. The land had been licenced to the . .
CitedCockbill 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 . .
CitedUren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd CA 2-Feb-2011
The claimant suffered injury at a competitive fun day organised by his employers, the RAF at a facility of the respondents. He struck his head diving into a very shallow inflatable pool. He appealed against dismissal of his claim.
Held: The . .
CitedOvu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.185424

Revill v Newbery: CA 2 Nov 1995

The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. One night the plaintiff and another man attempted to break into the shed intending to steal from it. The resultant noise woke the defendant who, intending only to frighten them, loaded the shotgun and fired it through a hole in the door. The shot injured the plaintiff, who was standing about five feet away from the door. In subsequent criminal proceedings he admitted attempted burglary of the premises. He brought an action for damages for personal injuries against the defendant, alleging that the latter was negligent in firing the shot. The judge at first instance, Rougier J, found that the defendant had been negligent in firing the shot. He made the following relevant findings of fact:'(1) The defendant believed, though mistakenly, that there was no one in front of the door. (2) When he fired the gun the defendant had no means of knowing for sure whether it was pointed at anyone; the defendant was effectively blindfold. (3) When he fired the gun the defendant’s perception and judgment were clouded by fear. (4)The defendant was carrying out a preconceived contingency plan.’ A trespasser (even a thief) is entitled to protection from unnecessary violence, and to an award of damages for personal injuries inflicted. To deny the claimant compensation for an assault which went beyond self-defence was a different thing from denying him the fruits of his crime and was akin to outlawing him. In such a case there was simply no room for the turpitude doctrine.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld Rougier J’s finding of negligence, confirming his view that the defendant certainly did not intend to hit the plaintiff, but that he was in breach of a duty of care towards him and therefore negligent.

Neill LJ, Evans LJ, Millett LJ
Gazette 06-Dec-1995, Times 03-Nov-1995, Independent 10-Nov-1995, [1995] EWCA Civ 10, [1996] QB 567, [1996] 1 All ER 291, [1996] 2 WLR 239
Bailii
Occupier’s Liability Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedVellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered severe psychiatric injured in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section . .
CitedOvu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.88754

Braithwaite v South Durham Steel Co Ltd and Another: QBD 1958

The Plaintiff was employed by South Durham Steel as a crane driver’s mate and he was preceding a mobile crane along a railway line. Another line, in the ownership of the British Transport Commission (BTC), and not his employers, ran alongside and was very close by. At some point while walking he inadvertently put his foot a few inches over the sleepers, and was struck by oncoming traffic on the line when he was startled by a warning should from the crane driver. BTC argued he was a trespasser at the moment of the accident, and that absent a reckless or deliberate act to harm him, no other duty was owed.
Held the Claimant had placed his foot onto the BTC’s land and did not have permission to do so, but even so held that it was unrealistic and artificial on the facts of the case, where he was a licensee on part of the walkway and his encroachment was wholly inadvertent, to find that his involuntary encroachment onto the BTC’s land made him a trespasser.
Mr Justice Edmund Davies said this: ‘Even so, the submissions of learned Counsel . . appears to me to be unrealistic when it is thought to be applied to the facts of this case, namely, that (a) the plaintiff was a licensee in the walkway, and (b) his encroachment of a few inches over or upon the sleepers of the commission’s line was only inadvertent and involuntary and the result of his startled turnabout as a result of the warning shout . . ‘

Mr Justice Edmund Davies
[1958] 1 WLR 986
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOvu v London Underground Ltd (Duty of Care) QBD 13-Oct-2021
Safety of Stairs within Undergrounds Care of duty
The Claimant sued the London Underground company because their relative Mr Ovu died after falling down stairs on a fire escape. It was late at night and he wandered on his own on a cold night, outdoors, onto the stairs. The staircase was in good . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.670075

Curley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Mar 2011

(Execution of judgment) – Examination closed on satisfaction

[2011] ECHR 601, 32340/96
Bailii
Citing:
JudgmentCurley v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Mar-2000
A prisoner was sentenced to be detained during her majesty’s pleasure, but given a tariff which expired in 1987. Reviews of his continued detention did not lead to his release. He complained that the system of reviews by a Parole Board whose . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518897

CW v Trustees of The Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh: SCS 3 Dec 2013

The pursuer sought damages from the defenders in respect of sexual abuse sustained by him at the hands of a parish priest, FJR, in a parish within the Archdiocese while the pursuer was a pupil at a primary school and then secondary school there between 1989 and 1992.

Arthurson QC
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 185
Bailii

Scotland, Personal Injury, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518585

LNOC Ltd v Watford Association Football Club Ltd: ComC 21 Nov 2013

The claimant sought repayment of sums loaned to the football club. The defendant replied saying that the loans were ineffective since the claimant had known that they were being entered into by an officer of the club without authority and contrary to the club’s interests.

Mackie QC J
[2013] EWHC 3615 (Comm)
Bailii

Torts – Other, Agency

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518428

Simpson and Others (T/A Harrow Solicitors and Advocates) v Godson and Others: CA 4 Nov 2013

The defendants appealed against different elements of orders made in findings that they had been involved in the theft of sums of money from the claimant firm of solicitors then employed by them.

Moore-Bick, Aikens, Sullivan LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1339
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 25 November 2021; Ref: scu.517371

Archbishop Bowen and Another v JL: CA 21 Feb 2017

The defendants appealed against finding that they were responsible for the assaults by a priest on the claimant.

Lewison, Burnett LJJ, Sir Ernest Ryder SP T
[2017] EWCA Civ 82
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Limitation

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.575330

F and S v TH: QBD 1 Jul 2016

Claim for damages as victims of sexual abuse alleged against father.

Langstaff J
[2016] EWHC 1605 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.566573

Knight v Woore: 31 Jan 1837

Trespass. Justification under a right of way to carry water and goods. As to the water, verdict for Defendant ; to the goods, verdict for Plaintiff. Held, that Defendant had substantially succeeded, and was entitled to the general costs in the cause.
Held also, that he was entitled to the costs of a witness who spoke as to the water, notwithstanding he spoke also as to the goods.

