Category: Torts – Other

Parker v British Airways Board: CA 1982

Finders Rights and Obligations Explained

The finder of a gold bracelet in an airport lounge acquired rights of possession over the bracelet as against the airport authority who occupied the lounge, but who did not intend to exert control over objects found in the lounge.
Donaldson LJ set out the rights and obligations of a finder: ‘1. The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless (a) it has been abandoned or lost and (b) he takes it into his care and control.
2. The finder of a chattel acquires very limited rights over it if he takes it into his care and control with dishonest intent or in the course of trespassing.
3. Subject to the foregoing and to point 4 below, a finder of a 330 chattel, whilst not acquiring any absolute property or ownership in the chattel, acquires a right to keep it against all but the true owner or those in a position to claim through the true owner or one who can assert a prior right to keep the chattel which was subsisting at the time when the finder took the chattel into his care and control.
4. Unless otherwise agreed, any servant or agent who finds a chattel in the course of his employment or agency and not wholly incidental or collaterally there to and he takes it into his care and control does so on behalf of his employer or principal who acquires a finder’s rights to the exclusion of those of the actual finder.
5. A person having a finder’s rights has an obligation to take such measures as in all the circumstances are reasonable to acquaint the true owner of the finding and present whereabouts of the chattel and to care for it meanwhile.’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

[1982] QB 1004, [1982] 2 WLR 503, [1982] 1 All ER 834

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fletcher v Leicestershire Constabulary Admn 1-Nov-2013
The claimant had been called upon to repair an unoccupied flat damaged by fire. He found a metal box containing andpound;18,000 in cash. He took it to the police. He now resisted their assertion that this represented the proceeds of crime and should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.517442

Tims v John Lewis and Co Ltd: CA 1951

The plaintiff said that the defendant’s allegation against him leading to a prosecution which failed was malicious.
Held: Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘It is quite easy to imagine a case in which a person was thoroughly justified in bringing proceedings, and then in the course of the case something comes to light which shows the prosecution to be in fact groundless. Then if the prosecutor insists on continuing the prosecution without at any rate informing the court of the facts which he has since discovered, he will, I think, possibly have no reasonable or probable cause for continuing the prosecution and at any rate will be guilty of malice.’
Lord Goddard considered the decision in Christie v Leachinsky and said of it: ‘I do not think that the decision of the House of Lords means that if an officer is arresting a deaf person, he has to possess himself of an ear-trumpet, or something of that sort, or shout at the top of his voice. He must do what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. As I said during the course of the argument, if a police officer who is not able to speak French has to arrest a Frenchman who does not speak English, he can only tell him in English for what he is arresting him, and take him to the police station until some officer who does speak the language or some interpreter comes to explain the charge on which he has been arrested to the person arrested. In stating the charge or on suspicion of what crime a person is arrested, the person arresting without warrant has only to act reasonably.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard CJ

Citations:

[1951] 2 KB 459

Citing:

Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.448398

Kelly v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2001

The appellant had been convicted by the magistrates of an offence under section 2 of the Act. He had made three abusive telephone calls within a few minutes of one another to the victim’s mobile, in the middle of the night. The victim did not receive the calls at that time and they were recorded on her voicemail facility. In the morning she listened to all three messages one after the other. He submitted that the three calls were all so much part and parcel of one another that there was no course of conduct, and that in any event the victim had to feel alarm on more than one occasion.
Held: The appeal failed. Each call was abusive and alarming, but the peculiar facts there were that the calls were very close in time and the victim was only alarmed on one occasion.
Burton J said: ‘Similarly, the purpose of the Act, it seems to me plain, is intended to render actionable conduct which might not be alarming if committed once, but becomes alarming by virtue of being repeated – the repetitious conduct to which Latham LJ referred [in Pratt (2001) 165 JP 800] . . It seems to me that . . what was intended was that something which might not be alarming the first time would become actionable, criminally and civilly, on the second occasion. It is, therefore, in my judgment, not necessary for there to be alarm caused in relation to each of the incidents relied upon as forming part of the course of conduct. It is sufficient if, by virtue of the course of conduct, the victim is alarmed or distressed.’

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2003] Crim LR 45, [2002] EWHC Admin 1428, [2002] 166 JP 621

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.429626

The King v Wagstaff, Corke, and Jurors of The Old-Bailey: 1685

Coleman excepted to the retorn on the habeas corpus, that it’s said they went against the direction of the Court in materia legis, not shewing what that materia general jurisdiction, therefore it need not be shewed why, or the particulars of it; as estreat to the Exchequer is only pro mala gestura.

Citations:

[1685] EngR 3557, (1685) 1 Keb 934, (1685) 83 ER 1328 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.400332

Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd: CA 1913

The court granted the appeal against the success of a false imprisonment claim by an employee of a coal-mining company, whose complaint was based on his employers’ refusal to comply with his request to take him to the surface, after he had wrongfully refused to do work, until more than two hours after his request had been made.
Buckley LJ said that as to the contention that the employee had a claim in contract, he rejected it on the basis that, while there was an implied term that the employee would be brought to the surface, it had not been breached, since the plaintiff had been brought to the surface by the end of his shift.
As to the claim for false imprisonment: ‘What kept [the plaintiff] from getting to the surface was not any act which the defendants did, but the fact that he was at the bottom of a deep shaft, and there was no means of getting out other than the particular means which belonged to his employers and over which the plaintiff had contractual rights and which at that moment were not in operation.’
If there had been an hour’s delay in conveying him to the surface at the end of his shift, merely on the grounds of the employer’s convenience, the employee ‘would be entitled to damages for breach of contract’. He then asked ‘would there be any false imprisonment?’ and answered: ‘In my opinion, there would not. The master has not imprisoned the man. He has not enabled him to get out as the under the contract he ought to have done, but he has done no act compelling him to remain there . . to my mind [the employers] did not imprison [the employee] because they did not keep him [in the mine]; they only abstained from giving him facilities for getting away.’
Hamilton LJ said: ‘I say nothing as to how the case would have stood if force had been threatened to the plaintiff . . The fact is that he remained at the bottom of the shaft simply because the power was not turned on at the top of the shaft to raise the cage. Could that be held to have been an imprisonment?’

Judges:

Buckley and Hamilton LJJ

Citations:

[1913] 3 KB 77

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co Ltd HL 30-Jun-1914
The claimant, a miner, said that his work was dangerous, and threw down his tools. He now sought damages saying that his employer had falsely imprisoned him by failing to bring him to the surface until the end of his shift.
Held: The . .
Cited – Prison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.381840

Shackell v Rosier: 22 Apr 1836

In consideration that Plaintiff had published a libel at Defendant’s request, and had at the like request consented to defend an action brought against Plaintiff for such publication, Defendant promised to indemnify Plaintiff from the costs of the action : Held, that the promise was void.

Judges:

Tindall CJ

Citations:

[1836] EngR 613, (1836) 2 Bing NC 635, (1836) 132 ER 245

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.314945

Regina v Pratt: 1855

‘I take it to be clear law that, if a man use the land over which there is a right of way for any purpose, lawful or unlawful, other than that of passing and repassing, he is a trespasser.’

Judges:

Crompton J, Erle J

Citations:

(1855) 4 E and B 860

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Harrison v Duke of Rutland CA 8-Dec-1893
H used a public highway crossing the defendant’s land, to disrupt grouse-shooting upon the defendant’s land. He complained after he had been forcibly restrained by the defendant’s servants from doing so. The defendant justified his actions saying . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.192193

Naughton v O’Callaghan: 1990

Damages Award to Restore Plaintiff’s Poistion

In 1981 the plaintiffs had bought a thoroughbred yearling colt called ‘Fondu’ for 26,000 guineas. In fact a mistake had been made and its pedigree was not as represented. Its true pedigree made it suitable only for dirt track racing in the United States, not for racing in this country. This mistake was not discovered until about two years later by which time the colt had been raced unsuccessfully in the UK and its value had as a result fallen to 1,500 pounds; substantial training fees had also been wasted. The defendants did not dispute that there had been a negligent misrepresentation. The issue was as to damages. The defendants said that the actual value of the colt at the time of its purchase was 23,500 guineas and that the plaintiff’s damages should be limited to the difference, 2,500 guineas: the ‘diminution in value’ test.
Held: The Court assessed the plaintiffs’ losses, including consequential losses, as at the date of their discovery of the misrepresentation. Waller J regarded it as unjust to take the normal date of assessment.
Waller J said: ‘Where an article purchased as the result of a misrepresentation could have been sold immediately after the sale for the price paid but by the time the misrepresentation was discovered its value had fallen by reason of a defect in it which had by then become apparent the appropriate measure of damages could be the difference between the purchase price and its value at the time the misrepresentation was discovered and not the difference between the purchase price and its actual value at the time of purchase provided that the article purchased was altogether different from that which had been expected.’
As part of their damages the plaintiffs claimed for the costs incurred in training and keeping the colt before the misrepresentation was discovered. The defendant argued that the expenditure would have been incurred anyway as the plaintiffs would, if they had not bought this particular yearling, have bought another one at the same sale. The plaintiffs accepted this but said that had they bought a different horse it might have paid for its keep and reaped for them rich rewards. Waller J said: ‘I have concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to ask the court to look simply at the contract they made in reliance on the representation which induced them to enter into that bargain. They are entitled to say that there must be no speculation one way or the other about what would have happened if they had not purchased this horse and if no misrepresentation had been made to them.’

