Allegation that the successful claimant had unlawfully seized property in execution of its judgment debt, and for invasion of privacy by TV film crew recording the seizure.
Davison M
[2018] EWHC 2799 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638461
Application for the continuation of a freezing order
[2019] EWHC 772 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638254
(Supreme Court of New Zealand) Complaints by prisoners at treatment under prisons’ behaviour modification programmes.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Henry JJ
[2007] NZSC 70, [2007] 5 LRC 680
England and Wales
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.431211
[1721] EngR 17, (1721) Palm 485, (1721) 81 ER 1183 (B)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.390042
Claim by B who had been falsely accused of sexual abuse of a child.
MacKay J
[2009] EWHC 998 (QB), [2009] 2 FLR 1273, [2009] Fam Law 814
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.347378
The claimants had variously been attending a demonstration in London, or passing through. The police detained them in a cordon for several hours. They sought damages. No unlawful acts were alleged against them.
Held: There was no deprivation of liberty during the initial period when the cordon was not absolute and people were free to leave by the pavements if they wished to do so. But during the subsequent period no one was free to leave without permission. Once the full cordon was in place there was a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5(1), but that the containment was capable of being justified under article 5(1)(c) as the police reasonably believed that all those present within the cordon, including the appellant, were demonstrators and were about to commit a breach of the peace. He rejected the appellant’s claim at common law for false imprisonment.
Tugendhat J
[2005] EWHC 480 (QB), [2005] HRLR 647, [2005] HRLR 20, [2005] UKHRR 1039, [2005] Po LR 68, [2005] UKHRR 1039
European Convention on Human Rights 5(1)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-Oct-2007
The claimants appealed dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment and unlawful detention by the respondent in his policing of a demonstration. They had been held within a police cordon in the streets for several hours to prevent the spread of . .
At First Instance – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.263171
Revenue’s appeal from refusal of strike out of claim for restoration of impounded vehicle. Failure to use statutory remedy.
Eady J
[2008] EWHC 230 (QB)
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.265931
Under the 1968 Act, the court is not in the position of a statutory settlor. Lord Reid described the provisions of the 1958 Act: ‘Under the Variation of Trusts Act the court does not itself amend or vary the trusts of the original settlement. The beneficiaries are not bound by variations because the court has made the variation. Each beneficiary is bound because he has consented to the variation. If he was not of full age when the arrangement was made he is bound because the court was authorised by the Act to approve of it on his behalf and did so by making an order. If he was of full age and did not in fact consent he is not affected by the order of the court and he is not bound. So the arrangement must be regarded as an arrangement made by the beneficiaries themselves. The court merely acted on behalf of or as representing those beneficiaries who were not in a position to give their own consent and approval.
So we have an alteration of the settlement which was not made by the settlor or by the court as being empowered to make it, but which was made by the beneficiaries quite independently of the settlor or of any power, express or implied given or deemed to have been given by him.’
Lord Guest: ‘Section 1 of the Act enabled the court to give approval to an arrangement on behalf of such persons as were unable by incapacity or otherwise to give their approval. The court thus supplied the capacity which the incapax lacked.’
Lord Wilberforce: ‘If all the beneficiaries under the settlement had been sui juris, they could, in my opinion, have joined together with the trustees and declared different trusts which would supersede those originally contained in the settlement. Those new trusts would operate proprio vigore, by virtue of a self-contained instrument – namely, the deed of arrangement or variation. The original settlement would have lost any force or relevance. The effect of an order made under the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, is to make good by act of the court any want of capacity to enter into a binding arrangement of any beneficiary not capable of binding himself and of any beneficiary unborn: the nature and effect of any arrangement so sanctioned is the same as that I have described.’
Lord Reid, Lord Guest, Lord Wilberforce
[1967] UKHL 7, [1968] AC 685
Variation of Trusts Act 1958 1
England and Wales
Appeal from – Re Holmden’s Settlement Trusts CA 1966
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I must, however, consider the statement of Lord Upjohn on the footing that it is one of two reasons which he gave for his decision. It is said that both reasons are binding on all courts in the land, including the House of . .
Cited – Goulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA 10-Dec-1996
The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241669
The claimant had bought land originally bought from the defendant, but after a long series of events, the only available access was over the retained land. It sought a right of way of necessity.
Held: At the time of the grant, other access was envisaged. No right of way of necessity was implied.
Frances Kirkham J
[2006] EWHC 1075 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Titchmarsh v Royston Water Company Limited 1899
The land owner sought a grant of right of way of necessity. His land was blocked on three sides by land of the vendors and on the fourth side by a route which ran in a cutting, which would make connection with the granted land difficult.
Held: . .
Cited – Pomfret v Ricroft 1669
A lease was granted with the use of a pump on land not demised. The lessee complained of the lack of repair of the pump.
Held: The lessee had a right to repair the pump, but the landlord did not have a duty to maintain it. Where land is . .
Cited – Clark v Cogge 1607
A grantee of land shall have the benefit of an implied right of way of the grantor’s land where necessary: ‘the case was, the one sells land and afterwards the vendee, by reason thereof, claims a way over the plaintiff’s land, there being no other . .
Cited – Corporation of London v Riggs CA 1880
The court considered whether a right of way of necessity had been granted: ‘the real question I have to decide is this – whether, on a grant of land wholly surrounding a close, the implied grant, or re grant, of a right of way by the grantee to the . .
Cited – Union Lighterage Company v London Graving Dock Company CA 1902
Stirling LJ said: ‘in my opinion an easement of necessity means an easement without which the property retained cannot be used at all, and not one merely necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of that property.’
Romer LJ said that enjoyment of a . .
Cited – In re Webb’s Lease, Sandom v Webb CA 1951
The court considered the acquisition of right of way of necessity. Evershed MR said: ‘If by this language Salter J intended to lay it down that in a case such as this (where it is or may be reasonable for the court to assume that, if the parties had . .
Cited – Pwllbach Colliery Co v Woodman HL 1915
Whether an easement may be created by implication depends on the circumstances under which it is said to have been made. The law implies a grant of such easements as may be necessary to give effect to the common intention of the parties to a grant . .
Cited – Barry v Hasseldine 1952
The grantee’s land was surrounded partly by land of the vendor, and partly by that of other parties, including a disused airfield owned by a third party. For some time following the grant they had been able to obtain access over the airfield by . .
Cited – Nickerson v Barraclough CA 13-Dec-1980
The defendant appealed a finding that the plaintiff had a right of way of necessity over his land. When looking to see whether a grant of a right of way of necessity was implied, the court should ascertain the intention of the parties and public . .
Cited – Sweet and Another v Sommer and Another ChD 25-Jun-2004
Part of land had been sold off. By oversight no right of way had been taken in favour of the retained land. The dominant owner argued that by demolition of a building a means of access could be found and that therefore no right of way by necessity . .
Cited – Sommer and Another v Sweet and Another CA 10-Mar-2005
The claimants had sought entry into theirs and their neighbour’s registered land titles of entries to acknowledge their rights of way. The neighbours appealed the finding of a right of way of necessity and by proprietary estoppel, and an order for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241685
Jack J
[2006] EWHC 930 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241663
The appellant sought a stay of the action brought against them. The cliamants sought the return of goernment funds said to have been misappropriated.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, May, Jacob LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 390
England and Wales
Appeal from – Zambia, Attorney General of Zambia for and on Behalf of v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 7-Oct-2005
Reasons for dismissal of stay for certain defendants. . .
See Also – Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 22-May-2006
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others ChD 4-May-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others (No. 2) ChD 29-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1415) CA 17-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and others (1414) CA 17-Dec-2007
Two applications for permission to appeal . .
See Also – Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 9-Jul-2008
The claimant sought to allege fraud by its former president, and began proceedings to recover payments it said were fraudulent, including against a defendant Taylor in Switzerland, who now said that no letter before action or other explanation . .
See Also – Attorney General of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A Firm) and others CA 31-Jul-2008
The defendants appealed against two orders made in proceedings by the new government of Zambia alleging various tortious conspiracies by defendants with members of the former government.
Held: Appeals by the remaining two partners in the firm . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241602
(Court of Common Pleas) An offeror cannot erect a contract between himself and the offeree by the device of stating that unless he hears from the offeree he will consider the offeree bound. He cannot assert that he will regard silence as acceptance: ‘If I hear no more I shall consider the horse mine’ was not effective to create a contract.
Willes J, Byles J, Keating J
[1862] EWHC QB J35, [1862] EWHC CP J35, [1862] EngR 931, (1862) 11 CB NS 869, (1862) 142 ER 1037
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241590
Mr Justice Dyson Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Mummery
[2006] EWCA Civ 408
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241386
Allegation of forgery of documents
Fancourt J
[2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638278
The claimant company accused former directors and employee of setting up a competing business, of diverting business opportunities and of misusing confidential information. They said that they had acted in breach not only of their fiduciary obligations but their implied obligation of fidelity the moment that they procured the services of attorneys in the Cayman Islands to set up the rival business.
Held: On the facts, a former employee was also in breach of obligations as a fiduciary, whether or not he was to be regarded as a director, and that he was in breach of his duty of fidelity.