[1837] EngR 466, (1837) 3 Bing NC 534, (1837) 132 ER 516
Commonlii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.313583

Wright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis: QBD 11 Sep 2013

The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the defendant’s actions were likely to encourage others to breach the peace.
Held: The police officers honestly believed that a breach of the peace was about to occur; the key question is: did the officers have reasonable grounds for that belief: ‘there would be a real danger of falling into the trap of circularity of reasoning which both the Claimant and Mr Southey forcibly mentioned. If, ex hypothesi, there are no reasonable grounds, how can the police create those grounds by informing protesters that unless they comply they will be arrested? Although the Defendant’s position was that a reasonable protester would want to enter the pen, I can see the force of the argument that this assumes too much and places a form of burden of persuasion or justification on the Claimant. In truth, the onus is on the police to justify containment and the protester is quite entitled to say: ‘I am not causing a breach of the peace: let me stand on my rights’.’
However, as matters progressed, the police did come to have reasonable grounds as required, and ‘Had it not been for the Claimant’s own actions, I am far from convinced that the other matters prayed in aid by CI Osborn would have been sufficient. The refusal to go into the pen could well be regarded as protesters standing on their rights. On the other hand, protesters who claimed that they wanted to leave the scene, were let out of the pen, and then rekindled their protest elsewhere placed themselves in a different category: they were not simply standing on their rights; they had misled the police and could therefore be regarded as untrustworthy.’

Jay J
[2013] EWHC 2739 (QB)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5 10 11
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Howell (Errol) CACD 1981
The court considered the meaning of the legal concept of a breach of the peace.
Held: The essence is to be found in violence or threatened violence. ‘We entertain no doubt that a constable has a power of arrest where there is reasonable . .
CitedRegina v Nicol and Selvanayagam QBD 10-Nov-1995
The appellants appealed a bind-over for a finding that each appellant had been guilty of conduct whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. The appellants, concerned about cruelty to animals, had obstructed an angling competition by . .
CitedAustin and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach . .
CitedSelvanayagam v United Kingdom ECHR 12-Dec-2002
Any presumption of law which had operated against the applicant had been within reasonable limits, had taken account of the importance of what was at stake and had maintained the rights of the defence. . .
CitedLaporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
CitedMengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis Admn 18-Jun-2013
The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and . .
CitedAustin and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber – The applicants complained that their restriction within a police cordon (a measure known as ‘kettling’) for up to seven hours during the course of a demonstration in central London amounted to a deprivation of their liberty in breach . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other, Human Rights

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515379

O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 21 Nov 1996

Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief

The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded need not be based on the arresting officer’s own observations. All that is required is a genuine and reasonably based suspicion in the mind of the officer. The test as to whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify an arrest is partly subjective, in that the arresting officer must have formed a genuine suspicion that the person being arrested was guilty of an offence, and partly objective, in that there must be reasonable grounds for forming such a suspicion. Such grounds can arise from information received from another, even if it subsequently proves to be false, provided that a reasonable man, having regard to all the circumstances, would regard them as reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Lord Hope considered what was the level of suspicion necessary to found a valid arrest under the section, saying: ‘My Lords, the test which s 12(1) of the 1984 Act has laid down is a simple but practical one. It relates entirely to what is in the mind of the arresting officer when the power is exercised. In part it is a subjective test, because he must have formed a genuine suspicion in his own mind that the person has been concerned in acts of terrorism. In part also it is an objective one, because there must also be reasonable grounds for the suspicion which he has formed. But the application of the objective test does not require the court to look beyond what was in the mind of the arresting officer. It is the grounds which were in his mind at the time which must be found to be reasonable grounds for the suspicion which he has formed. All that the objective test requires is that these grounds be examined objectively and that they be judged at the time when the power was exercised.’
Lord Steyn said: ‘Certain general propositions about the powers of constables under a section such as section 12(1) can now be summarised. (1) In order to have a reasonable suspicion the constable need not have evidence amounting to a prima facie case. Ex hypothesi one is considering a preliminary stage of the investigation and information from an informer or a tip-off from a member of the public may be enough: Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942, 949. (2) Hearsay information may therefore afford a constable a reasonable ground to arrest. Such information may come from other officers: Hussien’s case, ibid. (3) The information which causes the constable to be suspicious of the individual must be in existence to the knowledge of the police officer at the time he makes the arrest. (4) The executive ‘discretion’ to arrest or not as Lord Diplock described it in Mohammed-Holgate v. Duke [1984] A.C. 437, 446, vests in the constable, who is engaged on the decision to arrest or not, and not in his superior officers.’ and
‘For obvious practical reasons police officers must be able to rely upon each other in taking decisions as to whom to arrest or where to search and in what circumstances. The statutory power does not require that the constable who exercises the power must be in possession of all the information which has led to a decision, perhaps taken by others, that the time has come for it to be exercised. What it does require is that the constable who exercises the power must first have equipped himself with sufficient information so that he has reasonable cause to suspect before the power is exercised.’

Lord Hope of Craighead
Gazette 15-Jan-1997, Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] UKHL 6, [1997] AC 286, [1997] 1 All ER 129, [1997] 2 WLR 1, [1996] NI 8, [1997] Crim LR 432, [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 447
House of Lords, Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 12(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCastorina v Chief Constable of Surrey CA 10-Jun-1988
Whether an officer had reasonable cause to arrest somebody without a warrant depended upon an objective assessment of the information available to him, and not upon his subjective beliefs. The court had three questions to ask (per Woolf LJ): ‘(a) . .
CitedHussien v Chong Fook Kam PC 7-Oct-1969
(Malaysia) The Board considered the propriety of an arrest by the police. Lord Devlin said: ‘An arrest occurs when a police officer states in terms that he is arresting or when he uses force to restrain the individual concerned. It occurs also when . .
DistinguishedMcKee v Chief Constable for Northern Ireland HL 1984
The House considered the state of mind of an officer required to allow an arrest under the section.
Held: Lord Roskill said: ‘On the true construction of section 11(1) of the statute, what matters is the state of mind of the arresting officer . .