Judges:

Waller J

Citations:

[1990] 3 All ER 191, [1991] CLY 1319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd CA 31-Jan-1969
The plaintiff had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the defendant to buy an ironmonger’s business for 4,500 pounds plus stock at a valuation of 5,000 pounds. Shortly after the purchase, he discovered the fraud and started the . .

Cited by:

Considered – Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart (a Firm) CA 1996
The plaintiff purchased a book shop. He claimed that in doing so he had relied upon the accounts prepared and signed off by the respective defendants.
Held: The judge had been wrong by testing what would have been the true figures as against . .
Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .
Cited – Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd QBD 1-Feb-2013
The parties had contracted for the international distribution of scent using a ‘Manchester United’ brand. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.185448

Regina v Sanghera: CA 26 Oct 2000

The search of a victim’s premises which continued after evidence had come to light suggesting the victim might be a suspect was in breach of the codes of practice where it continued without the consent of the occupier. Evidence which was derived from that continued search was unlawful. Nevertheless, it was fair to admit the evidence since the defendant was not challenging the facts as to what was found and would have still been able to offer any explanation of the search results.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Codes of Practice PACE 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85472

Lennox Phillip and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions of Trinidad and Tobago and Another; Same vCommissioners of Prisons: PC 19 Feb 1992

(Trinidad and Tobago) There had been an insurrection, and many people were taken prisoner by the insurrectionists. To secure their release, the President issued an amnesty to all the insurgents, including the applicant. After surrendering, the applicant was kept in custody, and now sought his own release. Writs of habeas corpus were refused.
Held: The prisoners who had been pardoned before their trial, but had remained in custody because there were doubts about the constitutional propriety of their pardons, had an arguable case for habeas corpus application. They had established prima facie the validity of the pardons, and their continued detention without return to court to argue the habeas corpus application was unlawful. At the hearing of the habeas corpus application, the court would be able to determine the validity of the pardons.

Citations:

Gazette 19-Feb-1992, [1992] 1 AC 545, [1992] 2 WLR 211

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Rex v Rudd 1775
Mrs Rudd applied for a writ of habeas corpus, having already given evidence as an accomplice and being ready to give further evidence to assist in convicting her partners in crime.
Held: Where a co-accused gave evidence for the crown and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Uxbridge Magistrates and Another ex parte Adimi; R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD and Another ex parte Kaziu Admn 29-Jul-1999
The three asylum seeker appellants arrived in the United Kingdom at different times in possession of false passports. They were prosecuted for possession or use of false documents contrary to section 5, and for obtaining air services by deception . .
See Also – Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Phillip PC 9-Nov-1994
A pardon which had been give to insurrectionists was invalid, since it purported to excuse future conduct also, but there had been no duress shown. There is no general power to excuse a crime before it is committed. Lord Woolf: ‘A pardon must in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84711

Lister and others v Hesley Hall Ltd: CA 7 Oct 1999

Where a residential worker at a children’s home committed sexual abuse on children within his care, the company running the home were not vicariously liable for the acts themselves, but also were not responsible where the worker did not report his own activities but kept them secret. It was unrealistic to try to separate the acts from the secrecy. Neither was within the course of employment. Waller LJ said: ‘The simple point in this case is that if wrongful conduct is outside the course of employment, a failure to prevent or report that wrong conduct cannot be within the scope of employment so as to make the employer vicariously liable for that failure when the employer was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct itself.’

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – ST v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Jul-1998
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
Cited – Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83090

Dhesi v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 9 May 2000

Where a person was arrested and the duty arose for him to be told of the reason for his arrest, that duty could be satisfied by a different officer than the one who actually performed the arrest. The purpose of the section was to protect the person arrested by letting him know why he was arrested. That purpose would not be defeated by the reason being given then or as soon as practicable thereafter by another officer.

Citations:

Times 09-May-2000

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Police, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79955

County Natwest Bank Ltd v Barton and Others: CA 29 Jul 1999

Where misrepresentation had been established, it was presumed that if the fact misrepresented would reasonably form part of a basis of a decision, that it did so unless it could be shown that it was not so relied upon. It was not right to limit the level of evidence needed to rebut such a presumption. A misrepresentation is relied upon if it results in the continuance of an action already begun.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 29-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79559

Clarke v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police and Crewe: CA 14 Jun 1999

The police have a duty of care to arrested persons to record fully the times spent custody by an arrested person. A failure to do so can mean that such a person’s detention in prison is later extended unlawfully. This result is entirely foreseeable, and the police officer is liable in damages for such wrongful detention.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-1999, Gazette 16-Jun-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79202

Abrahams v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: CA 8 Dec 2000

The claimant had been arrested for swearing at a police officer. After her arrest, the claimant made admissions to secure a caution, rather than risk prosecution. She later sought to begin a civil action for damages against the police in the course of which she the denied the matters which she had earlier admitted.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against a strike out of her claim succeeded. The admissions had been secured by an apparent breach of duty by the officer, and she was not be estopped from bringing the claim. The formal caution is not so closely analogous to a conviction that the claimant should be barred from beginning civil proceedings because of it. An attack on the caution did not involve attacking any decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Lord Justice Mantell said: ‘the caution was not brought about by any decision of a court of justice, so did not fall foul of the rule in Saif Ali. An attack on it did not involve attacking a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Feb-2001, Times 21-Dec-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 1257, [2000] EWCA Civ 3043, [2000] Po LR 374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77618

Adams and Another v Rhymney Valley District Council: CA 3 Aug 2000

The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They had followed the current standard practice in fitting the windows with locks of this type.

Judges:

Morritt, Sedley LL,

Citations:

Gazette 03-Aug-2000, Times 11-Aug-2000, [2001] 33 HLR 41, [2000] 3 EGLR 25, (2001) 3 LGLR 9, [2001] PNLR 4, [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stevens (Through her Mother and Litigation Friend) v County Borough of Blaenau Gwent CA 17-Jun-2004
The mother of the claimant had complained to the local authority landlord about the absence of locks on her windows. The council replied that such locks could themselves be a hazard, and did not install a lock. The claimant climbed through and fell . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Torts – Other, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77639

A E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc: CA 10 Jan 2001

The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations.
Held: The statutory power of an electricity supplier, to exclude by contract his own liability for consequential losses, arising from a failure in supply, was restricted to losses flowing from power interruptions, and did not extend to losses arising from its negligence in installing equipment. The section was ambiguous, and Pepper v Hart was properly used to seek support. Parliamentary debates were quite clear as to the purpose of the section.

Judges:

May LJ, Laws LJ, Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 312, [2001] 1 WLR 281

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1989 21, Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 no 1057) 25(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – A E Beckett and Sons (Lyndons) Ltd and Others v Midlands Electricity Plc QBD 2000
The claimants alleged that they had suffered loss as a result of the defendants’ breach of regulation 25(1) of the 1988 Regulations. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Morrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Consumer, Utilities

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77575

B E Lavender v Witten Industrial Diamonds: 1979

Citations:

[1979] FSR 9

Cited by:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.277101

Angus v Clifford: 1891

The court considered what would be required to be shown for proof of fraud where recklessness was relied on: ‘Not caring, in that context, did not mean not taking care, it meant indifference to the truth, the moral obliquity of which consists in a wilful disregard of the importance of truth, and unless you keep it clear that that is the true meaning of the term, you are constantly in danger of confusing the evidence from which the inference of dishonesty in the mind is to be drawn-evidence which consists in a great many cases of gross want of caution-with the inference of fraud, or of dishonesty itself, which has to be drawn after you have weighed all the evidence.’

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

[1891] 2 Ch 449

Cited by:

Cited – Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi ComC 17-Mar-2008
Banker’s reference no guarantee
An Arab businessman lost pounds 18m at the claimant casino, and wrote scrip cheques against his account with the defendant. The claimant obtained judgment, but being unable to enforce that judgment pursued his bank. The club had used a system where . .
Cited – Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi ComC 17-Mar-2008
Banker’s reference no guarantee
An Arab businessman lost pounds 18m at the claimant casino, and wrote scrip cheques against his account with the defendant. The claimant obtained judgment, but being unable to enforce that judgment pursued his bank. The club had used a system where . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.268067

Clarke v Shee and Johnson: 1774

A servant diverted money from customers of his employer and bought lottery tickets. Lotteries were illegal and void under the Lottery Act 1772. The master recovered from the defendants who were the holders of the lottery and had innocently received the stolen money. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that there was no contract between the master and the defendants and that the defendants had given consideration for the receipt of the money. It was argued that though the defendants were fortunate in that the lottery tickets issued for the stolen money were not winning tickets, the defendants ran the risk ‘and therefore performed their part of the agreement: consequently, there is no foundation for an action to recover back the money paid.’
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of andpound;460 from the defendant as money had and received by him for the use of the plaintiff.
Lord Mansfield said: ‘This is a liberal action in the nature of a bill in equity; and if, under the circumstances of the case, it appears that the defendant cannot in conscience retain what is the subject matter of it, the plaintiff may well support this action . . . the plaintiff does not sue as standing in the place of Wood his clerk: for the money and notes which Wood paid to the defendants, are the identical notes and money of the plaintiff. Where money or notes are paid bona fide, and upon a valuable consideration, they never shall be brought back by the true owner; but where they come mala fide into a person’s hands, they are in the nature of specific property; and if their identity can be traced and ascertained, the party has a right to recover. It is of public benefit and example that it should; but otherwise, if they cannot be followed and identified, because there it might be inconvenient and open a door to fraud. Miller v. Race, 1 Burr. 452: and in Golightly v. Reynolds (1772) Lofft. 88 the identity was traced through different hands and shops. Here the plaintiff sues for his identified property, which has come to the hands of the defendant iniquitously and illegally, in breach of the Act of Parliament, therefore they have no right to retain it: and consequently the plaintiff is well entitled to recover.’