Etherton J said: ‘What the cases show, and the parties before me agree, is that the precise point at which preparations for the establishment of a competing business by a director become unlawful will turn on the actual facts of any particular case. In each case, the touchstone for what, on the one hand, is permissible, and what, on the other hand, is impermissible unless consent is obtained from the company or employer after full disclosure, is what, in the case of a director, will be in breach of the fiduciary duties to which I have referred or, in the case of an employee, will be in breach of the obligation of fidelity. It is obvious, for example, that merely making a decision to set up a competing business at some point in the future and discussing such an idea with friends and family would not of themselves be in conflict with the best interests of the company and the employer. The consulting of lawyers and other professionals may, depending on all the circumstances, equally be consistent with a director’s fiduciary duties and the employee’s obligation of loyalty. At the other end of the spectrum, it is plain that soliciting customers of the company and the employer or the actual carrying on of trade by a competing business would be in breach of the duties of the director and the obligations of the employee. It is the wide range of activity and decision making between the two ends of the spectrum which will be fact sensitive in every case.’
Etherton J
[2006] EWHC 836 (Ch), [2007] 2 BCLC 202, [2007] FSR 15, [2007] IRLR 110
England and Wales
Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240440
The claimant sought damages for defamation and inducing breach of contract.
[2006] EWHC 819 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240423
Moore-Bick LJ discussed whether the court should give effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract saying: ‘It is common to include in certain kinds of contracts an express acknowledgement by each of the parties that they have not been induced to enter the contract by any representations other than those contained in the contract itself. The effectiveness of a clause of that kind may be challenged on the grounds that the contract as a whole, including the clause in question, can be avoided if in fact one or other party was induced to enter into it by misrepresentation. However, I can see no reason in principle why it should not be possible for parties to reach an agreement to give up any right to assert that they were induced to enter into it by misrepresentation, provided that they make their intentions clear, or why a clause of that kind, if properly drafted, should not give rise to a contractual estoppel of the kind recognised in Colchester Borough Council v Smith. However, that particular question does not arise in this case. A clause of that kind may (depending on its terms) also be capable of giving rise to an estoppel by representation if the necessary elements can be established: see E A Grimstead and Son v McGarrigan (CA) 27 October 1999, unreported.’
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2006] EWCA Civ 386, [2006] 2 Lloyds Rep 511, [2006] 1 CLC 582
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Peekay Intermark Ltd and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ComC 25-May-2005
The claimant alleged mis-selling of an emerging markets investment product. The defendant claimed that whilst there might have been a misrepresentation, by the time the contract was formed, correct information had been provided and incorporated in . .
Cited – E A Grimstead and Son Ltd v McGarrigan CA 27-Oct-1999
The court considered the effect of an acknowledgement of non-reliance clause: ‘There are, as it seems to me, at least two good reasons why the courts should not refuse to give effect to an acknowledgement of non-reliance in a commercial contract . .
Cited – Ahmed v Landstone Leisure Ltd ChD 30-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. He had given a cheque at a land auction, and it had bounced on his instructions, saying that the property had been misrepresented.
Held: The auctioneer had specifically . .
Cited – Ahmed v Landstone Leisure Ltd ChD 30-Jan-2009
The claimant appealed against a refusal to set aside a statutory demand. He had given a cheque at a land auction, and it had bounced on his instructions, saying that the property had been misrepresented.
Held: The auctioneer had specifically . .
Cited – Morgan and Another v Pooley and Another QBD 7-Oct-2010
The claimants had bought a property from the defendants and now sought damages in misrepresentation saying that the defendants had failed to disclose a planning application for an adjacent farm as regards a track bordering the property.
Held: . .
Cited – AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
An insurance company had engaged a main contractor to handle repairs to houses insured under its policies. The contractor had engaged the claimant subcontractor to carry out the works at the defendants’ homes, but then went into insolvent . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240107
The parties disputed the attempt to strike out part of the defendant’s claim relating to shipping losses.
Buxton, Wall, Jonathan Parker LJJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 161
England and Wales
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation CA 20-Dec-2005
The defendants appealed against an order striking out four paragraphs of its defence and counterclaim. . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation ComC 14-Mar-2005
The defendants had invested money through the claimants, but had suffered severe losses. The claimants sought a declaration that they had no liability for such losses. The defendants counterclaimed that the claimants were liable in negligence, . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation ComC 3-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation Comc 27-May-2008
The company alleged negligence by its financial advisers.
Held: Gloster J said that the absence of a written advisory agreement is a strong pointer against the existence of a free-standing duty of care to give investment advice.
Gloster . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation and others ComC 25-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corp ComC 21-Nov-2008
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corp ComC 20-Feb-2009
The court heard an application for leave to appeal against orders. . .
See Also – Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase Bank and Others CA 1-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to whether representations has been made.
Held: Aikens LJ referred to a provision stating ‘no representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be made . . in or in relation to such documents or information’, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238788
[2005] EWCA Civ 1803
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238646
Alleged Fraudulent misrepresentation.
Swift J
[2006] EWHC 30 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238556
Action for damages by the Claimant, the owner of the motor vessel CHARLOTTE C, against the Defendant, the owner and operator of Bird Port which is in Newport. The claim is brought under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and in negligence. It is said that whilst berthed at Bird Port between 8 and 12 May 2003 the vessel sat upon a steel coil causing indentations and fractures in her bottom shell plating and buckling of her internals.
Nigel Teare QC
[2005] EWHC 1974 (Admlty)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238283
The court considered when a company director might be personally liable for acts of the company: ‘in order to make a director, other officer or employee of a company personally liable for the company’s tort, it is necessary to show either that he was himself the person who committed, or participated in, the act constituting the tort, or that he directed or procured the tortious act to be done by others; and that inquiries into the matter will or may involve an ‘elusive question’ turning on the particular facts of the case, and whose resolution may in turn involve the making of a policy decision as to the side of the line on which the case ought to fall.’ and ‘is it the law of England that a director of a company who has authorised, directed and procured the commission by the company of a tort of the nature specified in section 1(2) of the Copyright Act 1956 can in no circumstances be personally liable to the injured party unless he directed or procured the acts of infringement in the knowledge that they were tortious, or recklessly, not caring whether they were tortious or not?’ (Lord Justice Slade)
and ‘If the directors themselves directed or procured the commission of the act they would be liable in whatever sense they did so, whether expressly or impliedly.’ but ‘Nevertheless, judicial dicta of high authority are to be found in English decisions which suggest that a director is liable for those tortious acts of his company which he has ordered or procured to be done.’ (Lord Justice Atkin)
Lord Justice Slade, Lord Justice Atkin
[1985] 1 WLR 316
England and Wales
Cited – PLG Research Ltd and Another v Ardon International Ltd and Others ChD 25-Nov-1994
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: ‘Mr. . .
Cited – MCA 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 . .
Cited – Global Projects Management Ltd v Citigroup Inc and Others ChD 17-Oct-2005
GPM had acquired an internet domain name ‘citigroup.co.uk’. Citigroup alleged passing off and trade mark infringement. The claimant complained of an unjustified threat. The defendant counterclaimed, and sought summary judgment.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.221583
Warby J
[2019] EWHC 1321 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.638218
The House was asked as to the result in law when a nuisance is the inevitable result of carrying out the functions authorised by Parliament.
Held: Viscount Dunedin said: ‘When Parliament has authorized a certain thing to be made or done in a certain place, there can be no action for nuisance caused by the making or doing of that thing if the nuisance is the inevitable result of the making or doing so authorized. The onus of proving that the result is inevitable is on those who wish to escape liability for nuisance, but the criterion of inevitability is not what is theoretically possible but what is possible according to the state of scientific knowledge at the time, having also in view a certain common sense appreciation, which cannot be rigidly defined, of practical feasibility in view of situation and of expense.’
Viscount Sumner said: ‘the first question is ‘What did the Legislature authorize?’ The sections can be read as directing the use of such a plant as was originally erected or even as relieving the Corporation from liability for nuisance on proof that all due care has been used. The case becomes one of quite a simple proof. I think the condition of freedom from liability is proof of due care but not that any particular plant or user can be implied from the general terms employed. The appellants are right in saying that the Manchester Corporation Act, 1914, is not a ‘special Act’ within s. 1 of the Electric Lighting Clauses Act of 1899, but in effect varies or excepts the operation of the scheduled clauses of that Act. What is required of them is to use all due and reasonable means and precautions to avoid a nuisance. The burden of proving that they have done so is on them.’
Viscount Dunedin, Viscount Sumner
[1930] AC 171
Manchester Corporation Act, 1914
England and Wales
Cited – The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.551304
Fraud and Circumvention. – In a reduction of sundry deeds upon this ground, various circumstances found irrelevant or not proved.
[1712] UKHL Robertson – 41, (1712) Robertson 41
Scotland
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.553459
Application for adjournment granted – legal aid decision not yet made.
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2005] EWCA Civ 1485
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237462
Claims were made as to an alleged fraud by some of the respondents.
Treacy J
[2005] EWHC 2662 (QB), [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 247, [2005] All ER (D) 364, [2006] 1 Lloyds Rep 484
England and Wales
Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Murad, and Murad v Al-Saraj and Westwood Business Inc ChD 28-May-2004
. .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
Cited – Twinsectra 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 . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .
Cited – Royal 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 . .
Cited – Jeremy D Stone Consultants Ltd and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc and Another ChD 11-Feb-2013
The claimants asserted an equitable claim against funds held by the defendant bank in the name of a company owned by another defendant who they said defrauded them through a Ponzi investment scheme.
Held: The claim failed. On the evidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236696
The claimants sought summary judgment in their claim against the defendant as a former employee of BCCI accusing him of fraud.
Forbes J
[2005] EWHC 2256 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236723
Gage LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1447
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236364
[2001] EWCA Civ 294
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.218008
The court had to decide the ownership of of tallow which had been kept at warehouses. In a fire; it melted and flowed down the sewers into the river where part of it was collected by a man with no right to it; and he sold it to the claimant. The police stopped the claimant and took him before a magistrate. The magistrate discharged the claimant. Under the section the magistrate had power, where the real owner was known, to make an order for the detention and subsequent delivery of goods ‘charged to be stolen or fraudulently obtained’ to the rightful owner, and where the owner was unknown to order delivery to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police Force who was authorised, in the absence of a claim made by the real owner within 12 months, to sell them. Pursuant to these statutory provisions the magistrate made an order for the detention of the goods. The tallow became a nuisance and the police sold the tallow to the defendant before the 12 month period expired. The claimant then sued the defendant to recover it. The court directed a verdict for the defendant with leave to the claimant to move to enter judgment if the Court of Queen’s Bench should be of the opinion that he could maintain his action. The court held that he could not. Cockburn CJ said: ‘Under these circumstances it appears to me plain that, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the statute, an order was made by the justice, within the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, with respect to dealing with this tallow, and whether the police were or were not warranted in selling it within twelve months is immaterial. The plaintiff, who had nothing but bare naked possession (which would have been sufficient against a wrong doer) had it taken out of him by virtue of this enactment. As against the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant derives title, not from a wrong doer, but from a person selling under authority of the justice, whether rightly or not is of no consequence. I wholly disagree with the doctrine of the plaintiff’s counsel, that if the policeman did anything ultra vires, that would revest the possession of this tallow in the plaintiff. He had no title beyond what mere possession gave, and, so soon as the goods were taken from him by force of law, there was a break in the chain of that possession.’ Crompton J said: ‘This action must be founded on possession; here the possession was divested out of the plaintiff, and he cannot revert to a right of property to re-establish it. I agree with my Lord Chief Justice that, where possession is lawfully divested out of a man, and the property is ultimately converted by a person who does not claim through an original wrong doer, the party whose possession was so divested had no property at the time of the conversion. Here, in my mind, the plaintiff’s possession was gone. The goods were properly taken from him ….’ Blackburn J: ‘I do not wish to question the doctrine laid down in several cases, that possession of personal property is sufficient title against a wrong doer; nor that it is no answer to the plaintiff in such a case to say that there is a third person who could lawfully take the chattel from him; and I do not know that it makes any difference whether the goods had been feloniously taken or not. But, assuming that to be the law, the plaintiff has not brought himself within it. … I draw the inference of fact that the justice was satisfied that this tallow had come from the warehouses, and I hold that, as matter of law, the police were bound to keep it for the true owner, because they had ascertained that there was a true owner, and who he was. Their possession was the possession of the true owner and not of the wrong doer, whose possession was terminated by their taking possession. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the sale of the tallow to the defendants by the police was right or wrong. If wrong, the true owner may complain against them; if not, no one else can, but at all events, not the plaintiff, who was himself a wrong doer.’
Blackburn J, Cockburn CJ, Crompton J
(1863) 3B and S 556
Metropolitan Police Act 1839 29
England and Wales
Cited – Field v Sullivan 1923
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The claimant claimed return of goods seized by the police believing them to be stolen. The theft was not established and the claimant as the party in possession at the time of the seizure was held entitled to their . .
Cited – Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA 22-Mar-2001
The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .
Cited – Irving v National Provincial Bank CA 1962
Goods were seized by the police from the claimant. Neither the claimant nor the defendant could establish that they were the true owners. Under section 1 the first court directed the goods to be delivered to the defendant as the person who appeared . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194102
The appellant appealed refusal of permission for change of use. He had a farm which also had permission for alteration to a dwelling. He wanted to open an equestrian centre. The planning committee originally granted the request, but one member later sought to reverse the decision, and achieved it. The applicant’s claim for misfeasance in public office by the defendant Council was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
Held: The claimant had failed properly to plead his claim despite having several opportunities. He had not shown express or other malice
Lord Justice Beldam Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Schiemann
[1997] EWCA Civ 2989
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.143388
Appeal from an award of damages for fraudulent misrepresentations by employee.
Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Flaux and Mrs Justice Carr
[2018] EWCA Civ 2480
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.630710
[2004] EWHC 983 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.269949
Hospital’s appeal against a finding of liability under the 1984 Act to the claimant for injury incurred on their premises.
[2005] EWCA Civ 1707
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 1
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238611
The court was asked whether a crime, which was not an actionable tort, constituted unlawful means for the purposes of the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.
Davis J
[2005] EWHC 2034 (QB)
Cited – Stephens v Myers CCP 17-Jul-1830
Assault by Words Requires Means to Carry Out
In a turbulent parish council meeting, the meeting voted to have the defendant ejected. He refused, and advanced toward the chairman waving his clenched fist and saying he would rather throw him from the chair. He was stopped before getting within . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
See Also – Mbasogo and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 5-Apr-2006
. .
Appeal from – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others ChD 15-Apr-2010
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230395
A person, who knew that others wanted to find someone and beat him up, and who was taken in a car and pointed out the address at which she believed the victim lived, ‘expressly or by the clearest implication became part of the common design’.
Leveson J
[2005] EWHC 1087 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.227000
[2002] EWCA Civ 1764
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.217847
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The claimant claimed return of goods seized by the police believing them to be stolen. The theft was not established and the claimant as the party in possession at the time of the seizure was held entitled to their return. ‘If A is in possession of goods, he is prima facie in lawful possession of them and prima facie has the right to that possession; in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, in any proceedings that possession is proof of ownership; but that possession may be divested out of him lawfully or unlawfully. If unlawfully, his right of possession remains. As against the person who unlawfully deprived him of possession (B) or those claiming through him, A’s possession (even if wrongful) up to the time of seizure, is sufficient evidence to establish his right to possession: nor can those persons set up that the goods were A’s possession, but were really the property of X, though, of course, if B took possession on behalf of and with the authority of X, who is shown to be the true owner, that might be set up to show that B’s seizure was not unlawful. If the divesting is lawful, A’s right of possession may be destroyed entirely or may be merely suspended or temporarily divested … So where the law permits them to be seized or detained for a certain time or for a certain purpose or until a certain event, As possession is suspended or temporarily divested and the right of possession is vested in, or A’s right to possession is displaced by, the right of possession in the person authorised to seize them or detain them for the period during which he is authorised. In other words, A’s property and right to possession are made subject to the right of the police or other person seizing under the authority of the law to detain them during the period during which the detention is authorised; when that time expires, and no lawful order has been made for the disposition, his right to possession, if nothing more appears, again operates. I say `if nothing more appears’, for if it may appear by evidence that A never had a right of possession, as in [Buckley], and that therefore there was no suspended right of possession to revive or again operate …’
Macfarlan J, Cullen J
[1923] VLR 70
Australia
Cited – Buckley v Gross 1863
The court had to decide the ownership of of tallow which had been kept at warehouses. In a fire; it melted and flowed down the sewers into the river where part of it was collected by a man with no right to it; and he sold it to the claimant. The . .
Cited – The Queen v D’Eyncourt 1888
andpound;108 was seized by police as money obtained by false pretences, but the charges were confined to andpound;8 alone. The question arose whether the magistrate had jurisdiction under the 1839 Act to direct the delivery of goods which were . .
Cited – Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA 22-Mar-2001
The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194103
andpound;108 was seized by police as money obtained by false pretences, but the charges were confined to andpound;8 alone. The question arose whether the magistrate had jurisdiction under the 1839 Act to direct the delivery of goods which were seized by the police but were not the subject of any charge to the person (a Mary Ryan) from whom they were seized. The magistrate had directed that the balance of andpound;100 be delivered up to her.
Held: The court quashed the decision. The Act conferred no jurisdiction to make any order save in respect of goods the subject of a charge.
Wills J said: ‘As to andpound;8 odd, the defendant appears to have admitted that the sums of which it consisted were property to be returned to the [identified] persons from whom she concedes that she had received them. As to the rest of the sum [of andpound;100 odd] now in the hands of the police authorities, it seems clear, upon the facts stated to us, that it ought to be given to Mary Ryan: and it is clear that the possession she once had would give her the right to recover the money from anyone who could not show a better title. This would be so, even if the money had been obtained by false pretences from persons who with knowledge of the facts advisedly abstained from making any claim or if nothing could be shown as to whom was really entitled. The possessory right may perhaps go further. It is not necessary to express any opinion upon this point. We have no reason to suppose that the police authorities will not do what is right in the matter.’