Cited by:
CitedJarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 14-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and assault after her wrongful arrest. She had waived her handbag at an officer investigating a disturbance and been arrested. The police said the arrest was lawful, she being suspected of common . .
CitedKeegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
MentionedCumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
CitedAl-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Appeal fromO’Hara v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Oct-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 5-1; Violation of Art. 5-3; Violation of Art. 5-5; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award
CitedCoudrat v Revenue and Customs CA 26-May-2005
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the Customs and Excise. He was arrested and held accused of VAT fraud. Proceedings were discontinued. He had signed an application for . .
CitedSaik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
CitedMB, Re, Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB Admn 12-Apr-2006
The applicant challenged the terms of a non-derogating control order. It was anticipated that unless prevented, he would fight against UK forces in Iraq.
Held: The section allowed the Secretary of State to impose any necessary conditions, but . .
CitedHough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police CA 14-Feb-2001
Where a constable arrested someone based upon information on the police national computer, he was not to be held accountable for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, if the information upon which that had in turn been based, did not justify the . .
CitedCommissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Raissi CA 12-Nov-2008
The Commissioner appealed against an award of damages for false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested shortly after a terrorist attack. The judge had held that they had no reasonable belief of his involvement. The Commissioner did not now . .
CitedAlexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
CitedMercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
CitedArmstrong v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police CA 5-Dec-2008
The Chief Constable appealed against a finding that the claimant had been arrested for rape without reasonable grounds. A description of the rapist had been given which the claimant met in several respects, but from which he clearly differed in . .
CitedHayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimant had been arrested after a complaint of harassment. The officer then contacted the complainant who then withdrew his complaint. The officer went to visit the complainant to discuss it further. On his return the claimant was released from . .
CitedHowarth v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 3-Nov-2011
howarth_cmpQBD2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision to search him whilst travelling to a public protest in London. A previous demonstration involving this group had resulted in criminal damage, but neither the claimant nor his companions were found to . .
CitedFitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
fitzpatrick_compolQBD2012
The claimants, two solicitors and their employer firm sought damages alleging trespass and malicious procurement by police officers in obtaining and executing search warrants against the firm in 2007 when they were investigating suspected offences . .
CitedMcCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
CitedLane and Another, Regina v SC 11-Jul-2018
The defendants were to be tried for allegedly sending funds abroad to support terrorism. The court now considered the meaning of the phrase ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ in the context of the anticipated use of the funds: ‘Does it mean that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.135035

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 the County Council, whether proper opportunity had been given to abate the nuisance, and whether the underpinning works had been necessary.

Aldous, Dyson LJJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1723, [2003] BLR 67, (2002) 87 Con LR 169, [2003] 15 EG 139, [2003] 1 EGLR 99, [2002] 47 EG 146, [2003] 1 WLR 427
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSolloway 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Nuisance

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.515016

Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another: ChD 7 Dec 2006

The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded said that any limitation period was disapplied as ‘any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party’.
Held: The defendant was only a trustee by construction, and the section applied only to those expressly trustees. However, the running of time only began when a beneficiary’s interest in a trust ceased to be a future interst, and also only at a time when the beneficiary might with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. On that background, the claim was not barred.

Richard Sheldon, QC
Times 23-Jan-2007, [2006] EWHC 3130 (Ch), [2007] 2 All ER 1086, [2007] Ch 353
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 21(1)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoCattley and Another v Pollard ChD 6-Jul-2007
The estate had been defrauded by theis solicitor. The proceeds had been used toward the purchase of a property. The defendant had first been the solicitor’s secretary and had become his wife, and transferee of the property. She denied that she had . .
CitedWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
CitedWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria SC 19-Feb-2014
Bank not liable for fraud of customer
The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Limitation, Torts – Other, Equity

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.248263

Brooke v Bool: 1928

Volunteer Was Joint Tortfeasor

A and B set out together to investigate the source of a gas leak which was B’s direct concern alone. A had come with him to help. Because B was too old to carry out a particular task, A carried it out instead. The means of investigation was ill-advised and an explosion took place.
Held: A was plainly liable. The Divisional Court held that B was liable too as a joint tortfeasor engaged in a common venture with A.
Talbot J said: ‘It is obvious that to examine a place in which an escape of gas is suspected is highly dangerous, unless proper care is taken; and that one of the necessary precautions against disaster is to avoid the use of a naked light. In my opinion the defendant, having undertaken this examination, was under a duty to take reasonable care to avoid danger resulting from it to the shop and its contents, and, if so, he cannot escape liability for the consequences of failure to discharge this duty by getting, as he did, some one to make the examination, or part of it, for him, whether that person is an agent, or a servant, or a contractor, or a mere voluntary helper. This is the principle of such cases as Bower v. Peate 1 Q. B. D. 321; Black v. Christchurch Finance Co. [1894] A C 48; Hughes v. Percival 8 App. Cas. 443; Hardaker v. Idle District Council [1896] 1 Q. B. 335; and see the judgment of Lord Blackburn in Dalton v. Angus 6 App Cas 740. The principle is that if a man does work on or near another’s property which involves danger to that property unless proper care is taken, he is liable to the owners of the property for damage resulting to it from the failure to take proper care, and is equally liable if, instead of doing the work himself, he procures another, whether agent, servant or otherwise, to do it for him.’

Talbot J
[1928] 2 KB 578
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThe Koursk CA 1924
The navigators of two ships had committed two separate torts or one tort in which they were both tortfeasors.
Held: Three situations were identified where A might be jointly liable with B for B’s tortious act. Where A was master and B servant; . .