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

(1774) Lofft 756, (1774) 1 Cowp 197

Statutes:

Lottery Act 1772

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Equity

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.259405

Fraser v Berkeley: 1836

The defendant had written a book and the plaintiff had written a rather caustic criticism of it which reflected not only on the defendant’s skill as an author but on his character and that of his family. This annoyed the defendant very much, and with his brother he went to the plaintiff’s shop and gave him a very severe beating indeed with his fists and a horse-whip.
Held: Lord Abinger in summing up told the jury that in assessing the damages they could properly take into account the plaintiff’s conduct and the imputations which he had made against the defendant and his family.

Judges:

Lord Abinger

Citations:

[1836] 7 Carrington and Payne 621

Cited by:

Cited – Lane v Holloway CA 30-Jun-1967
In the context of a fight with fists, ordinarily neither party has a cause of action for any injury suffered during the fight. But they do not assume ‘the risk of a savage blow out of all proportion to the occasion. The man who strikes a blow of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.258464

Horobin: 1952

Barry J sought to define wilful misconduct through negligence as: ‘he took a risk which he knew he ought not to take.’

Judges:

Barry J

Citations:

[1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 460

Cited by:

Cited – National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd v UPS Ltd 1996
Longmore J sought to define the term ‘wilful misconduct’ as established by the authorities: ‘If I summarise the principle in my own words, it would be to say that for wilful misconduct to be proved there must be either (1) an intention to do . .
Mentioned – TNT Global Spa and Another v Denfleet International Ltd and Another CA 2-May-2007
The driver of a lorry carrying the claimant’s goods was said to have fallen asleep at the wheel, and the cargo damaged in the accident. The carrier appealed a finding of liability for wilful misconduct.
Held: ‘I am unable to accept that mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.258460

Jarvis v Williams: CA 1955

J, the owner of the goods, sued in detinue the defendant W to whom they had been delivered at the request of a third party, P, who had failed to pay for them. W refused to deliver up the goods.
Held: The claim was not maintainable. Lord Evershed MR said: ‘I take [the judgment below] to mean that the contractual right which the plaintiff had vis-a-vis Patterson to go and collect these goods from Patterson’s agent was a right of a sufficient character to enable the plaintiff to bring an action in detinue against the agent of the owner of the property in these goods. But, with all respect to the County Court Judge, I am unable to accept that as a good proposition of law. Certain classes of persons, as for example bailees have, no doubt, a special right to sustain actions in trover and detinue but the general rule is, I think, correctly stated in the text of Halsbury’s Laws of England 2nd Ed Vol 33 at p62, para 98: ‘in order to maintain an action of trover or detinue, a person must have the right of possession and a right of property in the goods at the time of the conversion or detention; and he cannot sue if he has parted with the property in the goods at the time of the alleged conversion, or if at the time of the alleged conversion his title to the goods has been divested by a disposition which is valid under the Factors Act 1989’.

Judges:

Lord Evershed MR

Citations:

[1955] 1 WLR 71

Statutes:

Factors Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2007
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.258519

Fowler v Hollins: 1872

The plaintiff claimed in conversion of bales of cotton bought in good faith through a broker in Liverpool.
Held: The purchasers were strictly liable.
Cleasby J said: ‘the liability under it is founded upon what has been regarded as a salutary rule for the protection of property, namely, that persons deal with the property in chattels or exercise acts of ownership over them at their peril.’

Judges:

Cleasby J

Citations:

(1872) LR 7 QB 616

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hollins v Fowler HL 1875
One who deals with goods at the request of the person who has the actual custody of them, in the bona fide belief that the custodier is the true owner, or has the authority of the true owner, should be excused for what he does if the act is of such . .
Cited – 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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.251749

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 Lords itself. The proposition is said to rest on Jacobs v London County Council: see also Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd. But I do not think those cases warrant so wide a proposition. It seems to me that if the House of Lords give two reasons for their decision, and the House afterwards finds that one of the reasons was right and the other wrong, then they are entitled to accept the right reason and reject the wrong. The decision is not authority ‘for nothing.’ It is authority for the right reason but not the wrong. I can see no justification whatever for saying they are bound by the wrong reason. Surely the House is not bound to perpetuate error. Nor is this court. I would repeat the wise words of Sir Frederick Pollock, which I quoted in Close v Steel Company of Wales.
‘Judicial authority belongs not to the exact words used in this or that judgment, nor even to all the reasons given, but only to the principles accepted and applied as necessary grounds of the decision.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1966] Ch 151

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Holmden’s Settlement Trusts, Re Holmden’s Settlement, Re HL 13-Dec-1967
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 . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.248358

Williams v Hursey: 1959

High Court of Australia – For an unlawful means conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove that the combination or agreement was to engage in conduct which amounted to unlawful means

Judges:

Dixon CJ (1), Fullagar(2), Kitto(3), Taylor(4) and Menzies(5) JJ

Citations:

(1959) 103 CLR 30, [1959] ALR 1383, (1959) 33 ALJR 269

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.248356

Grant v Gold Exploration and Development Syndicate Ltd: CA 1900

Secrecy is a badge of fraud.

Judges:

AL Smith LJ

Citations:

[1900] 1 QB 233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Islamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245209

J and E Hall Ltd v Barclay: 1937

The company had erected and tested two experimental davits for the appellant. They were then taken down and left unused for many years. The parties disputed the account. The company claimed also for damages for detinue or conversion of the davits which had eventually sold as scrap. The judge had awarded the scrap value of the equipment as sold.
Held: The company should have been awarded the values of the equipment sold, at the price of similar articles in the market. In this case there was no such second hand market, and the meausre was the cost of buying alternatives.

Citations:

[1937] 3 All ER 620

Cited by:

Cited – HM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others Admn 21-Nov-2005
The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market . .
Cited – Penelope Wilson v Howard (Pawnbrokers) Ltd CA 4-Feb-2005
The customer challenged a series of pawn agreements. The broker appealed the finding that the contracts were invalid, on the basis that the judgment had created an unjust enrichment.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘in pawn transactions the debtor is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.235496

McCaig v Langan: 1964

A car passenger suffered serious injuries in an accident while the car was being driven by a friend. He brought an action of damages against the driver of the car who admitted that the accident was caused by his fault. The defender averred that when the pursuer entered the car he knew that the defender’s ability to drive had been so affected by drink as to endanger his passengers’ safety and he also knew that the car was so overcrowded as to render the safe steering and control of the car difficult. The defender further averred that the pursuer knew that because of both the drunkenness of the driver and the overcrowding of the car he ran a risk of grave injury by allowing himself to be driven in the said car, and by entering the car he voluntarily accepted the said risk. In these circumstances, the defender pleaded inter alia that the pursuer had voluntarily accepted the risk of sustaining such injuries as he did sustain. It was held by Lord Kilbrandon that these averments were relevant.

Citations:

1964 SLT 121

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.226228

Williams v Home Office (No 2): 1981

Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the confinement of a prisoner in any prison. How then can it be unjustifiable and unlawful to confine him there? I accept the submission . . that the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) provide a defence to this action, subject to the arguments based on the Bill of Rights and natural justice . . The next question is whether the lawfulness of the detention can be affected by the conditions of the detention. I do not think so. The question of the conditions of imprisonment is a matter for the Secretary of State. The check or safeguard against unacceptable conditions . . lies in the prisoner’s rights under the rules to complain to the governor or the Secretary of State.’

Judges:

Tudor-Evans J

Citations:

[1981] 1 All ER 1151

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Williams v Home Office (No 2) 2-Jan-1981
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to . .
See Also – Home Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
Cited – Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note) CA 1990
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for false imprisonment by the jury on the basis that his otherwise lawful detention at a police station had been made unlawful because it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep him in a police cell.
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223347

Austin v Dowling: 1870

The defendant’s wife falsely accused the plaintiff of a crime. He was arrested and taken to the police station where the police said they would not detain the plaintiff unless the defendant signed the charge sheet.

Citations:

(1870) LR 5 CP 534

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.222678

Westward Hardy: 1964

The defendant injured the plaintiff with a scythe in circumstances where the defendant erroneously believed that she was on his land.
Held: the defendant’s conduct was wholly unjustifiable and malicious and awarded andpound;550 for damages including aggravated damages.

Judges:

Havers J

Citations:

[1964] CLY 994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Richardson v Howie CA 13-Aug-2004
The claimant sought damages for assault. In the course of a tempestuous relationship, she said the respondent had physically assaulted her in Barbados. He was later convicted of soliciting her murder. She sought and was awarded aggravated damages, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200252

Lindley v Rutter: CA 1981

The defendant had been taken into police custody upon arrest for disorderly behaviour. Police officers, acting in accordance with what they believed to be standing orders to search every female prisoner, in the face of a refusal by the defendant to be searched, searched her and in so doing removed her brassiere.
Held: Persons detained in police custody must not be searched unless there is a ‘very good reason’ for doing so

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

[1981] QB 128

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 16-Feb-2001
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.211413

Williams v Taylor: 1829

No action will lie for the institution of legal proceedings, however malicious, unless they have been instituted without reasonable and probable cause. Tindal CJ said: ‘Malice alone is not sufficient, because a person actuated by the plainest malice may none the less have a justifiable reason for prosecution.’