Wills J
(1888) 21 QBD 109
Metropolitan Police Act 1839 29
England and Wales
Cited – Field v Sullivan 1923
(Supreme Court of Victoria) The claimant claimed return of goods seized by the police believing them to be stolen. The theft was not established and the claimant as the party in possession at the time of the seizure was held entitled to their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194105
Appeal against finding of wrongful inducing and procuring of breach of contract.
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Latham, And, Mr Justice Burton
[2001] EWCA Civ 1722
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.166934
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment of the claimant. He had once been properly arrested, but before he was freed, it was decided that he should be held for court and an information laid alleging breach of the peace. They purported to exercise the common law power to detain a person where it is believed that, having committed a breach of the peace, it was reasonably believed that a renewal was threatened. His detention was reviewed, but having been arrested early in the weekend, by Sunday, he might have been released.
Held: A breach of the peace is not a criminal offence and the 1984 Act did not apply to detentions for a breach of the peace. Police constables have no special power of arrest for breach of the peace
Lord Justice Mantell, And, Mr Justice Wall
Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 86
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1948
A breach of the peace does not constitute a criminal offence. . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Albert v Lavin HL 3-Dec-1981
An off duty and out of uniform police officer attempted to restrain the defendant jumping ahead of a bus queue. The defendant struggled, and continued to do so even after being told that of the officer’s status. He said he had not believed that he . .
Cited – Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 9-Jun-1998
A man was locked out of the matrimonial home which he owned jointly with his wife, following a family dispute. The police told him, as was the fact, that his wife and children did not want him to re-enter the house and the police suggested that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.167615
Claim for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Allegation of theft from shop – accusation of theft.
[1998] EWCA Civ 1206
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.144685
Dispute following purchase of share capital of football club.
[2018] EWHC 2884 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.628955
The claimant alleged the fraudulent transfer of properties by use of a forged power of attorney.
Held: The power was fraudulent. Solicitors had acted under the instructions of the agent. The court referred to the Law Society’s practice guidance after Penn and said ‘If instructions come to a solicitor not from the client himself but from a third party claiming to represent the client, the solicitor needs to take special care to satisfy himself that the client wishes him to act, by seeking the client personally or obtaining written confirmation from the client or taking some other step which is sufficient, in the circumstances, to show that the client wants the solicitor to act for him in the matter in question.’ Nor had the solicitors verified that the vendor had received the proceeds of sale. They were liable in negligence. Any indemnity from the Land Registry would be reduced according to the contribution from the solicitors.
Ferris J
[1999] EWHC 840 (Ch), [1999] EG 11
Land Registration Act 1925 83(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Penn v Bristol and West Building Society and Others ChD 19-Jun-1995
Solicitors acting for a vendor were liable to the buyers’ mortgagees for breach of warranty of authority for vendor. The solicitor was negligent in not having verified the instructions from the wife who was the joint tenant. . .
Cited – Gale v Superdrug Stores Plc CA 25-Apr-1996
The right to resile from an admission made in pleadings is lost only if there can be found proof of prejudice to the other party. It is a matter for the judge’s discretion.
The court set out the principles on which it should act when it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.341193
Whether claimant entitled to an interim injunction – competing tour operators
[2008] NIQB 144
Northern Ireland
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.279841
The claimant sought damages for her rape by the defendant. After his conviction and having served his sentence, the defendant won substantial sums on the lottery.
Held: The sums paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were not paid by the defendant tortfeasor, but by the british taxpayer, and it would be contrary to notions of restorative justice to permit a Defendant to place any great weight on a payment which he did not make and has not offered to pay back to the CICA.
Coulson J
[2008] EWHC 1573 (QB)
England and Wales
See Also – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Cited – Coad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
See Also – A v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005
The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
Cited – AT and others v Dulghieru and Another QBD 19-Feb-2009
The claimants had been subject to unlawful human trafficking. Their abductors had been imprisoned, and they now sought damages. The court was asked now to assess the damages to be awarded for sexual enslavement. Each claimant suffered chronic post . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.270819
[2008] EWHC 54 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.263852
The plaintiff sought to sue police officers who had prepared a report for the Director of Public Prosecutions and appeared as witnesses against him at his criminal trial.
Held: The claim failed. Salmon J considered the principle of the privilege given to those making witness statements to the police: ‘It has been well settled law for generations – certainly since Lord Mansfield’s time – that witnesses enjoy absolute immunity from actions brought against them in respect of any evidence they may give in a court of justice. This immunity exists for the benefit of the public, since the administration of justice would be greatly impeded if witnesses were to be in fear that any disgruntled or possibly impecunious persons against whom they gave evidence might subsequently involve them in costly litigation. ‘
Salmon J
[1963] 1 QB 234
England and Wales
Appeal from – Marrinan v Vibart CA 2-Jan-1963
Decision upheld (dicta approved) . .
Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD 30-Oct-2007
The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
Cited – Iqbal 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.267516
The defendants sold diamond grit allegedly for the sole purpose of making grinding tools in which it was to be embedded in a resin bond as part of a grinding material patented by the plaintiffs.
Held: The defendants could not be infringers unless they ‘sold the grits in circumstances which in some way made them participants in their subsequent embodiment in resin bonded grinding wheels, or that they induced someone so to embody them.’
Lord Justice Buckley said: ‘The plaintiffs do not only assert infringement by the defendants. They also say that the defendants have procured, counselled and/or aided other persons to infringe. This may perhaps amount to an allegation of direct infringement by the defendants themselves, but I am inclined to think that it is a claim in respect of a distinct, suggested tort of procuring infringement by others (based upon the principle enunciated by Erle J in Lumley v Gye’ and
‘facilitating the doing of an act is obviously different from procuring the doing of an act.’
Lord Justice Buckley
[1979] FSR 59
England and Wales
Cited – Lumley v Gye 1853
Inducing breach of contract is a Tort
An opera singer (Miss Wagner) and the defendant theatre owner were joint wrongdoers. They had a common design that the opera singer should break her contract with the plaintiff theatre owner, refuse to sing in the plaintiff’s theatre and instead . .
Cited – MCA 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 . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Cited – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230359
The plaintiff made a large number of claims against a former director, Mr Dalby, for misappropriating its funds. These included a claim for an account of a secret profit which Mr Dalby was said to have been procured to be paid by a third party, Balfour Beatty, to a BVI company under his control called Burnstead.
Held: Mr Dalby was accountable for the money received by Burnstead.
‘Burnstead was an offshore company which was wholly owned and controlled by Mr Dalby and in which nobody else had any beneficial interest. Everything it did was done on his directions and on his directions alone. It had no sales force, technical team or other employees capable of carrying on any business. Its only function was to make and receive payments. It was in substance little other than Mr Dalby’s offshore bank account held in a nominee name. In my view this is the type of case in which the court ought to have no hesitation in regarding Burnstead simply as the alter ego through which Mr Dalby enjoyed the profit which he earned in breach of his fiduciary duty to ACP. If the arrival at this result requires a lifting of Burnstead’s corporate veil, then I regard this as an appropriate case in which to do so. Burnstead is simply a creature company used for receiving profits for which equity holds Mr Dalby to be accountable to ACP. Its knowledge was in all respects the same as his knowledge. The introduction into the story of such a creature company is, in my view, insufficient to prevent equity’s eye from identifying it with Mr Dalby’
Rimer J
[2000] 2 BCLC 734, [2000] EWHC 1560 (Ch), [2000] 2 BCLC 734
England and Wales
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Doubted – Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others SC 12-Jun-2013
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Cited – Ben Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230346
The claimant sought damages from the defendants saying that the second defendant had induced a breach of contract by the first when he left to play rugby for the second defendant.
Held: The contract could not be said to be void as an agreement to agree as argued by the defendants. It was accordingly enforceable and the claim succeeded.
Gray J
[2005] EWHC 1591 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – May and Butcher Limited v The King HL 1929
(Note) Old tentage had been sold at such prices as ‘shall be agreed from time to time’ and at such delivery periods as should be similarly agreed.
Held: There was a mere agreement to agree and no contract had ever come into existence.
Cited – Brown v Gould 1972
A lease of business premises contained an option to renew the lease and provided for any such new lease: ‘to be for a further term of 21 years at a rent to be fixed having regard to the market value of the premises at the time of exercising this . .
Cited – Investors 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 . .
Cited – Haynes v Doman CA 1899
A former servant entered into new employment carrying with him the trade secrets, with the constant risk of divulging them to rival manufacturers. The position of the expert witness was challenged.
Held: An expert witness may not give evidence . .
Cited – Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery Ad Cross CA 22-Mar-2001
The court always leans against a conclusion which will leave parties who clearly intended to contract without a legally binding contract, and that this is the more so where they have acted as though they were bound. The court strains to supply . .
Cited – Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228997
The claimant had sued over the way he was treated by the respondent in a fraud investigation. The court had dismissed his claims for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. A prosecution had been commenced but dropped. The judge had held the arrest to be lawful. He sought leave to appeal.
Held: The warrant had not been challenged, and the officers continued to have the protection of the 1750 Act. The officers had not acted to an excess save in the number of documents removed. Leave refused.