Cited by:
CitedUnilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited CA 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to . .
CitedMCA Records Inc and Another v Charly Records Ltd and others (No 5) CA 5-Oct-2001
The court discussed the personal liability of a director for torts committed by his company: ‘i) a director will not be treated as liable with the company as a joint tortfeasor if he does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.230358

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd: CA 1919

cw An unconscious or drugged person may be detained. For the tort of false imprisonment there must be shown a complete restriction in fact on the plaintiff’s freedom to move: ‘any restraint within defined bounds which is a restraint in fact may be an imprisonment.’
The court distinguished between restraint upon the plaintiff’s liberty which is conditional upon his seeking to exercise his freedom (which would not amount to false imprisonment), and an actual restraint upon his liberty, as where the defendant decided to restrain the plaintiff within a room and placed a policeman outside the door to stop him leaving (which would amount to false imprisonment). The fact that he does not know that he is detained is of no matter since ‘a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious and while he is a lunatic’: The court considered the absence of ‘reasonable cause’ although that could be evidence of malice.

Atkin LJ, Warrington LJ
(1919) 122 LT 44
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedIn Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L HL 25-Jun-1998
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have . .
ApprovedMurray v Ministry of Defence HL 25-May-1988
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention.
Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure . .
CitedL v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust Admn 9-Oct-1997
L was adult autistic. He had been admitted to mental hospital for fear of his self-harming behaviours, and detained informally. He complained that that detention was unlawful.
Held: The continued detention of a mental health patient who is . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.184706

Smith v Chadwick: HL 1884

Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation

A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a prospectus as to the output of the iron works.
Held: His claim failed because the critical words of the prospectus were ambiguous, and the plaintiff had failed to show that he understood them in a sense which was false.
An inference of inducement can be made or rebutted on evidence. Lord Blackburn, said: ‘I think if it is proved that the defendants with a view to induce the plaintiff to enter a contract made a statement to the plaintiff of such a nature as would be likely to induce a person to enter into a contract, and it is proved that the plaintiff did enter into the contract, it is a fair inference of fact that he was induced to do so by the statement.’
. . and ‘In Pasley v Freeman, 2 Smith’s Leading Cases 66, 73, 86 (8th ed), Buller J says: ‘The foundation of this action is fraud and deceit in the defendant and damage to the plaintiffs. And the question is whether an action thus founded can be sustained in a court of law. Fraud without damage, or damage without fraud, gives no cause of action, but where these two concur an action lies, per Croke J, 3 Bulst 95.’
Whatever difficulties there may be as to defining what is fraud and deceit, I think no one will venture to dispute that the plaintiff cannot recover unless he proves damage. In an ordinary action of deceit the plaintiff alleges that false and fraudulent representations were made by the defendant to the plaintiff in order to induce him, the plaintiff, to act upon them. I think that if he did act upon these representations, he shews damage; if he did not, he shews none.’
Lord Selborne LC said: ‘My Lords, I conceive that in an action of deceit, like the present, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish two things; first, actual fraud, which is to be judged by the nature and character of the representations made, considered with reference to the object for which they were made, the knowledge or means of knowledge of the person making them, and the intention which the law justly imputes to every man to produce those consequences which are the natural result of his acts: and, secondly, he must establish that this fraud was an inducing cause to the contract; for which purpose it must be material, and it must have produced in his mind an erroneous belief, influencing his conduct.’

Lord Blackburn, Lord Selborne LC
(1884) 9 App Cas 187
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedSpice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv ChD 24-Feb-2000
Disclosure Duties on those entering into contract
The claimants worked together as a five girl pop group. The defendants had signed a sponsorship agreement, but now resisted payment saying that one of the five, Geri, had given notice to leave the group, substantially changing what had been . .
CitedSt Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance . .
CitedMundi v Lincoln Assurance Ltd ChD 24-Nov-2005
The defendant life insurance company sought to avoid payment alleging non-disclosure. At first they suggested first one then a second and then a third reason for non payment as each previous reason looked like failing. They relied now on . .
CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.187266

Saha v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine: QBD 7 Aug 2013

The claimant a former PhD student sought substantial damages alleging harassment by her supervisor, employed by the defendant.
Held: The claim failed. The claimant had become fixated, and those working alongside both partes, whilst recognising the supervisor’s sometimes abrupt manner, did not support the allegations.

Hamblen J
[2013] EWHC 2438 (QB)
Bailii
Protection of Harassment Act 1997

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514269

Vernon Knight Associates v Cornwall Council: CA 30 Jul 2013

Appeal by Cornwall County Council against a decision that it is liable for damage caused by floodwater escaping from one of the roads in the county.

Lord Dyson MR, Jackson LJ, Sir Stanley Burnton
[2013] EWCA Civ 950, [2013] WLR(D) 329
Bailii, WLRD
Highways Act 1980 41(1) 58(1)
England and Wales

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514253

Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd and Another (Consequential judgment): ChD 16 Sep 2021

Allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract

[2021] EWHC 2729 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoAhuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd and Another (2nd consequential judgment) ChD 16-Sep-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.668622

Poonam v Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 18 Jul 2013

The claimant sought damages, alleging: ‘oppressive questioning, unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, unlawful search of her home, theft and / or failure to secure her home premises, and the wrongful declaration by the UKBA that she was an illegal migrant subject to removal under Immigration Act 1971 s.10 provisions’ and theft. The court now considered the allegations disputed.
Held: The actions of the immigration officers went beyond the permitted scope of the warrant and it appears that they were always going to do so given the contents of the briefing. Also the officers had not recorded the caution of her when required. However the allegations over and above these were not established, and nor had the claimant shown any connection between the infractions and the damages claimed.