Judges:

Tindal CJ

Citations:

(1829) 6 Bing 183

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA 12-Dec-2000
The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal 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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.196689

Hovenden and Sons v Millhoff: 1900

Romer LJ said: ‘The courts of law in this country have always strongly condemned and, when they could, punished the bribing of agents, and have taken a strong view as to what constitutes a bribe. I believe the mercantile community as a whole appreciate and approve of the court’s views on the subject. But some persons undoubtedly hold laxer views. Not that these persons like the ugly word ‘bribe’ or would excuse the giving of a bribe if that word be used, but they differ from the courts in their view as to what constitutes a bribe. It may, therefore, be well to point out what is a bribe in the eyes of the law. Without attempting an exhaustive definition I may say that the following is one statement of what constitutes a bribe. If a gift be made to a confidential agent with a view of inducing the agent to act in favour of the donor in relation to transactions between the donor and the agent’s principal and that gift is secret as between the donor and the agent – that is to say , without the knowledge and consent of the principal – then the gift is a bribe in the view of the law. If a bribe be once established to the court’s satisfaction then certain rules apply. Amongst them the following are now established, and, in my opinion, rightly established in the interests of morality with the view of discouraging the practice of bribery. First, the court will not enquire into the donor’s motive in giving the bribe, nor allow evidence to be gone into as to the motive. Secondly, the court will presume in favour of the principal and as against the briber and the agent bribed, that the agent was influenced by the bribe; and this presumption is irrebuttable. Thirdly, if the agent be a confidential buyer of goods for his principal from the briber, the court will assume as against the briber that the true price of the goods as between him and the purchaser must be taken to be less than the price paid to, or charged by the vendor by, at any rate, the amount or value of the bribe. If the purchaser alleges loss or damage beyond this, he must prove it ‘.

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1900] 83 LT 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Explained – Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis 1949
When arranging with the plaintiff company to obtain a loan for the defendant V stipulated that he should be paid half the procuration fee which the defendant would be charged for the company’s services. The company knew that V was to receive from . .
Cited – Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co Ltd 1990
The plaintiffs sought recovery of moneys paid by the defendants to one George Thomas Richardson Campbell, a distinguished naval architect on the ground that such payments has been made secretly while Mr Campbell has been acting for the plaintiffs in . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Limited v Pook, Pook, Universal Projects (UK) Limited ChD 14-Apr-2003
A trustee in breach of his duty has a duty to disclose that breach. It was alleged that the defendants, including a director of the claimant, had submitted false invoices to the claimants, and purchased property with the resulting profits.
Cited – Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (‘The Ocean Frost’) CA 1985
Proof of corruption not needed for bribe
In establishing that money was paid as an improper inducement or bribe, proof of corruptness or a corrupt motive was unnecessary.
When a court looks at a decision of a judge at first instance, the court stressed the need to look at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.194863

Wallingford v Mutual Society: HL 1880

Lord Hatherley said: ‘Now I take it to be as settled as anything well can be by repeated decisions, that the mere averment of fraud, in general terms, is not sufficient for any practical purpose in [a pleading]. Fraud may be alleged in the largest and most sweeping terms imaginable. What you have to do is, if it be matter of account, to point out a specific error, and bring evidence of that error, and establish it by that evidence. Nobody can be expected to meet a case, and still less to dispose of a case, summarily upon mere allegations of fraud without any definite character being given to those charges by stating the facts upon which they rest.’
Lord Selbourne LC said: ‘With regards to fraud, if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice. And here I find nothing but perfectly general and vague allegations of fraud. No single material fact is condescended upon; in a manner which would enable any Court to understand what it was that was alleged to be fraudulent.’

Judges:

Lord Hatherley, Lord Selbourne LC, (Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1880) 5 App Cas 685

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592688

Australian Steel and Mining Corpn Pty Ltd v Corben: 1974

Complaint was made that a statement (as to the identity of a purchaser to whom Mr Corben, who had decided to sell, was to give an option to purchase) was a ‘but for’ cause of the agreement. Mr Corben would not have persevered with the deal if he had not known the identity of the purchaser.
Held: The trial Judge or jury have to answer the question – did the misrepresentation cause the representee to enter into the contract, it being understood that the representation ‘was one among the factors which induced the contract”. That issue is one of fact.

Judges:

Hutley JA

Citations:

[1974] 2 NSWLR 202

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.588901

Uren v First National Home Finance Ltd: ChD 10 Nov 2005

The claimant sought damages on the basis that the defendant had an enrichment of the defendant which the court should consider unfair.
Held: There was no general free-standing claim of unjust enrichment. The claimant was obliged to include a claim for unjust enrichment as part of the familiar and developing law of restitutionary claims. The claim failed.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

Times 17-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2529 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.235143

Faulder and Co Ltd v Rushton: 1903

The court discussed the relationship between an action for trade mark infringement, and for passing off: ‘when an injunction is granted to restrain the use of a mark calculated to pass off the defendant’s goods as those of the plaintiff, by reason of its resemblance to his unregistered mark, it should be so limited as to leave it open for the defendant to use any part, or the whole, of the plaintiff’s unregistered mark, if he can do so, in any manner which is not calculated to lead to deception.’

Citations:

(1903) 20 RPC 477

Cited by:

Cited – Inter Lotto (UK) Limited v Camelot Group Plc ChD 6-Jun-2003
The claimant asserted that the defendant had infringed its goodwill in the name ‘Hot Picks’ the defendant argued that it was licensed to use the mark by the person who applied for its registration as a trade mark, and that the claim in passing off . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183309

Smith v Pywell: 29 Apr 1959

There is no separate tort of procuring a third person to commit a tort, but the procurer was a joint tortfeasor with the person who actually committed it.

Judges:

Diplock J

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-1959

Cited by:

Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department HL 19-Feb-1999
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183578

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1).
Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.

Judges:

Mr Justice Park

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Torts – Other, Equity, Costs

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.174083

Norman Hudson v Shogun Finance Ltd: CA 28 Jun 2001

A rogue had purchased a car, using a false name to obtain finance. He had then sold it to the defendant. The finance company claimed the car back.
Held: The dealer had not taken all the steps he might have done to check the identity of the buyer, but Cundy v Lindsay was binding, and the innocent purchaser had not obtained any title. The Act did not operate to protect him unless the rogue had been a debtor under the Act. The person whose signature had been forged could not be sued under the finance agreement. The rogue was not the hirer named in the agreement. The dealer was not the agent of the finance company, since he had no authority to make an agreement on their behalf. It was therefore impossible to apply the ‘face to face’ principle to suggest the contract was made with the rogue who presented himself at the showroom.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1000

Statutes:

Hire Purchase Act 1964 27, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Sch 4 Para 22

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Applied – Cundy v Lindsay HL 1878
Cundy was asked to pay the linen manufacturers Lindsay and Co for 250 dozen cambric handkerchiefs which he had acquired from a crook who had acquired them from Lindsay by pretending to be the respectable business firm of Blenkiron.
Held: A . .
Cited – King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett and Co Ltd CA 1879
A crook ordered some brass rivet wire from a metal manufacturer. On his stationery he represented falsely that he was in business in a big way, running a large factory and having several depots and agencies. The manufacturer supplied the goods but . .
Cited – Re De Leeuw, Jakens v Central Advance and Discount Corporation Chd 1922
A deed which bears a false signature is a forgery and creates no rights whatever.
Where a party sues as trustee a judgment in the proceeding shall bind the persons having a beneficial interest under the trust as it does the trustee. . .
Cited – Gallie v Lee CA 1969
A deed bearing a false signature is a forgery and creates no rights at all. ‘If the deed was not his deed at all (non est factum), he is not bound by his signature any more than he is bound by a forgery. The document is a nullity just as if a rogue . .
Cited – Ingram v Little 27-Jul-1960
Two ladies had a car for sale. A buyer came along. He fooled them into believing him to be someone else, and they sold him the car, after checking the name in the telephone directory. Before the cheque bounced, the rogue sold the car to the . .
Cited – Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd HL 1969
A dealer may for some ad hoc purpose be the agent of a finance company. In relation to a purchase of a motor vehicle through a motor dealer, where the prospective purchaser completes an application for hire purchase in the office of the motor . .
Cited – Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Hamblin CA 1964
Pearson LJ said: ‘There is no rule of law that in a hire purchase transaction the dealer never is, or always is, acting as agent for the finance company or as agent for the customer.Nevertheless, the dealer is to some extent an intermediary between . .
Cited – Lewis v Averay CA 22-Jul-1971
A private seller had parted with his car in return for a worthless cheque to a rogue who persuaded him that he was the well-known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and who sold it on to the defendant.
Held: ‘When two parties have come . .
Cited – Hector v Lyons 1988
The appellant contracted to buy a house but used his under-aged son’s name. He sought specific performance when the vendor failed to complete.
Held: Since he was neither the purchaser nor the purchaser’s agent, specific performance was . .
Cited – Sowler v Potter 1939
The defendant had been convicted of an offence of permitting disorderly conduct in a cafe, under her proper name of Ann Robinson. She then assumed the name of Ann Potter. The plaintiff’s evidence was that, if he had known that she was Ann Robinson, . .
Cited – Fawcett v Star Car Sales Limited 1960
(New Zealand) ‘a void contract is a paradox; in truth there is no contract at all.’ and ‘the difficulty in deciding whether a mistake of identity prevents the formation of a concluded contract is a proper assessment of the facts rather than the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Consumer, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.160060