Sir Mark Potter
[2005] EWCA Civ 902
Constable’s Protection Act 1750
England and Wales
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Price v Messenger 1800
Excessive unauthorised or unreasonable behaviour by a police constable loses him the protection of section 6 of the Act of 1750. . .
Cited – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick and Others v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 11-Jan-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228918
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for inducing a breach of contract against the sixth defendant. It said that an intention to disturb a contract could be inferred.
Held: A mere recklessness as to whether contractual rights were disturbed was insufficient to found the tort of interference with contractual relations.
Sedley LJ, Arden LJ, Aikens J
[2005] EWCA Civ 861, [2005] IRLR 964, Times 28-Jul-2005
England and Wales
Cited – Smithies v National Association of Operative Plasterers CA 1909
It was no defence to a claim for inducing breach of contract brought by employers against a trade union for sanctioning a strike that the defendant trade union had acted in the honest belief that the employers against whom action was taken were not . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Greig v Insole 1978
The court was asked whether the Test and County Cricket Board had, by passing certain resolutions, induced cricketers with contracts with World Series Cricket Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, to break those contracts. The TCCB had acted in good faith and . .
Not Binding – Swiss Bank Corporation v Lloyds Bank Ltd 1979
A subjective test was applied as to whether the court could find an intention to interfere with contractual relations. . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – 369413 Alberta Ltd v Pocklington 21-Nov-2000
(Court of Appeal of Alberta) The court set out a number of propositions as to the intention required for inducing a breach of contract. These included inferred intention and recklessness. The Court of Appeal held as follows: ‘In order to find . .
Cited – Timeplan Education Group Limited v National Union of Teachers and Dunn CA 23-Jan-1997
Damages were claimed for an alleged unlawful interference with contractual relations.
Held: Ignorance of the terms of the contract did not suffice to show absence of intent to interfere with contractual relations. . .
Cited – De Mattos v Gibson 1859
The purchaser of an interest in property may not use it so as to breach contractual rights of which he was aware when he acquired the interest. . .
Cited – Lonrho plc v Fayed CA 1989
There had been a battle to purchase the share capital of the House of Fraser which owned Harrods. Lonrho alleged that the Fayed brothers had perpetrated a fraud on the Secretary of State, and thereby secured permission to buy the company without a . .
Cited – Pritchard v Briggs CA 1980
A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported . .
Cited – Latvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa CA 21-Jun-2002
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: ‘It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by . .
Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc CA 2-Mar-2007
The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of . .
Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228480
The defendant appealed a refusal to discharge a restraining order made under the Act in 1999. The order arose from acts of harassment committed by the defendant against his former wife. The court had applied the Nottingham Justices case to say that they need not hear a second renewed application unless there had been a material change in circumstances.
Held: The appeal failed. The district judge had been correct: ‘absent an appeal, a restraining order remains good and valid according to its terms, including a term which extends it until further order. It seems to me that it follows that on an application or further application to discharge the applicant must show that something has changed so that the continuance of the order is no longer necessary or appropriate. Unless that is so, the applicant would be entitled to have the merits of an earlier decision or decisions re-determined anew without having appealed them’
Laws LJ, David Steel J
[2005] EWHC 1215 (Admin)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Nottingham Justices, ex parte Davis QBD 1980
On a second or subsequent application for bail, magistrates need only ask first whether there had been a material change in circumstancs since the original order. If there had been no change, there was no need to look at the facts underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227047
Lewison J considered the nature of the duty to provide an account: ‘The taking of an account is the means by which a beneficiary requires a trustee to justify his stewardship of trust property. The trustee must show what he has done with that property. If the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the way that a trustee has dealt with trust assets, he may surcharge or falsify the account. He surcharges the account when he alleges that the trustee has not obtained for the benefit of the trust all that he might have done, if he had exercised due care and diligence. If the allegation is proved, then the account is taken as if the trustee had received, for the benefit of the trust, what he would have received if he had exercised due care and diligence. The beneficiary falsifies the account when he alleges that the trustee has applied trust property in a way that he should not have done (e.g. by making an unauthorised investment). If the allegation is proved, then the account will be taken as if the expenditure had not been made; and as if the unauthorised investment had not formed part of the assets of the trust. Of course if the unauthorised investment has appreciated in value, the beneficiary may choose not to falsify the account: in which case the asset will remain a trust asset and the expenditure on it will be allowed in taking the account.’
Mr Justice Lewison
[2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.236219
[2018] EWHC 3135 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.631307
The claimant sought damages alleging unlawful imprisonment and other torts by being unlawfully held in immigration detention.
Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1858 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.442196
Coulson J
[2011] EWHC 1625 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.441224
Deputy Judge John Leighton Williams QC
[2009] EWHC 1886 (QB)
England and Wales
Appeal from – Muuse v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant, a Dutch national, was detained pending deportation. He was arrested ‘for immigration’ after being given bail in other proceedings. It had been found that that detention was unlawful. He did not come within the criteria for deportation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.431290
Field J
[2004] EWHC 194 (QB)
Protection Against Harassment Act 1997 3
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.431905
Thirlwall J
[2011] EWHC 1269 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.440469
The claimant company alleged misfeasance in public office on the part of the defendants in the administration of the transport licensing system.
Wyn Williams J
[2008] EWHC 3099 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.278798
Application to amend pleading to add new claims of conspiracy and fraud.
Rimer J
[2006] EWHC 573 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.240019
[2004] EWHC 323 (Ch)
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.239288
A 15 year old was hit by a train as she crossed a railway line. She said the defender had not maintained a fence separating the street from the railway. The defenders knew that people went through the gaps walked across. She had crossed several times, knowing the danger and had looked out, but not on this occasion. It was not believed that she would have been stopped by an ordinary post and wire fence. The Lord Ordinary, Lord Ross, assoilzied saying ‘A person who takes a chance necessarily consents to take what comes.’ The pursuer reclaimed and an Extra Division adhered to the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor. The pursuer appealed.
Held: (1) The occupier owed a duty to show such care as in all the circumstances was reasonable to see that the person entering on them would not suffer injury; a railway operator owed a duty to maintain a fence beside the line according to the circumstances, including the age and intelligence of the person entering on to the line and the nature of the locus. (2) The respondents owed no duty to the apellant to maintain the fence in a better condition than it was on the grounds that she was aware of the danger, that on-coming trains could be seen for a quarter of a mile and that she had not averred any complaint as to the way in which the train had been operated. (3) Even if the respondents had failed in their duty to maintain the fence the appellant had failed to prove as a matter of probability that the accident would have been prevented had the fence been maintained. (4) That the Lord Ordinary was also correct in holding that the respondents had established a defence under section 2(3) of the 1960 Act which merely stated the principle of volenti non fit iniuria in that the appellant was well aware of and accepted the risk of crossing the line while trains were being operated properly.
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Chancellor: ‘To my mind the crucial fact in this appeal was that no averment was or could have been made against the respondent Board that the train which struck the appellant was being driven otherwise than in a perfectly proper manner. If such an averment had been made and proved the respondent Board would have been liable . . . the pursuer’s claim, which was based solely on the condition of the fence, was doomed to failure, if only because, on her own admissions, she had voluntarily accepted the risk whatever it was which she incurred by crossing the line, provided only that it was a ‘risk of danger from the running of the railway in the ordinary and accustomed way’.
On this analysis of the facts it is possible to formulate the result either by saying that, at the critical moment, that is when the appellant crossed the line, the respondent Board owed no duty to the appellant, or that the duty they owed to the appellant had been discharged by the time she crossed the boundary fence, or that the accident was not caused by any breach of duty on the part of the respondent Board, or alternatively that, having assumed the risk involved, the respondent Board was covered by the doctrine volenti non fit iniuria.’
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: ‘The duty under section 2(1) was considered by your Lordships’ house in McGlone v British Railways Board 1966 S.C. (H.L.) 1 where Lord Guest said at p.15 ‘The duty is not to ensure the entrant’s safety but only to show reasonable care. What is reasonable care must depend ‘on all circumstances of the case”. One of the circumstances is the age and intelligence of the entrant. That appears from the provision in section 2(1) that the duty is to show ‘such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury’ (emphasis added). The question in each case relates to the particular person who has entered upon the premises. The submission of counsel for the respondents was that they did more than enough to discharge their obligations to this appellant because the fences along the north and south sides of the line, notwithstanding that they had gaps, gave her warning that if she went on she would be entering upon railway premises. She was well aware, as she admitted, of the danger of walking across or along the line, and she said that when doing so she normally kept a lookout for trains. By giving her that warning, the respondents were, said Mr Morison [senior counsel for the respondents], doing more than they were obliged to do, because this appellant already knew that the railway was there, and therefore needed no warning. Counsel accepted that the logical conclusion of this argument was that, as the appellant had no need of a warning, the respondents could have left their premises near the bridge completely unfenced without being in breach of any duty towards her. A fortiori they had no duty to do more than they did. ‘
and ‘I must emphasise that the question in this appeal is not whether the respondents, and other operators of railways if any there be, have as a general rule a duty to the public to maintain fences beside their lines in good condition or at all. The existence and extent of a duty to fence will depend on the circumstances of the case including the age and intelligence of the particular person entering upon the premises; the duty will tend to be higher in a question with a very young or a very old person than in the question with a normally active and intelligent adult or adolescent. The nature of the locus and the obviousness or otherwise of the railway may also be relevant. In the circumstances of this case, and in a question with this appellant, I have reached the opinion that the Lord Ordinary was well entitled to hold, as he did, that the respondents owed no duty to her to do more than they in fact did to maintain the fence along the line. I reached that view primarily because the appellant admitted that she was fully aware that the line existed, that there was danger in walking across it or along it, that she ought to have kept a lookout for trains, and that she had done so when crossing the line on previous occasions.’ and ‘There was therefore no special danger peculiar to the locus of the accident, and no criticism was made by the appellant of the way in which the particular train was being operated. […] Taking all these circumstances together I consider that the respondents did not owe the appellant a duty to maintain the fence in better condition that it was. If it were necessary to do so I would hold that they owed her no duty to provide any fence at all.’