John Bowers QC
[2013] EWHC 2059 (QB)
Bailii
Immigration Act 1971 10, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b)
Citing:
CitedRegina v Chesterfield Justices and Others, Ex Parte Bramley QBD 10-Nov-1999
When police officers executed a search warrant, it was not proper to remove articles at large, in order later to sift through them, and then to return material not covered by the warrant. There is no absolute prohibition against removing articles . .
CitedGhulam Yasim v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1996
The court rejected a submission that, in a civil claim, sections 76 to 78 PACE precluded reliance altogether upon any evidence by an interview undertaken without a prior caution. Those exclusionary provisions were confined, the Court made clear, to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Immigration

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513548

The Bulli Coal Mining Company v Patrick Hill Osbourne and Another: PC 1899

(New South Wales)

[1899] AC 351, [1899] UKPC 13
Bailii
Australia
Cited by:
CitedBeaman v ARTS Ltd CA 1949
The italian plaintiff had left Egland in 1935 leaving certain valuables with the defendants for safe keeping. During the war, the property was released to the authorities as alien property, who, informed by the defemdant that they were of no value, . .
MentionedSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.194818

Elite Property Holdings Ltd and Others v Bdo Llp: ComC 20 Jul 2020

The three Claimant companies asserted that they have sustained loss and damage by reason of an unlawful means conspiracy between B and the Defendant accountants BDO, which led to B foreclosing on various loans made to the Claimants. BDO applies to strike out this claim on each of three grounds, contending: i) that the claim is an abuse of process, because an earlier claim (which I shall call ‘the Barclays claim’) was brought by two of the Claimants against BDO’s alleged co-conspirator Barclays, alleging the same or a very similar conspiracy;
ii) that the claim constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on various findings made in that, earlier, Barclays claim; and is for that reason an abuse of process;
iii) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim cause of action, and/or that the claim has no real prospect of success, so that it should be struck out, or summary judgment should be granted in the Defendant’s favour.

Nicholas Vineall QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
[2020] EWHC 1937 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.652967

McDonnell v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis and Another: CA 14 May 2015

The claim for damages by a suspected drug dealer for assault arising from the use of excessive force during his arrest failed only on its facts.

Lord Justice Bean
[2015] EWCA Civ 565, [2015] EWCA Civ 573
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRobinson 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.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.548002

Tchenguiz and Another v Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees Sa and Others: QBD 18 Jul 2013

The claimants alleged that the effect of the searches, arrests and investigation and the publicity surrounding them had a disastrous effect on their business interests causing very extensive financial losses and reputational harm; and they now seek damages in these proceedings in the total sum of approximately andpound;300 million. The court now considered applications for orders for disclosure of documents obtained by the defendant under the 1987 Act.

Eder J
[2013] EWHC 2128 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 147, [2013] WLR(D) 302
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Law Act 1987
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513400

Benedetti v Sawiris and Others: SC 17 Jul 2013

The claimant appealed against reduction of the sum awarded on his claim for a quantum meruit after helping to facilitate a very substantial business deal for the defendants.
Held: The correct approach to the amount to be paid by way of a quantum meruit where there is no valid and subsisting contract between the parties, is to ask whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched and, if so, to what extent. In a contractual claim however, the focus would in principle be on the intentions of the parties. The Court emphasised the objective nature of a quantum meruit assessment in a claim based on restitution, but were careful to treat as calling for separate consideration the related and perhaps mis-named quantum meruit process, where engaged for the purpose of working out the amount payable under a contract with no expressly agreed price or price formula.
Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony said: ‘It is common ground that the correct approach to the amount to be paid by way of a quantum meruit where there is no valid and subsisting contract between the parties is to ask whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched and, if so, to what extent. The position is different if there is a contract between the parties. Thus, if A consults, say, a private doctor or a lawyer for advice there will ordinarily be a contract between them. Often the amount of his or her remuneration is not spelled out. In those circumstances, assuming there is a contract at all, the law will normally imply a term into the agreement that the remuneration will be reasonable in all the circumstances. A claim for such remuneration has sometimes been referred to as a claim for a quantum meruit. In such a case, while it is no doubt relevant to have regard to the benefit to the defendant, the focus is not on the benefit to the defendant in the way in which it is where there is no such contract. In the contractual claim the focus would in principle be on the intentions of the parties (objectively ascertained).’

Lord Neuberger P, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed
149 Con LR 1, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 801, [2013] 4 All ER 253, [2013] WLR(D) 286, [2013] UKSC 50, [2013] 3 WLR 351, UKSC 2011/0087
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC summary, SC
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instanceBenedetti and Another v Sawiris and Others ChD 15-Jun-2009
The claimant sought payment for his services to the defendants for his work in facilitating a substantial buy out of an Italian energy company.
Held: The claim succeeded on a quantum meruit basis to the extent of 75m euros but not otherwise. . .
First instance consequential judgmentBenedetti and Another v Sawiris and Others ChD 21-Jul-2009
Orders consequential on the main judgement to apportion liability as between the various defendants. . .
Appeal fromBenedetti v Sawiris and Others CA 16-Dec-2010
The claimant had claimed a reward for his role in securing a very substantial business deal for the defendants. The judge had rejected claims in contract but had awarded a sum of 67m Euros on a quantum meruit basis. He appealed saying that the award . .
CitedPallant 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 . .
CitedBanque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
CitedInvestment Trust Companies v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant had properly accounted for VAT on its transactions for many years, but a decision of the European court had latterly ruled that the services were exempt. The claimant sought restitution from HMRC, who responded by arguing that . .
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 1979
The contract between the parties relating to an oil concession in Libya had been frustrated by the nationalisation of the field.
Held: The court considered the setting of damages where the plaintiff had delayed in notifying the defendant of . .
CitedBoake Allen Ltd and others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Jan-2006
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
CitedR McDonald v Coys of Kensington Ltd CA 5-Feb-2004
The claimants were car auctioneers. They had been instructed to sell a car, but to withhold the cherished number plate. By mistake it was transferred with the car. Before the plate could be returned, the defendant had transferred it to his partner. . .
CitedSempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .

Cited by:
CitedLittlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2) ChD 28-Mar-2014
The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were . .
CitedHarrison v Madejski and Another CA 28-Mar-2014
. .
CitedTallington Lakes Ltd and Others v Larking Gowen CA 9-Jul-2014
The defendant appealed rejection of its defence that a contract with the claimant, its accountant, was on a fixed fee contract. . .
CitedBank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Equity

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512424

Cruddas v Calvert and Others: CA 21 Jun 2013

The claimant sought damages alleging both defamation and malicious falsehood. The parties appealed against the ruling that in a malicious falsehood claim, the court would accept mutiple meanings of the words used.

Longmore, Rafferty LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley
[2013] EWCA Civ 748
Bailii, Gazette
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 1-May-2013
Application for leave to amend particulars of claim. . .
See AlsoCruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 5-Jun-2013
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoCruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 26-Jun-2013
. .
See AlsoCruddas v Calvert and Others QBD 31-Jul-2013
Judgment on the second stage of the trial of a claim for libel and malicious falsehood.
Held: Tugendhat J adopted the meaning ‘more likely than not to cause pecuniary damage’ for ‘calculated to’. . .
See AlsoCalvert and Others v Cruddas CA 16-Apr-2014
Renewed application for leave to appeal against damages award in defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant newspaper had published critical articles, derived from recordings made by undercover reporters, and pleaded justification.
Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511032

Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: Admn 18 Jun 2013

The claimant was an observer at a demonstration in central London. Along with others she was detained within a police cordon. She was told she would not be released until she allowed herself to be photographed. This was done in an aggressive and intimidating manner. She said that this was involuntary and that it had been unlawful.
Held: The photographs had been obtained unlawfully and must be destroyed. They could not be retained.

Moses LJ, Wyn Williams J
[2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin)
Bailii, Bailii
Cited by:
CitedAB and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 10-Apr-2014
The claimants challenged the lawfuness of search warrants issued by the respondent court. They were solicitors, and were related to a person suspected of murder who was thought to have fled the country. The officers were looking for evidence that . .
CitedWright v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 11-Sep-2013
The claimant sought damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights in the manner of the defendant’s management of a demonstration in which he was involved. The issue was whether ilce action was justified on the basis that the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Information, Police

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510923

Collier v Anglian Water Authority: CA 26 Mar 1983

The plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a paving stone on the sea defence wall promenade at Mablethorpe, for which the defendants were responsible.
Held: The defendants were responsible for the area under the Act as occupiers, and accordingly owed the plaintiff a common law duty of care as a visitor and were liable in damages.

Times 26-Mar-1983
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Personal Injury

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.188811

Ashley and Another v Sussex Police (2): QBD 19 Dec 2008

Eady J
[2008] EWHC 3151 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAshley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .

Cited by:
See AlsoAshley and Another v Sussex Police (1) QBD 19-Dec-2008
The court considered the terms under which copies of the Moonstone report could be redacted and disclosed. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.279944

Spice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv: ChD 24 Feb 2000

Disclosure Duties on those entering into contract

The claimants worked together as a five girl pop group. The defendants had signed a sponsorship agreement, but now resisted payment saying that one of the five, Geri, had given notice to leave the group, substantially changing what had been promised. The girls acknowledged that Geri had said she would leave, but insisted that no real intention to leave had existed.
Held: Generally, a person who is about to enter into an agreement is under no duty to disclose material facts which he knows but which the other party does not know. Here the group knew that the other party was relying upon a representation, and could not discharge the requirement to show that they did not know of its falsity, and were liable in damages to the defendant.

Arden J DBE
[2000] EWHC Ch 140
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRoyscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 1991
Doyle -v- Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd was an appropriate way of assessing damages for an action under the Act, and damages are calculated on the basis of fraud.
A client misled into an investment is entitled to the measure of damages he would . .
CitedEdgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
CitedEsso Petroleum Company Ltd v Mardon CA 6-Feb-1976
Statements had been made by employees of Esso in the course of pre-contractual negotiations with Mr Mardon, the prospective tenant of a petrol station. The statements related to the potential throughput of the station. Mr Mardon was persuaded by the . .
CitedSmelter Corporation v O’Driscoll 1977
(Ireland) In an action for misrepresentation, it did not matter that the representation was made by an agent who did not know that the representation was untrue. . .
CitedSchneider v Heath 1813
A ship was sold ‘to be taken with all faults’. In fact the vendor knew that she was unseaworthy. The particulars of sale stated that her hull was ‘nearly as good as when launched’. In fact the hull was rotten and the captain took her to a place . .
CitedReynell v Sprye 1852
. .
CitedWalters v Morgan 1861
A person may make a representation by conduct if he fails to correct an impression given by his conduct. . .
CitedWith v O’Flanagan CA 1936
When negotiating to enter into a contract, a person may have a duty to disclose material facts which come to his notice before the conclusion of a contract if they falsify a representation previously made by him. A representation as to the profits . .
CitedNottingham Patent Brick Co v Butler 1886
A solicitor stated that he was not aware that property was subject to any restrictions, but his failure to add that he had not read the relevant deeds made his statement a misrepresentation. . .
CitedTrail v Baring CA 1864
(Orse Traill v Baring) The court considered a misrepresentation by conduct before contract. Turner LJ said: ‘I take it to be quite clear, that if a person makes a representation by which he induces another to take a particular course, and the . .
CitedBrown v Raphael 1958
This was a sale of an absolute reversion in a trust fund. The particulars stated that: ‘Estate duty will be payable on the death of the annuitant who is believed to have no aggregable estate’ and the name of the solicitors who prepared the . .
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
CitedHorsfall v Thomas 1852
It is a necessary requirement for an action in misrepresentation, that the misrepresentation induced the other party to enter into the contract. . .
CitedSmith v London and House Property Corporation CA 1884
Bowen LJ said: ‘In considering whether there was a misrepresentation, I will first deal with the argument that the particulars only contain a statement of opinion about the tenant. It is material to observe that it is often fallaciously assumed that . .
CitedSmith v Chadwick HL 1884
Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation
A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a . .