Henderson v Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary: CA 16 Mar 2001

Police arrested the claimant on Friday, but before releasing him on the Saturday they executed a warrant they had known about on arrest, resulting in his being kept in custody over the weekend. He claimed false imprisonment. The court held that the police had a discretion as to when to execute the warrant, but that discretion must not be exercised unreasonably. There may be many proper reasons for delaying the execution of the warrant, but a general policy which removed the discretion would be wrong.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81314

Axa Insurance Co Ltd v Swire Fraser Ltd: CA 9 Dec 1999

Where an action was commenced before the new rules came into effect, but an application to strike out an action was issued and decided after they came into effect, that application could not be decided under the old rules. The new rules applied fundamentally different tests, and these tests had to be applied.
Assessment of respective party’s contribution to delay

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] CLC 665, [2001] CP Rep 17, [2000] CPLR 142

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks, Bloom and Co CA 1981
Accountants prepared audited accounts knowing that the company was in financial difficulties, and the the accounts would be relied upon by the plaintiffs.
Held: The accountants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. They knew that they would . .

Cited by:

Cited – DP Mann and others v Coutts and Co ComC 16-Sep-2003
The claimants were involved in litigation, They took certain steps on the understanding that the respondents had had deposited with them substantial sums in accounts under binding authorities. The bank had written a letter upon which they claim they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.78032

Stevenson v Basham: 1922

(New Zealand) The defendant made a threat to the plaintiff’s husband inside the house that she and her husband were occupying to burn it down, the threat being overheard by her when she was in a bedroom where she was lying and when she was pregnant at the time.
Held: He was held liable for the nervous shock she sustained. He knew that she was there

Citations:

[1922] NZLR 225

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.566204

Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd: 1993

(New Zealand High Court) The plaintiffs complained that a relative’s tombstone was depicted in a satiric film set in part in a cemetery, and containing a significant degree of gore and violence. The tombstone was never shown in its entirety, appearing for 14 seconds only, and it was not possible to read any writing on the tombstone.
Held: The tombstone could not be identified by viewers. Moreover, there was nothing to connect the action in the film with the tombstone. A child may have a right of residence with her parents, but does not have a sufficient interst in the land to bring an action for trespass. There was however a tort of invasion of privacy involving public disclosure of private facts, but the disclosure, to be actionable, must be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility.
The infliction of emotional distress which is recognised by the authorities requires proof of something more than a transient reaction of emotional distress, regardless of initial severity.

Judges:

Gallen J

Citations:

[1993] 1 NZLR 415

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 by:

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.

Land, Torts – Other, Media

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.566205

Smith v Land and House Property Corporation: CA 1885

Bowen LJ said: ‘if the facts are not equally known to both sides, then a statement of opinion by the one who knows the facts best involves very often a statement of material fact, for he impliedly states that he knows facts which justify his opinion’.

Judges:

Bowen LJ

Citations:

(1885) LR 28 Ch D 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.463307

Case LXX. 36 El 3 Cr 492, 493 Yel 167 Poph 109 2 Cr 594 Hob 16, 176 Trespass, Novel, Assignment, Evidence, Demurrer Dyer, 264: 1220

In trespass, the defendant pleads in bar; the plaintiff makes a new assignment in his replication ; tbe defendant rejoins that the places mentioned in the bar and in the new assignment are all one ; upon this the plaintifYf demurs ; the plaintiff has judgment; affirmed in error. For the plaintiff shall never be received to give evidence, that the trespass was done in the place named in the bar ; for he has denied that, by his new assignment ; and therefore the defendant’s rejoinder is vain : the defendant ought to have pleaded to the new assignment.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 448, (1220-1623) Jenk 265, (1220) 145 ER 190 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.461360

Chapman v Director of Public Prosecutions: CA 1989

The section required a constable to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence had been committed before he could arrest without warrant.
Held: Bingham LJ said: ‘It is not of course to be expected that a police constable in the heat of an emergency, or while in hot pursuit of a suspected criminal, should always have in mind specific statutory provisions, or that he should mentally identify specific offences with technicality or precision. He must, in my judgment, reasonably suspect the existence of facts amounting to an arrestable offence of a kind which he has in mind. Unless he can do that he cannot comply with section 28(3) of the Act by informing the suspect of grounds which justify the arrest.’

Judges:

Bingham LJ

Citations:

[1989] 89 Cr App R 190

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 24(6)

Cited by:

Cited – Shields v Merseyside Police CA 17-Nov-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for assault and false imprisonment. The officer arresting her wrongly believed that she had already been arrested, and it was said that he could not have gone through the steps necessary for an . .
Cited – McCann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Aug-2015
Appeal by case stated against conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appellant had been protesting. She, correctly, thought the land to be a rivate highway. The police officer had thought it a public hghway and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.426032

Marstons Plc v Charman and Others: CA 29 Apr 2009

The landlord let several public houses to the defendant, and sought to recover dilapidations on the tenant ceasing to trade. The defendant counterclaimed for damages alleging that the claimant had misrepresented the profitability of the businesses to him. The defendant had come to defend the proceedings acting in person.
Held: The judge at an interim hearing had taken matters beyond the scope of the application made and without giving the defendant notice or opportunity to answer the judge’s unless order. He had debarred the defence in default of the defendant providing substantial security for costs.

Judges:

Ward, Rix, Moore-Bick LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 719, [2009] CP Rep 42

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.349049

Smith v Kay: HL 1859

A party who has practised deception with a view to a particular end, which has been attained by it, cannot be allowed to deny its materiality.
Lord Cranworth rejected what he described as ‘a very desperate argument’ that a representation could not justify the setting aside of a bond because it was made some time before the bond was executed: ‘It is a continuing representation. The representation does not end for ever when the representation is once made; it continues on. The pleader who drew the bill, or the young man himself, in stating his case, would say, Before I executed the bond I had been led to believe, and I therefore continued to believe …’
Lord Chelmsford LC asked this question as to rescission based on an allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation: ‘can it be permitted to a party who has practised a deception, with a view to a particular end, which has been attained by it, to speculate upon what might have been the result if there had been a full communication of the truth?’

Judges:

Lord Cranworth, Lord Chelmsford LC

Citations:

[1859] EngR 38, (1859) 7 HLC 750, (1859) 11 ER 299

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cramaso Llp v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC 12-Feb-2014
The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .
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 . .
Cited – Sharland v Sharland SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court considered the impact of fraud upon a financial settlement agreed between divorcing parties where that agreement is later embodied in a court order? Does ‘fraud unravel all’, as is normally the case when agreements are embodied in court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.287390

Great Central Railway Co v Bates: CA 1921

A police officer has no right to enter land merely because most reasonable householders ‘would not as a rule object if the matter was done bona fide and no nuisance was caused’

Judges:

Atkin LJ

Citations:

[1921] 3 KB 578

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Gillies v Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ 1-Oct-2008
The police went to the defendant’s flat to find her boyfriend. She refused them access, but when they saw him, the police officers called out that he was under arrest under the 1995 Act, and forced their way past the door and the defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.276520

Bentley v Brudzinski: QBD 1982

A police officer arrived at a situation. Answering a signal from a colleague, he placed his hand on the shoulder of a man in order to attract his attention. The man the hit the officer and was charged with assaulting the officer in the execution of his duty. He was acquitted.
Held: The acquittal was upheld. The officer who was assaulted was acting as agent of a colleague and, unknown to the officer assaulted, that first officer was acting outside the scope of his duty.

Citations:

(1982) CLR 825, [1982] 75 Cr App R 217

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Meaden Admn 1-Dec-2003
The defendant had been charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The prosecutor appealed a finding of no case to answer. He had been present in a house when the police executed search warrants. He had refused to obey an . .
Cited – Sher and Others v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and Others Admn 21-Jul-2010
The claimants, Pakistani students in the UK on student visas, had been arrested and held by the defendants under the 2000 Act before being released 13 days later without charge. They were at first held incognito. They said that their arrest and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.272773

Gifford v Dent: 1926

It was a trespass over the plaintiff’s land for the defendant to erect a sign projecting 4 ft 8 in over the plaintiff’s forecourt.

Judges:

Romer J

Citations:

(1926) 71 SJ 83

Cited by:

Cited – Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews and General Ltd QBD 9-Feb-1977
The plaintiff complained that the defendant had flown over his and neighbouring properties and taken aerial photographs, and said that this was a gross invasion of his privacy, and that the defendant had invaded his airspace to do so. The plaintiff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.268223

Rotocrop International Ltd v Gembourne Ltd: 1982

When sued for patent infringement, the defendants challenged the validity of the patent for obviousness.
Held: There was novelty in the patent for a compost bin with removable panels and a rival manufacturer who made and sold infringing bins in parts with assembly instructions was a joint tortfeasor with his customers.