The Lord Ordinary had correctly decided that, even if the respondents were at fault in failing to maintain the fence and to repair the gaps in it, the appellant had failed to prove, as a matter of probability, that if the respondents had performed their duty in those respects, the accident would have been prevented. He then said: ‘Secondly, the Lord Ordinary held that the respondents had established a defence under section 2(3) of the 1960 Act by proving that the appellant had willingly accepted the risks of walking across the line. As Lord Reid said in McGlone, supra, subsection (3) merely puts in words the principle volenti non fit iniuria. That principle is perhaps less often relied upon in industrial accident cases at the present time than formerly, but so far as cases under the 1960 Act are concerned, the principle is expressly stated in section 2(3) and there is no room for an argument that it is out of date or discredited. If the Lord Ordinary was entitled to sustain this defence, the result would be that, whether the respondents would otherwise have been in breach of their duty to the appellant or not, the appellant had exempted them from any obligation towards her. [….] On this matter I am of opinion, in agreement with Lord Hunter, that the Lord Ordinary was well-founded in sustaining this defence. The reasons for doing so are in the main the same as the reasons for holding that the respondents were not in breach of their duty. The appellant admitted that she was fully aware that this was a line along which trains ran, and that it would be dangerous to cross the line because of the presence of trains. She said in cross-examination ‘it was just a chance I took’, and the Lord Ordinary evidently accepted that she understood what she was saying. She was in a different position from the boy in McGlone, supra, who did not have a proper appreciation of the danger from live wires – see Lord Reid at p.13 and Lord Pearce at p.18. As I said already the appellant did not suggest that the train which injured her had been operated in an improper or unusual way. The importance of that is that the chance which she took was no doubt limited to the danger from a train operated properly, in the ‘ordinary and accustomed way’ – see Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd [1956] 2 Q.B. 264, per Denning L.J. at p.271. Had there been evidence to show that the train which injured the appellant was driven negligently, like the train in Slater’s case, the risk which materialised would not have been within the risks that the appellant had accepted. But there is nothing of that kind here. In my opinion therefore the defence under section 2(3) is established.’
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, Lord Chancellor, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
1984 SC (HL) 34, [1983] UKHL 10, [1983] 3 All ER 770, [1983] 1 WLR 1427, 1984 SLT 192, SC (HL) 34
Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960
Scotland
Cited – Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd 1956
The plaintiff was injured walking down a narrow railway tunnel. The tunnel had been regularly used by locals as a short cut.
Held: Though there was a risk in doing so, that did not mean that she had accepted also the risk that the train driver . .
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226755
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 registration for VAT for a company for whom he worked as an independent agent. The judge concluded that the officers had an honest belied as to the apppellant’s guilt.
Held: The judge had failed to check the circumstances against the requirements of PACE. He found that the officer knew they had insufficient evidence to charge the appellant but found them to be honest in requesting that he be charged. There was however circumstantial evidence to support the idea that he knew of the VAT fraud. Whilst there may not have been sufficient evidence to support a charge, there was not evidence to say that the officers were dishonest in their beliefs. The appeal failed.
Smith LJ said that it is not necessary to test the full strength of a possible defence. ‘An officer cannot be expected to investigate the truth of every assertion made by the suspect in interview’
Smith LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 616
England and Wales
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Cited – Howarth 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225327
[2005] EWCA Civ 628
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225263
[2002] EWCA Civ 1845
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217628
[2002] EWCA Civ 1235
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.217288
The claimants were awarded damages, following the way they were searched on seeking to enter prison on a visit. The Home Office appealed. They were asked to sign a consent form, but only after the search was nearly complete. They were told the prison officers had a right to conduct the search. The actions had occurred before the Human Rights Act came into force. There had been considerable uncertainty as to whether the Human Rights Act 1998 can apply retrospectively in situations where the conduct complained of occurred before the Act came into force. Case law had not decided whether s3 could operate retrospectively, but it did not. There appeared no intention of the prison officers to cause harm or distress, and no Wilkinson v Downton action was available to the claimant. Any consent was only to a search conducted properly. Claims other than for battery were dismissed. There is no tort of invasion of privacy, but only separate torts protecting body and property. The germ of a tort of breach of privacy all lay in the law of confidence. No element of confidence was involved here
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Buxton
Times 04-Jan-2002, Gazette 27-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 2081, [2002] QB 1334, [2003] 3 All ER 943, [2002] 3 WLR 405
Human Rights Act 1998 3 22(4), Prison Act 1952 47, Prison Rules 1964 (1964 No 388) 86(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina v Kansal (2) HL 29-Nov-2001
The prosecutor had lead and relied at trial on evidence obtained by compulsory questioning under the 1986 Act.
Held: In doing so the prosecutor was acting to give effect to section 433.
The decision in Lambert to disallow retrospective . .
Limited – Wilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .
Cited – Douglas, Zeta Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited (No 1) CA 21-Dec-2000
The first two claimants sold exclusive rights to photograph their wedding to the third claimant. A paparrazzi infiltrated the wedding and then sold his unauthorised photographs to the defendants, who now appealed injunctions restraining them from . .
Cited – Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley, Warwickshire v Wallbank and another HL 26-Jun-2003
Parish Councils are Hybrid Public Authorities
The owners of glebe land were called upon as lay rectors to contribute to the cost of repairs to the local church. They argued that the claim was unlawful by section 6 of the 1998 Act as an act by a public authority incompatible with a Convention . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Appeal from – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.167463
trial of a claim by the Claimant (‘Student Beans’) against the Defendant (‘Myunidays’) for the tort of inducing or procuring breaches of Student Beans’ contracts.
[2019] EWHC 320 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.634035
The claimants, arms manufacturers, sought order to prevent the various defendant campaigners from actions amounting to harassment of the company’s staff.
Walker J
[2005] EWHC 2490 (QB)
Protection From Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.431741
Holland J
[2006] EWHC 2986 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.279537
The defendants had invested money through the claimants, but had suffered severe losses. The claimants sought a declaration that they had no liability for such losses. The defendants counterclaimed that the claimants were liable in negligence, breach of statutory duty and breach of contract. The claimants now sought an order to strike out some elements of the defence and counterclaim.
Gloster J
[2005] EWHC 383 (Comm)
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Cited – Thorpe v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1989
The plaintiff was arrested at a demonstration, charged with obstructing the highway and convicted before the magistrates. His conviction was quashed by the Crown Court on appeal. He sued for assault, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious . .
Appeal from – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation CA 20-Dec-2005
The defendants appealed against an order striking out four paragraphs of its defence and counterclaim. . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation CA 2-Mar-2006
The parties disputed the attempt to strike out part of the defendant’s claim relating to shipping losses. . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation ComC 3-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation Comc 27-May-2008
The company alleged negligence by its financial advisers.
Held: Gloster J said that the absence of a written advisory agreement is a strong pointer against the existence of a free-standing duty of care to give investment advice.
Gloster . .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corporation and others ComC 25-Jul-2008
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corp ComC 21-Nov-2008
. .
See Also – JP Morgan Chase Bank and others v Springwell Navigation Corp ComC 20-Feb-2009
The court heard an application for leave to appeal against orders. . .
See Also – Springwell Navigation Corporation v JP Morgan Chase Bank and Others CA 1-Nov-2010
The court was asked as to whether representations has been made.
Held: Aikens LJ referred to a provision stating ‘no representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be made . . in or in relation to such documents or information’, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223587
Alleged fraudulent scheme by certain employees of the C and W Group to divert premium income to companies beneficially owned by themselves.
[2005] EWHC 409 (Comm)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223585
Lord Justice Brooke (Vice President Of The Court Of Appeal, Civil Division) Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Longmore
[2005] EWCA Civ 237
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223498
Damages for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, negligence and racial discrimination – appeal against dismissal of case
Potter, Lord Justice Potter
[2005] EWCA Civ 196
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223236
The claimant appealed denial of her claim for damages for psychological injury. She complained that her employer had failed to prevent her and other female employees being bullied by a co-worker, and they committed a breach of statutory duty in failing to prevent harassment under the 1997 Act.
Held: There was insufficient evidence to say that the employer knew enough of the alleged bullying to make him responsible. The 1997 Act required the harassment acts complained of to have been directed at the same person. That had not been shown. The judge had evidence before him which supported his conclusion. Appeal dismissed.