Cited by:
See AlsoSpice Girls Ltd v Aprilla World Service BV ChD 5-Apr-2000
It was possible through conduct to make representations which could induce the other party to enter into a contract. Here the contract was entered into at a time when one of the group had decided to leave, but in the period before the contract had . .
See alsoSpice Girls Ltd v Aprilla World Service BV (No 3) ChD 20-Jul-2000
After trials and hearings as to the facts, as to damages, and as to costs, and where the parties had previously been shown draft judgments, and been invited to comment, the applicants sought to appeal, on the grounds that losses which had been . .
See AlsoSpice Girls Limited v Aprilia World Service Bv CA 24-Jan-2002
When considering the statutory right to rescind for innocent misrepresentation, the representation should be interpreted to bear the meaning in which it would reasonably be understood by the claimant, the natural and ordinary meaning which would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.135788

Young v Downey: QBD 18 Dec 2019

Responsibility for IRA bombing fixed

The claimant sought a finding that the defendant had been responsible for a IRA bombing in 1982 which killed her father and three other soldiers and injured 31 others. He had been acquitted at a criminal trial.
Held: The limitation period was extended: ‘As was said in Carroll, the burden on the claimant is not necessarily a heavy one. She has sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay and pointed to the prejudice she will suffer if she is not permitted to have her claim adjudicated upon in the civil jurisdiction. The defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice to him in allowing the claim to proceed outside the primary limitation period. If the claim is not allowed to proceed, the defendant will avoid a determination on the evidence within this jurisdiction, having avoided adjudication in the criminal court due to an error on the part of the state. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that would be an equitable outcome. I therefore exercise the discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the provisions of sections 11 and 12 and allow this claim to proceed (including insofar as it is brought for the benefit of the claimant’s mother).’
‘My analysis of the evidence presented to me leads me to find the following facts are established to the necessary standard:
i) The claimant’s father, Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young was unlawfully killed (as were the three other soldiers) by persons acting together in the name of the IRA.
ii) The deaths resulted from a deliberate, carefully planned attack on members of the military as they were on their way to carry out their ceremonial duties in the Changing of the Guard at Horse Guards.
iii) The explosion was caused by a radio-controlled improvised device in the boot of the Morris Marina, registered number LMD 657P, which had been designed and carefully assembled to kill and maim with the addition of nails as shrapnel.
iv) The car was bought at auction on 13 July 1982 by an Irishman, whom it can reasonably be inferred was one of the bomb conspirators.
v) The car is likely to have remained in the possession of the conspirators in the week leading up to the bombing, during which time the bomb was assembled in its boot.
vi) The car was parked in Portman Square between 17 and 18 July. It was then parked at the Royal Garden Hotel car park from 18 July until the morning of the bombing.
vii) The defendant’s fingerprints were on the tickets for both car parks.
viii) There can be no sensible explanation for the defendant’s fingerprints to be on the car parking tickets other than that he was responsible for moving the car between the car parks. It is probable that he was driving it on the morning of 20 July 2019.
ix) The defendant was a member of the IRA, as evidenced by his conviction in 1974.
x) In the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the defendant was knowingly involved in the concerted plan to detonate the bomb in Hyde Park specifically targeted at the passing Guard.’

Yip J DBE
[2019] EWHC 3508 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary
Limitation Act 1980 11 12, Fatal Accidents Act 1976
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Limitation

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.645998

Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police: HL 1 Aug 2000

The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were stayed as an abuse of process. The plaintiffs then instituted civil proceedings alleging conspiracy to injure and misfeasance in public office. The defendants sought to have those proceedings struck out on the ground that the acts alleged were protected by absolute privilege or immunity.
Held: There can be no general immunity from suit for the police for actions which might amount to a conspiracy to injure and from misfeasance in public office. The investigations of officers must receive some protection, and the protection to be given to witnesses must go beyond the issuing of words in the witness box, but could not extend to every preparatory act. The distinction is founded in the giving of evidence. The fabrication of notes which might be used to support evidence could not receive protection.
‘To establish the tort of malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove absence of reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution, and notwithstanding that there is reasonable and probable cause to prosecute a suspect should be entitled to sue the police for malicious and dishonest conduct in fabricating evidence against him.’
Lord Hutton said: ‘The underlying rationale of the immunity given to a witness is to ensure that persons who may be witnesses in other cases in the future will not be deterred from giving evidence by fear of being sued for what they say in court. This immunity has been extended, as I have described, to proofs of evidence and to prevent witnesses being sued for conspiracy to give false evidence. But the immunity in essence relates to the giving of evidence. There is, in my opinion, a distinction in principle between what a witness says in court (or what in a proof of evidence a prospective witness states he will say in court) and the fabrication of evidence, such as the forging of a suspect’s signature to a confession or a police officer writing down in his notebook words which a suspect did not say or a police officer planting a brick or drugs on a suspect. In practice the distinction may appear to be a fine one, as, for example, between the police officer who does not claim to have made a note, but falsely says in the witness box that the suspect made a verbal confession to him (for which statement the police officer has immunity), and a police officer who, to support the evidence he will give in court, fabricates a note containing an admission which the suspect never made. But I consider that the distinction is a real one and that the first example comes within the proper ambit of the immunity and the other does not.’
and ‘But I consider that the position is different where, as alleged by the plaintiffs in this case, steps are taken prior to the making of a statement of evidence, not for the purpose of making a statement of evidence which the maker intends to be an accurate and truthful one, but for the wrongful purpose of fabricating false evidence which would be referred to in an untruthful statement of evidence. In my opinion immunity should be extended to cover the wrongful fabrication of evidence or of a note which will purport to be used to refresh the memory of the witness in the witness box and which will give the impression to the jury that there is support for the witness’s false statement that the suspect made an admission. This view is not in conflict with the principle that immunity (where it exists) is given to a malicious and dishonest witness as well as to an honest witness, and I think that the honest (though negligent) examination of articles to enable a statement of evidence to be made comes within the concept of the preparation of a statement of evidence, whereas the deliberate fabrication of evidence to be referred to in a statement of evidence does not come within that concept. It follows that, in my opinion, the Court of Appeal in Silcott v Comr of Police of the Metropolis 8 Admin LR 633 was in error in stating the immunity rule as widely as it did.’
Lord Hope of Craighead said: ‘The question that has been raised relates to the further extent of the immunity. Where are the boundaries to be drawn? It arises because there is another factor that must always be balanced against the public interest in matters relating to the administration of justice. It is the principle that a wrong ought not to be without a remedy. The immunity is a derogation from a person’s right of access to the court which requires to be justified.’
Lord Cooke of Thorndon said:
‘Absolute immunity is in principle inconsistent with the rule of law but in a few, strictly limited, categories of cases it has to be granted for practical reasons. It is granted grudgingly, the standard formulation of the test for inclusion of a case in any of the categories being Sir Thaddeus McCarthy P’s proposition in Rees v Sinclair [1974] 1 NZLR 180, 187, ‘The protection should not be given any wider application than is absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice …’.’
Lord Clyde said: ‘It is temptingly easy to talk of the application of immunities from civil liability in general terms. But since the immunity may cut across the rights of others to a legal remedy and so runs counter to the policy that no wrong should be without a remedy, it should be only allowed with reluctance, and should not readily be extended. It should only be allowed where it is necessary to do so.’

Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde Lord Hutton
Gazette 17-Aug-2000, Times 01-Aug-2000, [2000] UKHL 44, [2001] AC 435, [2000] 3 WLR 747
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromDocker, Head, and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 17-Mar-1998
Immunity from suit for abuse of process attaching to judicial process was attached also to steps taken as part of the investigation of a crime with a view to a possible prosecution of the matter. Auld LJ said: ‘The whole point of the public policy . .
ApprovedDawkins v Lord Rokeby 1873
dawkins_rokeby1873
Police officers (among others) are immune from any action that may be brought against them on the ground that things said or done by them in the ordinary course of the proceedings were said or done falsely and maliciously and without reasonable and . .
CitedMunster v Lamb CA 1883
Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences . .
CitedRoy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .
CitedWatson v M’Ewan HL 1905
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
CitedSilcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 24-May-1996
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
CitedTaylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
CitedEvans v London Hospital Medical College and Others 1981
The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
CitedX (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL 29-Jun-1995
Liability in Damages on Statute Breach to be Clear
Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give rise . .
CitedStanton and Another v Callaghan and Others CA 8-Jul-1998
The defendant, a structural engineer, was retained by the plaintiffs in a claim against insurers for the costs of remedying subsidence of the plaintiffs’ house. He advised total underpinning for pounds 77,000, but later while preparing a joint . .
CitedHill 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 . .
CitedElguzouli-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 . .
CitedBennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn 24-Oct-1997
Police and prosecuting authority have no inherent immunity from suit for tort of misfeasance in public office if the breach is properly made out. Immunity extends to statements made or agreed to be made out of court ‘if these were clearly and . .
CitedCutler v Dixon KBD 1585
‘It was adjudged, that if one exhibits articles to justices of peace against a certain person, containing divers great abuses and misdemeanors, not only concerning the petitioners themselves, but many others, and all this to the intent that he . .
CitedHenderson v Broomhead 1859
Immunity attaches to what persons who may be called to give evidence say or do before the court. It is an immunity ‘for words spoken or written in the course of any judicial proceeding’. . .
CitedLincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
CitedMarrinan v Vibart CA 2-Jan-1962
Two police officers gave evidence in a criminal prosecution of others, that the plaintiff, a barrister, had behaved improperly by obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently gave similar evidence at an inquiry before . .
CitedHunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
CitedIn re McC (A Minor); McC v Mullan HL 1984
The House considered the immunity from suit of judges. The Magistrate here had passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with a statutory provision which required him to inform the offender of the right to Legal Aid.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
CitedKeegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
CitedHeath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 20-Jul-2004
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her . .
CitedMeadow v General Medical Council Admn 17-Feb-2006
The appellant challenged being struck off the medical register. He had given expert evidence in a criminal case which was found misleading and to have contributed to a wrongful conviction for murder.
Held: The evidence though mistaken was . .
CitedGeneral Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
CitedWalsh v Staines and others ChD 26-Jul-2007
The defendants applied to strike out a claim based on an allegation of a fraudulent deceit and conspiracy in earlier proceedings between the parties. It was said that the defendant solicitors had represented that their client had funds to support an . .
CitedLake v British Transport Police CA 5-May-2007
The claimant challenged dismissal of his claim of having suffered an unfair detriment having made a disclosure with regard to his employers. The employers had said that as a constable, his employment was outside the scope of the Act, and the . .
CitedJones v Kaney SC 30-Mar-2011
An expert witness admitted signing a joint report but without agreeing to it. The claimant who had lost his case now pursued her in negligence. The claimant appealed against a finding that the expert witness was immune from action.
Held: The . .
CitedIqbal v Mansoor and Others QBD 26-Aug-2011
The claimant sought the disapplication of the limitation period in order to pursue the defendant solicitors, his former employers, in defamation. . .
CitedHowarth v Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD 1-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
CitedAccident Exchange Ltd v Autofocus Ltd QBD 16-Dec-2009
The claimant wished to allege that in earlier proceedings, the defendant’s employees had systematically given false evidence. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim on the basis of witness immunity.
Held: The application failed. . .
CitedSmart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd CA 2-Jul-2013
On a search of his house, the police found a bullet cartridge on the claimant’s property. It was sent for testing but due to a mistake it was reported as a live cartridge. The prosecution was only dropped after some months when the mistake was . .
CitedSingh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA 25-Jul-2013
The claimant was a non-white head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .
CitedCrawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.80082