Judges:

Graham J

Citations:

[1982] FSR 241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.267932

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v David Moseley and Sons Ltd: ChD 1903

The defendant sold tyre covers which were an essential feature of a combination patent for tyres and rims. The tyre covers were adapted for use in the manner described in the patent, but not necessarily solely for use in that manner. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant were liable for patent infringement as joint tortfeasors.
Held: Swinfen Eady J said that most of the ‘covers would probably ultimately be used in one or other of’ the patented method but that ‘those are not exhaustive of the purposes to which the covers may be put, and that they would be useful for other purposes in connection with other tyres.’

Judges:

Swinfen Eady J

Citations:

(1903) 21 RPC 53

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v David Moseley and Sons Ltd CA 1904
Swinfen Eady J’s decision was upheld. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.267930

Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Mann: PC 1961

The respondent Mann practiced as a solicitor in partnership with Richardson. They kept a ‘trust account’ in the partnership name with the Australian and New Zealand Bank in Sydney (‘ANZ’). Under the partnership agreement, all assets belonged to Mann, but cheques might be drawn on the partnership bank account by either. Mann gave the necessary authority to ANZ. Richardson used that authority to draw cheques, inserting on each after the printed word ‘Pay’, the words ‘Bank cheque favour H. Ward’ or ‘Bank cheque H. Ward;’. He also filed application forms for bank cheques in favour of H. Ward to a like amount, purporting to sign them on behalf of the firm. He took the documents to ANZ, which in each case debited the firm’s account and issued a bank draft of an equal amount in the form ‘Pay H. Ward or bearer.’ He took the cheques to the appellant bank, and cashed them over the counter. The bank paid the cheques. He was fraudulent throughout; Ward was not a client of the partnership, nor had any client authorised the payment to him of any money held in the trust account. Mann sued the appellant bank for conversion of the bank cheques, or alternatively to recover the sums received by it from ANZ bank as money had and received to his use. He succeeded before the trial judge, whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. Mann never obtained any title to the cheques, and he could not obtain title by ratifying the conduct of Richardson in obtaining the cheques from ANZ bank, without at the same time ratifying the dealings in the cheques by Ward and the appellant bank. Mann’s claim for damages for conversion failed, and that his alternative claim for money had and received also failed. Where a partner in a firm wrongfully draws a cheque on the partnership account, the proceeds of the cheque are legally his.
Viscount Simonds said: ‘It is important to distinguish between what was Richardson’s authority in relation on the one hand to the A.N.Z. bank and on the other to Mann. No question arises in these proceedings between Mann and the A.N.Z. bank. It is clear that Mann could not as between himself and the bank question Richardson’s authority to draw cheques on the trust account. The position as between Mann and Richardson was different. Richardson had no authority, express or implied, from Mann either to draw cheques on the trust account or to obtain bank cheques in exchange for them except for the proper purposes of the partnership. If he exceeded those purposes, his act was unauthorised and open to challenge by Mann. It is in these circumstances that the question must be asked whether, as the judge held, the bank cheques were throughout the property of Mann. It is irrelevant to this question what was the relation between Richardson and Ward and whether the latter gave any consideration for the bank cheques that he received and at what stage Mann learned of the fraud that had been practised upon him. The proposition upon which the respondent founds his claim is simple enough: Richardson was his partner and in that capacity was able to draw upon the trust account and so to obtain from the bank its promissory notes: therefore the notes were the property of the partnership and belonged to Mann, and Richardson could not give a better title to a third party than he himself had.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1961] AC 1, [1960] 3 All ER 482

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Union Bank of Australia Ltd v McClintock PC 1922
Where a partner obtains money by drawing on a partnership bank account without authority, he alone and not the partnership obtains legal title to the money so obtained. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Company, Banking, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259437

In re D (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation): 1976

Citations:

[1976] Fam 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – F v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Health Professions

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.250058

Minister of Housing and Local Government v Hartnell: HL 1965

The law ordinarily entitles a person whose land is taken for a highway to compensation unless the statutory intention to resume without compensation is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. Lord Wilberforce described a use treated as established under planning law as: ‘analogous to a right established by prescription’.
Where a statutory procedure exists for taking away rights with compensation, the court will resist the argument that some other procedure is available for doing the same thing without compensation.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Reid

Citations:

[1965] AC 1134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Melbourne Harbour Trust Commissioners PC 18-Jan-1927
An Act removing the right of appeal to the Privy Council was held not to affect an appeal in litigation pending when the Act was passed and decided after its passing, on the ground that (Lord Warrington) ‘[t]o deprive a suitor in pending litigation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Planning

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.237726

Emerald Construction Co v Lowthian: CA 1965

The defendant union officials threatened a building contractor with a strike unless he terminated a sub-contract for the supply of labour. They obviously knew that there was a contract, since they wanted it terminated, but did not know its terms and, in particular, how soon it could be terminated.
Held: Lord Denning MR said: ‘Even if they did not know the actual terms of the contract, but had the means of knowledge – which they deliberately disregarded – that would be enough. Like the man who turns a blind eye. So here, if the officers deliberately sought to get this contract terminated, heedless of its terms, regardless whether it was terminated by breach or not, they would do wrong. For it is unlawful for a third person to procure a breach of contract knowingly, or recklessly, indifferent whether it is a breach or not.’
To be liable for the tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations, the tortfeasor must either know of the contract or turn a blind eye to its existence, and must intend to interfere with it.’
Diplock LJ set out the applicable principle: ‘The element of intent needed to constitute the tort of unlawful procurement of a breach of contract is, in my view, sufficiently established if it be proved that the defendants intended the party procured to bring the contract to an end by breach of it if there were no way of bringing it to an end lawfully. A defendant who acts with such intent runs the risk that if the contract is broken as a result of the party acting in the manner in which he is procured to act by the defendant, the defendant will be liable in damages to the other party to the contract.
On the evidence as it now stands I think that the inference is irresistible that such was the defendants’ intention. The one thing on which they were determined was that the plaintiffs’ work under their ‘labour only’ sub contract with the main contractors should cease. Whether this involved a breach of contract by the main contractors was a matter of indifference to them.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1966] 1 WLR 691, [1966] 1 All ER 1013, [1965] AC 269

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Torquay Hotel v Cousins CA 17-Dec-1968
The plaintiff contracted to buy oil for his hotel from Esso. Members of the defendant trades union blocked the deliveries of oil by Esso to the Hotel because of a trade dispute they had with the management of the hotel. The hotel sued for an . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – 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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.222994

Thorne v Motor Trade Association: HL 1937

The House confirmed a declaration granted as to validity of a rule of association notwithstanding the absence of any dispute. The House considered the nature of the threat required to establish a defence of duress.
Lord Wright observed that the word ‘menaces’ is to be liberally construed and is not limited to threats of violence, but includes threats of any action detrimental, or unpleasant, to the person addressed. It may also include a warning that in certain events such action is intended.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The ordinary blackmailer normally threatens to do what he has a perfect right to do – namely, communicate some compromising conduct to a person whose knowledge is likely to affect the person threatened. Often indeed he has not only the right but also the duty to make the disclosure, as of a felony, to the competent authorities. What he has to justify is not the threat, but the demand of money. The gravamen of the charge is the demand without reasonable or probable cause: and I cannot think that the mere fact that the threat is to do something a person is entitled to do either causes the threat not to be a ‘menace’ within the Act or in itself provides a reasonable or probable cause for the demand.’
and ‘It appears to me that if a man may lawfully, in the furtherance of business interests, do acts which will seriously injure another in his business he may also lawfully, if he is still acting in furtherance of his business interests, offer that other to accept a sum of money as an alternative to doing the injurious acts. He must no doubt be acting not for the mere purpose of putting money in his pocket, but for some legitimate purpose other than the mere acquisition of money.’
In this case ‘If the Council bona fide exercised this power with the bona fide intention only of carrying out this trade policy, in my opinion they would not be demanding the payment without reasonable and probable cause.’ but ‘It is plain that these rules and any similar rules of any other association in any other trade are capable of being abused: and if so nothing in this decision will prevent offenders from being subjected to criminal law. But if the rules were genuinely enforced I am satisfied that there would not be as in my opinion in Denyer’s case [1926] 2 KB 258 there was not, any evidence of an absence of reasonable or probable cause.’

Judges:

Lord Atkin, Lord Wright

Citations:

[1937] AC 797, [1937] 3 All ER 157

Statutes:

Larceny Act 1916 29(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 – AMM v HXW QBD 7-Oct-2010
The claimant had sought and been granted an injunction to prevent the defendant publicising matters which had passed between them and which were he said private.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such injunctions was now established. Publication . .
Cited – CTN Cash and Carry v Gallaher CA 15-Feb-1993
The buyer paid a sum demanded by the seller who threatened otherwise to withdraw the credit facilities it provided to the buyer. The sum was not in fact due, but the demand had been made honestly. The buyer said the agreement was voidable for . .
Cited – Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS Llc ComC 17-Feb-2012
The claimant sought to set aside an arbitration saying that the arbitrator had misapplied the test for economic duress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.220490

S Pearson and Son Ltd v Dublin Corporation: HL 1907

A clause in a building contract provided that the contractor should satisfy himself as to the dimensions, levels and nature of all existing works. Did this exclude an action based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the council’s engineers as to the position of an existing wall.
Held: Lord Halsbury ‘The action is based on the allegation of fraud, and no subtilty of language, no craft or machinery in the form of contract, can estop a person who complains that he has been defrauded from having that question of fact submitted to a jury.’
Lord Loreburn said: ‘I will not say that a man himself innocent may not under any circumstances, however peculiar, guard himself by apt and express clauses from liability for the fraud of his own agents.’ but the clause as a matter of construction did not cover cases of fraudulent misrepresentation. General language will not be construed to relieve a principal of liability for the fraud of an agent. Of the exemption clauses ‘They contemplate honesty on both sides and protect only against honest mistakes.’