[2005] EWCA Civ 173, Times 21-Mar-2005
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Cited – Daiichi UK Ltd and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Others; Asahi Glass UK ltd and others v Same; Eisaai Ltd v Same; Yam,anouchi Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same; Sankyo Pharma UK Ltd and others v Same QBD 13-Oct-2003
The claimants sought injunctions and orders under the act against the respondent in respect of acts of harrassment intended variously to dissuade the companies form engaging in activities disapproved by the respondents.
Held: The Act was not . .
Cited – Lau v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Mar-2000
Two alleged incidents might be sufficient to be seen as a course of conduct and found an allegation of harassment under the Act, but any distance in time between them might suggest that they could not be seen as one course of conduct. Here a . .
Cited – Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Simon Hughes CA 18-Jul-2001
A civilian police worker had reported officers for racist remarks. The newspaper repeatedly printed articles and encouraged correspondence which was racially motivated, to the acute distress of the complainant.
Held: Repeated newspaper stories . .
Cited – Pratt v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 21-Jun-2001
Whilst the law clearly allowed prosecutions under the Act after no more than two incidents of harassment, nevertheless, prosecutors should look to the reality of whether the acts complained of did in fact amount to a course of conduct under the Act. . .
Cited – Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis HL 27-Jul-2000
A policewoman, having made a complaint of serious sexual assault against a fellow officer complained again that the Commissioner had failed to protect her against retaliatory assaults. Her claim was struck out, but restored on appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Sutherland v Hatton; Barber v Somerset County Council and similar CA 5-Feb-2002
Defendant employers appealed findings of liability for personal injuries consisting of an employee’s psychiatric illness caused by stress at work.
Held: Employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees. There are . .
Cited – Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust etc CA 19-Jan-2005
The court considered the liability of employers for stress injury to several employees.
Held: Though the principles of awarding damages for stress related psychiatric injury are the same as those for physical injury, the issues have still . .
Cited – Barber v Somerset County Council HL 1-Apr-2004
A teacher sought damages from his employer after suffering a work related stress breakdown.
Held: The definition of the work expected of him did not justify the demand placed upon him. The employer could have checked up on him during his . .
Cited – Garrett v Camden London Borough Council CA 16-Mar-2001
The court considered a claim for work related stress. The claimant asserted that he had been harassed, intimidated and systematically undermined: ‘Many, alas, suffer breakdowns and depressive illnesses and a significant proportion could doubtless . .
Cited – Rorrison v West Lothian College and Lothian Regional Council OHCS 21-Jul-1999
The pursuer, a nurse, claimed that she suffered psychological injuries as a result of her treatment at work by two superiors.
Held: The court could find nothing in the pleadings: ‘which, if proved, could establish that Andrews and Henning . .
Cited – Pratley v Surrey County Council CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for personal injury namely stress suffered in the course of her work as a care manager. She said that she had been overworked, and suffered depression when a proposal for reducing the work load remained unimplemented. The . .
Cited – Robertson (Ap) v The Scottish Ministers SCS 22-Nov-2007
The claimant sought damages saying that she had been bullied and harassed at her work as a prison officer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222936
Second application for leave to appeal – granted
[2005] EWCA Civ 65
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222593
The now respondent, a naturalised USA citizen, had sued the appllant, the chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan police complaining of an unlawful detention, and continued retention of money taken on his arrest for militarily drilling disaffected persons. He had been prosecuted for allegation under the defence of the realm act, but the judge had directed a not guilty verdict.
Held: Lord Atkinson said: ‘Aliens, whether friendly or enemy, can be lawfully prevented from entering this country and can be expelled from it.’
Lord Atkinson
[1921] 2 AC 262, [1921] UKHL 1
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.220651
Appeal against finding of misfeasance.
[2002] EWCA Civ 1482
England and Wales
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.217707
(New South Wales) The appellant had executed a deed on behalf of a company to sell shares to the respondent in the context of a long running boardroom battle. He said that the deed had been obtained by duress and was voidable. The respondent was said to have threatened the appellant with death.
Held: The House considered the elements necessary to establish a defence of duress to a claim in tort.
Lord Cross said: ‘The scope of common law duress was very limited and at a comparatively early date equity began to grant relief in cases where the disposition in question had been procured by the exercise of pressure which the Chancellor considered to be illegitimate – although it did not amount to common law duress. ‘ and ‘there is an obvious analogy between setting aside a disposition for duress or undue influence and setting it aside for fraud.’
By way of analogy, he considered the treatment of contributing causes in fraud cases: ‘If it were established that Barton did not allow the representation to affect his judgment then he could not make it a ground for relief. . . If on the other hand Barton relied on the misrepresentation Armstrong could not have defeated his claim to relief by showing that there were other more weighty causes which contributed to his decision . . for in this field the court does not allow an examination into the relative importance of contributing causes . . ‘
Lord Wilberforce (dissenting) said: ‘The basis of the plaintiff’s claim is, thus, that though there was apparent consent there was no true consent to the agreement; that the agreement was not voluntary. This involves consideration of what the law regards as voluntary, or its opposite; for in life, including the life of commerce and finance, many acts are done under pressure, sometimes overwhelming pressure, so that one can say that the actor had no choice but to act. Absence of choice in this sense does not negate consent in law: for this the pressure must be one of a kind which the law does not regard as legitimate. Thus, out of the various means by which consent may be obtained-advice, persuasion, influence, inducement, representation, commercial pressure-the law has come to select some which it will not accept as a reason for voluntary action: fraud, abuse of relation of confidence, undue influence, duress or coercion.’
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Cross and Lord Simon of Glaisdale
[1976] AC 104, [1973] UKPC 2, [1973] UKPC 27
Australia
Appeal from – Barton v Armstrong 1969
(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The claimant sought damages alleging assault by the making of telephone calls.
Held: Threats made over the telephone were capable of amounting to an assault. Taylor J: ‘Mr. Staff’s first and second . .
Cited – R v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General for England and Wales PC 17-Mar-2003
PC (From Court of Appeal of New Zealand) T had been a member of the British SAS. Other members had written books and the Army sought to impose confidentiality contracts or to impose a return to their unit. R . .
Cited – Halpern and Another v Halpern and others ComC 4-Jul-2006
The court considered whether a party can avoid a contract procured by duress in circumstances where he cannot offer the other party substantial restitutio in integrum.
Held: Unless the claimant could offer counter-restitution, the remedy of . .
Cited – Halpern and others v Halpern and Another (No 2) CA 3-Apr-2007
The parties had settled by compromise a dispute about the implementation of a will before the Beth Din. It was now said that the compromise agreement had been entered into under duress and was unenforceable. The defendant said that rescission could . .
Cited – Hayward 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.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220489
The council appealed against a finding that it was guilty of misrepresentation and breach of a collateral warranty in its lease of shop premises to the respondent. It had wrongly represented that other leases in the arcade excluded use as an off licence.
Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Wall
[2004] EWCA Civ 1646
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220510
The claimant had said that the defendants conspired to deny him the presidency of a company. He lost his case in the US, and the defendants chased him for costs. He asserted that the US judgment had been obtained by fraud. The defendants undertook not to seek furter enforcement of their costs.
Lord Clarke And Lord Menzies And Lord Justice Clerk
[2004] ScotCS 257, 2004 SC 197
Scotland
See Also – Clarke v Fennoscandia Limited and others OHCS 23-Jul-2003
. .
See Also – Clarke v Fennoscandia Ltd and others SCS 10-Mar-2000
Outer House – application to recover costs on award by court in Delaware . .
Appeal from – Clarke v Fennoscandia Ltd and others (Scotland) HL 12-Dec-2007
After being awarded costs in proceedings in the US, the defendants chased the claimant for their costs in Scotland. He sought an interdict saying that the judgment had been obtained by fraud. The defendant had give an undertaking not to pursue the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220059
[2004] EWHC 2603 (Comm)
England and Wales
See Also – Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company ComC 31-Jul-2002
. .
See Also – Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co 16-Feb-2005
The claimants sought an order requiring disclosure by the defendants of the documents in their list of documents which they said had the benefit of litigation privilege.
Held: A fraud had been alleged which had been used by the defendants in . .
See Also – Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co 16-Feb-2005
The claimants sought an order requiring disclosure by the defendants of the documents in their list of documents which they said had the benefit of litigation privilege.
Held: A fraud had been alleged which had been used by the defendants in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219726
[2004] EWCA Civ 1391
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219130
The claimant appealed against a refusal to issue a writ oif habeas corpus on behalf of the Sierra Leonean revolutionary leader, Foday Sankoh, who had been detained in Sierra Leone while UK forces were supporting the national government there, and in circumstances where they had been involved in his transfer between detention centres. He relied on O’Brien and argued that a statement by Mr Peter Hain MP, a minister in the Foreign Office, made in response to a demand that Sankoh be released in return for certain hostages, demonstrated sufficiently arguable on-going control for the writ to run. Mr Hain had said that the UK government would not negotiate with hostage takers and that it would not trade Mr Sankoh’s freedom. On the basis of that statement, it was argued that the British government was in a position to trade Mr Sankoh for the hostages. This assertion was directly confronted by the evidence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Mr Sankoh was not under the custody or control of the British government and that there was no agreement between the UK and Sierra Leone under which the British government could require the release or ‘delivery up’ of Mr Sankoh.