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC, Lord Ashbourne, Lord Atkinson, Lord Halsbury

Citations:

[1907] AC 351

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others v Chase Manhattan Bank and others HL 20-Feb-2003
The insurance company had paid claims on policies used to underwrite the production of TV films. The re-insurers resisted the claims against them by the insurers on the grounds of non-disclosure by the insured, or in the alternative damages for . .
Cited – Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels Gmbh QBD 21-Sep-2006
The claimant had licensed the defendant to use its trademarks in connection with the naming of their hotels in Germany. The defendants failed to pay their fees as agreed, the claimants terminated the license and now sought payment under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Contract

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219298

Rex v Coate: 1772

There is a common law power to detain persons for their own protection for mental health reasons.

Judges:

Lord Mansfield

Citations:

(1772) Lofft 73

Cited by:

Cited – In Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L HL 25-Jun-1998
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.218831

Smith v Selwyn: 1914

The court considered whether civil proceedings should be delayed pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings: ‘where injuries are inflicted on an individual under circumstances which constitute a felony, that felony cannot be made the foundation of a civil action at the suit of the person injured against the person who inflicted the injuries until the latter has been prosecuted or a reasonable excuse shown for his non-prosecution.’

Judges:

Swinfen Eady LJ

Citations:

[1914] 3 KB 98

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Panton and others v Financial Institutions Services Ltd PC 15-Dec-2003
(Jamaica) The appellants faced both civil and criminal proceedings. They sought a stay of the civil proceedings pending the disposal of the civil proceedings. They appealeed a saying that the rule in Smith v Selwyn applied.
Held: The rule is . .
Discarded – Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha CA 1979
The plaintiffs brought a claim to recover monies appropriated by a former employee who was also facing prosecution for offences in connection with the same matters. The defendant sought a stay of the application for summary judgement.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.199224

Kingzett v British Railways Board: 1968

Citations:

(1968) 112 SJ 625

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – British Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182881

Gould v Vaggelas: 6 Nov 1984

A deceit was alleged.
Wilson J said: ‘The representation need not be the sole inducement in sustaining the loss. If it plays some part, even if only a minor part, in contributing to the course of action taken a causal connection will exist.’ and ‘If a material representation is made which is calculated to induce the representee to enter into a contract and that person in fact enters into the contract there arises a fair inference of fact that he was induced to do so by the representation.’
Wilson J referred to a situation in which one party ‘has made false statements to [others] intending thereby to induce [them] to enter into a contract and those statements are of such a nature as would be likely to provide such inducement’, saying that, ‘common sense would demand the conclusion the false representations played at least some part in inducing the plaintiff to enter into the contract’.

Judges:

Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson(5) JJ.

Citations:

(1984) 157 CLR 215, [1984] HCA 68, (1984) 56 ALR 31, (1984) 58 ALJR 560

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588900

Betjemann v Betjemann: CA 1895

A father and his two sons had carried on the business as partners from 1856 to 1886; the father died in 1886 but the sons continued the business until 1893 when one of the sons died. The deceased son’s executor brought an action against the surviving partner for an account of the partnership dealings from 1886. The surviving partner claimed that the accounts of the old partnership should be taken from 1856.
Held: The surviving son was entitled to an order for the accounts to be taken against the deceased son’s executor with effect from 1856, on the basis that the accounts of the original firm had been carried on into the new firm without interruption or settlement.
Rigby LJ said: ‘What is the duty of a man to inquire? To whom does he owe that duty? Certainly not to the person who had committed the concealed fraud.’

Judges:

Rigby, Lindley LJJ

Citations:

[1895] 2 Ch 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588902

Gipps v Gipps: 1978

(Court of Appeal of New South Wales) In order to defeat a claim in misrepresentation, it is necessary for the false belief to be ‘wholly dissipated’ for knowledge to defeat misrepresentation. Huttley JA said: ‘Any other rule would be an affront to commonsense. It would mean that, if a person dealing with a rogue has made to him a representation which he knows to be false, but believes to be false to a particular extent, he has no right of action, after making the contract in reliance upon the representation as adjusted by the representee, even though he later learns that the misrepresentation was greater than he suspected.
. . The only way in which the decision of the trial judge on this issue can be effectively attacked would be to show that the respondent understood completely the extent of her husband’s misrepresentations; or, possibly, that the difference between what she understood and the extent of his misrepresentations was so minute that his Honour should have decided that it was irrelevant.’
Hutley JA said: ‘[t]o state that a person is induced by a statement is to affirm a causal relation which is a question of fact, not of law’

Judges:

Hutley, Glass and Samuels JJA

Citations:

[1978] FLC 90-523, [1978] 1 NSWLR 454, 9 ACLR 706, 3 ACLC 424

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588899

Mason v Levy Autoparts of England Ltd: 1967

McKenna J said that there were not three separate routes to liability at law for the escape of fire from premises to a neighbour’s property, but one. A householder was liable for the escape of his fire (ignis suus): no additional danger was needed to be proved. The liability was based on a custom of the realm and on no other principle. If the case was brought otherwise than on the custom of the realm (i.e. by action on the case) then negligence had to be proved. McKenna J said: ‘There were not three heads of liability at common law but only one. A person from whose land a fire escaped was held liable to his neighbour unless he could prove that it had started or spread by the act of a stranger or of God. Filliter’s case had given a special meaning to the words ‘accidental fire’ used in the statute, holding that they did not include fires due to negligence, but covered only cases of ‘a fire produced by mere chance, or incapable of being traced to any cause.’ But it does not follow, because that meaning may be given to ‘accidental,’ that the statute does not cover cases of the Rylands v Fletcher kind where the occupier is held liable for the escape though no fault is proved against him. In such cases the fire may be ‘produced by mere chance’ or may be ‘incapable of being traced to any cause.’ Bankes LJ was making a distinction unknown to the common law, between ‘the mere escape of fire’ (which was his first head) and its escape under Rylands v Fletcher conditions (which was his third), and was imputing an intention to the legislature of exempting from liability in the former case and not in the latter.’

Judges:

McKenna J

Citations:

[1967] 2 QB 530

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:

Overruled – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.512176

Femis Bank v Lazard: 1991

Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘However, in this case the plaintiffs rely on the decision . . in Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd v. Page . . which shows that, where the cause of action is founded on conspiracy to injure, the court can grant an injunction restraining publication.
It is the plaintiffs’ case here that they have an arguable case that the sole or paramount intention of Mr. Lazar and Cityguide operating in concert is to injure the plaintiffs . .
However, on the other side I must take account of the fact of the intemperate language such as I have quoted, the element of witchhunt which comes into the matter, the extreme broadcasting of these allegations. The manifest dislike which Mr. Lazar entertains for Mr. Singh may well have come – although of course I cannot tell at this stage – from a position which seems to have emerged towards the end of 1989 in which Mr.Lazar or those associated with him appear to have wished to obtain either a stake in or control of Femis. There are documents showing Mr.Lazar holding himself out as being in that position. Mr Singh in fact obtained control. In addition the unhappy episode in which Mr. Singh covertly joined Femis at a time when he was still ostensibly acting for Cityguide cannot have improved relations.
There are therefore substantial grounds on which it can be argued that there was a major malicious motive in Mr. Lazar’s conduct. Though I have substantial doubts whether at trial the plaintiffs will establish that the sole or paramount purpose of what Mr Lazar did was simply to injure without lawful justification, I marginally reach the view that there is an arguable case on the point’.

Judges:

Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C

Citations:

[1991] Ch. 391

Citing:

Cited – Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Limited v Page CA 1987
The plaintiff had contracted exclusively to supply to the defendants owners of petrol stations. On arrears arising, the plaintiff discontinued deliveries save on cash on delivery and direct debit terms. The defendants obtained supplies from another . .

Cited by:

Cited – Caborn-Waterfield v Gold and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471926

Anderson v Gorrie: CA 1895

An action had been brought against a colonial judge, alleging malice.
Held: Lord Esher MR said: ‘the question arises whether there can be an action against a judge of a court of record for doing something within his jurisdiction, but doing it maliciously and contrary to good faith. By the common law of England it is the law that no such action will lie.’ and ‘The ground alleged from the earliest times as that on which this rule rests is that if such an action would lie the judges would lose their independence, and that the absolute freedom and independence of the judges is necessary for the administration of justice . . The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit, and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges, and prevent their being harassed by vexatious actions.’

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

[1895] 1 QB 668

Cited by:

Cited – In re McC (A Minor); McC v Mullan HL 1984
The House considered the immunity from suit of judges. The Magistrate here had passed a custodial sentence on a minor without complying with a statutory provision which required him to inform the offender of the right to Legal Aid.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Legal Professions

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.463696

Shedden v Patrick: 1852

Pleaded allegations of fraud must be based on clear and specific averments of fact from which an inference of fraud may legitimately be drawn

Judges:

Lord Fullerton

Citations:

(1852) 14 D 727

Cited by:

Cited – The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Hill SCS 3-Jul-2012
(Opinion) The bank sought production of a statutory demand issued against it by the defendant. It was said to have been served by misplaced by them, but denied that it had any valid basis. The defender alleged fraud but had not given any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.461943

Bridgeman v Green: 1757

The question before the court was whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. Lord Commissioner Wilmot said, ‘Whoever receives it, must take it tainted and infected with the undue influence and imposition of the person procuring the gift; his partitioning and cantoning it out amongst his relations and friends will not purify the gift and protect it against the equity of the person imposed upon. Let the hand receiving it be ever so chaste, yet, if it come through a corrupt, polluted channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it.’