Held: The appeal failed. The appellant had not established that the Secretary of State had control over Mr Sankoh’s detention.
Laws LJ said: ‘It seems to me, moreover, looking at the matter more broadly, that unless Mr Sankoh is actually in the custody of the United Kingdom authorities, the applicant’s case must be that the British Government should be required by this court to attempt to persuade Sierra Leone either to identify his whereabouts or to deliver him up. But that involves the proposition that the court should dictate to the executive government steps that it should take in the course of executing Government foreign policy: a hopeless proposition.’
Ward, Waller, Laws LJJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 386
England and Wales
Cited – Secretary of State for Home Affairs v O’Brien HL 1923
The Crown has no right of appeal against the grant of a discharge of a prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus.
The Home Secrtary appealed against the issue of a writ of habeas corpus against him in respect of a prisoner held in Mountjoy prison in . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah SC 31-Oct-2012
The claimant complained that the UK Armed forces had taken part in his unlawful rendition from Iraq by the US government. He had been detaiined in Iraq and transferred to US Forces. The government became aware that he was to be removed to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218692
The Commissioner sought to appeal against acceptance of an allegation of assault by a police officer who knocked the claimant to the ground in the course of policing a riot.
Held: Leave granted. The video evidence relied upon was not sufficient on its own to establish an intended assault.
Laws, Sedley LJJ
[2001] EWCA Civ 1708
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218482
[2002] EWCA Civ 1900
England and Wales
See Also – Shaker v Al-Bedrawi and others CA 18-Oct-2002
. .
See Also – Shaker v Al-Bedrawi and others CA 18-Oct-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217909
Application for permission to appeal from dismissal of her claim for damages for work related stress and otherwise
Keene LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1476
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217666
A pregnant barmaid suffered nervous shock causing her to give premature birth as a result of the tortfeasor’s horse van bursting into her bar at the Bonner Arms in Bethnal Green from the roadway. The defendant pleaded that the damages claimed were too remote.
Held: In principle ‘terror wrongfully induced and inducing physical mischief gives a cause of action.’ The plaintiff could recover in respect of the physical consequences of ‘nervous shock’ caused by reason of ‘reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself’.
Kennedy J considered the argument that fright, where physical injury is directly produced by it, cannot be a ground of action merely because of the absence of any accompanying impact, to be ‘both unreasonable and contrary to the weight of authority.’ The argument was unreasonable and contrary to the weight of authority, but he limited the type of shock for which damages were recoverable to that suffered from fear for oneself only: ‘The shock, where it operates through the mind, must be a shock which arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself.’
Phillimore J, Kennedy J
[1901] 2 KB 669
England and Wales
Not Followed – Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas PC 21-Jan-1888
(Victoria) The appellant’s gatekeeper had negligently invited the plaintiffs to cross a railway line as a train approached. There was no collision, but the plaintiff sought damages for physical and mental injuries from shock.
Held: The . .
Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Cited – Cooper v Caledonian Railway Co 1902
Recovery of damages for psychiatric injury. . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Cited – Simmons v British Steel plc HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was injured at work as a consequence of the defender’s negligence. His injuries became more severe, and he came to suffer a disabling depression.
Held: the Inner House had been wrong to characterise the Outer House decision as . .
Cited – Donachie v The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police CA 7-Apr-2004
The claimant had been asked to work under cover. The surveillance equipment he was asked to use was faulty, requiring him to put himself at risk repeatedly to maintain it resulting in a stress disorder and a stroke.
Held: There was a direct . .
Cited – Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd and Another CA 26-Jan-2006
Each claimant sought damages after being exposed to asbestos dust. The defendants resisted saying that the injury alleged, the development of pleural plaques, was yet insufficient as damage to found a claim.
Held: (Smith LJ dissenting) The . .
Cited – French and others v Chief Constable of Sussex Police CA 28-Mar-2006
The claimants sought damages for psychiatric injury. They were police officers who had been subject to unsuccessful proceedings following a shooting of a member of the public by their force.
Held: The claim failed: ‘these claimants have no . .
Cited – Alcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
Cited – Rhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.186860
Defendant’s appeal against an order giving judgment for the claimant in the action for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest and personal injury. The claimant had been arrested in his home, purportedly for a breach of the peace. There was no public element or public dimension involved in the circumstances of the arrest.
Held: The appeal succeeded. McConnell was an authority binding on the court. Authority apart, it would be contrary to principle to hold that an act which would constitute a breach of the peace if committed in a public place, or on private premises where a person or persons other than the participants are affected by it, should cease to be such if committed on private premises where only the participants are involved. None of the authorities gives support for such a distinction, which could not be justified on grounds of public policy or otherwise.
Peter Gibson Lj, Law LJ, Sir Martin Nourse
[2002] 1 WLR 1347, (2001) 165 JP 729, [2001] EWCA Civ 1330
England and Wales
Cited – Dallison v Caffery CACD 1965
It is for the detaining authority to justify all periods of detention.
The court described the common law duty on a prosecutor to disclose material. Lord Denning MR said: ‘The duty of a prosecuting counsel or solicitor, as I have always . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 1990
The plaintiff sought damages from the police. She had gone into a store and refused to leave when so requested. The police officer escorted her from the premises. She tried to re-enter the premises, and the officer exercised his common law right to . .
Mentioned – Wylson v Skeock 1949
. .
Mentioned – Robson v Hallett CA 1967
A police officer had been impliedly invited onto land, and was asked to leave, but was then assaulted before he had chance to leave.
Held: The conviction was upheld.
There is an implied licence available to members of the public on . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, Ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board CA 1982
The CEGB wanted to undertake a survey using its statutory powers to check whether land might be suitable for a nuclear power station, and wanted the police to prevent demonstrators from preventing the survey. It now requested an order of mandamus to . .
Cited – Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police CA 9-Jun-1998
A man was locked out of the matrimonial home which he owned jointly with his wife, following a family dispute. The police told him, as was the fact, that his wife and children did not want him to re-enter the house and the police suggested that he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218315
The Chief Constable renewed his application for leave to appeal against a judgment for damages for assault and malicious prosecution, saying that the judge had incorrectly not allowed mention of some of the claimant’s convictions.
Held: Some of the convictions were spent and had been correctly excluded.
[2001] EWCA Civ 1144
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 7(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218296
[2001] EWCA Civ 843
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218206
The defendant sought leave to appeal an award of damages for assault by four police officres on the claimant. The jury had been asked various questions about their conclusions on the facts. The defendant said the answers given were inconsistent.
Held: The answers were consistent with the jury taking different views of the actions of different officers. Leave refused.
[2001] EWCA Civ 682
England and Wales
Cited – Abbassy v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis CA 28-Jul-1989
The court considered what information had to be given to a suspect on his arrest.
Held: The question whether or not the information given is adequate has to be assessed objectively having regard to the information which is reasonably available . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218128
[2001] EWCA Civ 379
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218040
The claimant sought damages for an alleged negligent mis-statement by his bankers when giving a reference. He sought leave to appeal.
Held: Leave was refused. The claimant had not established either that the bank had broken its duty of care to the claimant, or that he had suffered any loss.
[2001] EWCA Civ 64
England and Wales
See Also – Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc CA 24-Mar-1998
The plaintiff complained as to the provision of references by his bank. The bank said he had given an implied permission through the bank which had made the request. Later changes in the bankers code of practice would have required explicit written . .
See Also – Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland CA 2000
The court was asked whether a debtor could pursue at the hearing of the bankruptcy petition a challenge to the petition debt on grounds which had already failed on an earlier application to set aside the statutory demand. . .
See Also – Turner v Royal Bank of Scotland CA 2000
The court was asked whether a debtor could pursue at the hearing of the bankruptcy petition a challenge to the petition debt on grounds which had already failed on an earlier application to set aside the statutory demand. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217960
Brooke L, Bodey J
[2002] EWCA Civ 1672, [2002] All ER (D) 397 (Oct)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217721
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land.
Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to possess. That has two elements. First a subjective element requiring the person, the trespasser, to establish that he intended to possess the land, and also an objective element, namely an establishment of what Clarke LJ referred to as a possession which was apparent or would be apparent to the owner if he visited the site.’
Dyson LJ referred to Batt v Adams and said: ‘In this particular case, the purpose of the fence appeared to be, and Mr Baker said it was, to keep sheep in. It does not seem that he would have put that fence up if he had been grazing cattle rather than sheep. In those circumstances it was open to the judge to conclude that there was no intention of Mr Baker to possess the land.’
Dyson LJ
[2002] EWCA Civ 1733
England and Wales
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn CA 14-Jun-2001
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since . .
Cited – Michael Batt Charitable Trust v Adams ChD 2001
The court looked at what was required to establish adverse possession in a claim for land. Laddie J said: ‘The only factor that appears, at first sight, to point in the direction to exclude anyone, is the fact that Mr Higgs maintained and repaired . .
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.217832