Judges:

Wilmot LC

Citations:

(1757) Wilm 58, [1757] 97 ER 22

Citing:

Affirmed – Bridgeman v Green 1755
The court was asked whether certain money, which had been obtained by fraud, ought to be returned to the Plaintiff by a party who had received it, but who was not a party to the fraud. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prince Albert v Strange ChD 8-Feb-1849
The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Undue Influence, Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448289

Dawson v Vansandau: QBD 1863

The plaintiff, Dawson, a solicitor, had been charged by the defendant with conspiracy to defraud, in the form of collusion with a client and others to defraud the client’s creditors. When the charge was first laid, the only evidence available to the defendant was that of an accomplice which would require corroboration. Such other evidence only became available after he had been charged. Dawson was subsequently acquitted. The trial judge directed the jury that there was no evidence of reasonable and probable cause because the only evidence available at the time of charge was the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplice and the other material which supported the commission of the offence had only become available after Dawson was taken into custody.
Held: Evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case was sufficient to establish reasonable and probable cause even if it was not sufficient evidence to convict. The direction was wrong: ‘An accomplice, or a tainted witness, may give evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, and warrant the preferring of a criminal charge, though it might not be sufficient evidence upon which to convict.’

Judges:

Cockburn CJ, Crompton and Blackburn JJ

Citations:

(1863) 11 WR 516

Cited by:

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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.448399

Holden v Thompson: 1907

Several children were removed by their impoverished parents from the care of a religious institution. A charity supporting them, employed solicitors to act for them to defend proceedings brought by the institution. The solicitors now sought their costs. The charity said that the agreement had been maintenance of the proceedings and was void.
Held: The charitable motive underlying the action was such as to allow an exception to the rule against maintenance.

Judges:

Phillimore J

Citations:

[1907] 2 KB 489, [1907] 76 LJKB 889, [1907] 97 LT 138, [1907] 23 TLR 529

Cited by:

Cited – Simpson v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust CA 12-Oct-2011
The court was asked whether it was possible to assign as a chose in action a cause of action in tort for damages for personal injury, and if so under what circumstances it was possible.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant did not have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.445436

Briess v Woolley: HL 1954

A fraudulent misrepresentation made in the course of pre-contractual discussions by a shareholder in a company. He was subsequently authorised by the other shareholders to continue the negotiations as their agent, and in due course a contract was concluded.
Held: The shareholders were held liable in damages to the other contracting party, notwithstanding that the representation had been made by the shareholder before he began to negotiate on their behalf. Where there is an interval between the time when the representation is made and the time when it is acted on, and the representation relates to an existing state of things, the representation is deemed to be repeated throughout the period. However, a representor can modify or withdraw a prior representation at any time before the agreement is concluded and ‘If false when made but true when acted upon there is no misrepresentation.’
Lord Reid said: ‘The misrepresentations were continuing representations intended to induce the other party to make the contract, and when that party made the contract to his detriment, a cause of action arose, and in my opinion it arose against both the agent and the principal. The agent continued to be fraudulent after he was appointed. It was his duty, having made false representations, to correct them before the other party acted on them to his detriment, but he continued to conceal the true facts.’
Lord Tucker said: ‘the duty of the agent, who has made the misrepresentation, to correct it cannot be regarded as only a personal obligation. If he has in the meantime been appointed agent with authority to make representations for the purpose of inducing a contract he, in his capacity as agent, is by his conduct repeating the representations previously made by him.’
and ‘The tort of fraudulent misrepresentation is not complete when the representation is made. It becomes complete when the misrepresentation – not having been corrected in the meantime – is acted upon by the representee. Damage giving rise to a claim for damages may not follow or may not result until a later date, but once the misrepresentation is acted upon by the representee the tortious act is complete provided that the representation is false at that date.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Tucker

Citations:

[1954] AC 333

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lindsay v O’Loughnane QBD 18-Mar-2010
The claimant had purchased Euros through a foreign exchange dealer. The dealer company became insolvent, causing losses to the claimant, who sought to recover from the company’s managing director, the defendant, saying that he was aware of the . .
Cited – Diamond v Bank of London and Montreal Ltd CA 1979
Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations were made by telephone and telex in Nassau to Mr Diamond in London. Donaldson J had held that the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation was committed in Nassau when the telexes were sent and from where the . .
Cited – Cramaso Llp v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC 12-Feb-2014
The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .
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.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430076

Spittle v Davis: 1650

In a replevin, the case was; One Turk seised of lands in fee, devised parcell thereof to his eldest son in taile, arid the other parcell to his youngest son in fee. Provided, and his intent was, that if any of his sons or any of their issues, do alien or demise any of the said Iands, before any of them comes to the age of thirty years, that then the other shall have the estate, and does not limit what estate, and then one of the sons makes a Iease for years before such age, whereupon the other enters,
and before he comes to the age of thirty years, he aiiens that part into which he made entry, and the other brother beirig the eldest enters and makes a lease to Spittle the plainiff for three years, and Davies by commandment of the younger brother enters, and takes a horse damage-feasant, and Spittle brought a replevini : and upon demur, it seemed to the Court, that this was a limitation, and by vertue of the will the estate devised to them untill they aliened, and upon the alienation to go to the other; and upon such alienation the land is clischarged of all limiitations, for otherwise the land upon one alienation shall go to one, and upon another alienation should go back again, arid so to and fro ad infinitum, vide Dyer 14. and 29. And afterwards all the Judges agreed, that after one brother had entred into the land by reason of the alienation that land was discharged forever of the limitation by the will ; and judgment was given accordingly.

Citations:

[1650] EngR 15, (1650) Owen 55, (1650) 74 ER 895

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.416835

Burdett’s Case: 1738

In trespass, the defendant justified as clerk of the market within the district of White-Chapel, for a distress for not using measures marked according to the standard of the Exchequer.
Bolt CJ held, that the clerk of the market could not have power to estreat fines and amerciaments, otherwise than as a franchise. And it is more reasonable the clerk should bring the standard with him, than that the people should follow him, or attend at a place out of the market.

Judges:

Bolt CJ

Citations:

[1738] EngR 185, (1688-1710, 1738) Holt KB 316, (1738) 90 ER 1075 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.385578

Barclays Bank v Cole: CA 1966

There was a bank robbery and the robber had paid in part of the stolen proceeds into another branch of the same bank and the bank sued the robber to recover the stolen monies after the robber had been convicted of robbery and the robber had claimed that the bank’s claim was one based on an allegation of fraud.
Held: The robber’s claim was rejected. A claimant alleging robbery did not make a ‘charge of fraud’ because robbery did not ‘involve a false representation’.
Lord Denning said: ‘Fraud in ordinary speech means the using of false representations to obtain an unjust advantage: see the definition in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Likewise in law ‘fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false’.
Diplock LJ said: ‘ Robbery is not included in the ordinary meaning of the word ‘fraud’ – as the Oxford English Dictionary confirms . . For at least 100 years (see Bullen and Leake’s, Precedents of Pleadings, 3rd ed. (1868)), ‘fraud’ in civil actions at common law, whether as a cause of action or as a defence, has meant an intentional misrepresentation (or, in some cases, concealment) of fact made by one party with the intention of inducing another party to act upon it, which does induce the other party to act upon it to his detriment . . In civil actions it [i.e., fraud] has long had a precise limited meaning as a term of art, and I see no reason for ascribing any wider meaning to it . .’
Russell LJ said: ‘On the construction of the section I agree that this is not an action in which ‘a charge of fraud against . . (the defendant) . . is in issue’. I agree with the Judge that fraud is used here in its ordinary and primary sense of deceit, and not as referring generally to dishonesty.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ, Russell LJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 WLR 166, [1967] 2 QB 738, [1966] 3 All ER 948

Cited by:

Cited – Cavell USA, Inc and Randall v Seaton Insurance Company etc CA 16-Dec-2009
The parties had settled terms for concluding business arrangements between them. The agreement released and referred all claims in law and in equity ‘save for fraud’ to the UK courts. The respondents now wanted to bring a case alleging breach of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.392909

Keeble v Hickeringhall: 1795

Case lies where the plaintiff had a possession without any property. Case in which the plaintiff declared, that he was possessed of a decoy pond frequented with ducks, of which he made great gains, and that the defendant knowing and maliciously intending to deprive him (the plaintiff) of the use arid benefit of his said decoy pond, did on such a day and place, at one time, discharge and shoot off six guns, and at another time four guns to fright away his ducks, andc. upon not guilty pleaded the plaintiff had, a verdict ; it was objected in arrest of judgment, that the defendant stood on his own ground, arid so could not be guilty of a trespass in the close of the plaintiff; besides the declaration is ill; for the plaintiff did not set forth how many ducks were frighted away, or if he had, it had been ill, because being wild ducks, he had no property in them.
Holt, Chief Justice. A decoy pond is a kind of trade, and of great profit to the owner, and by the same reason that an action will lie for malicious wmds spoken by one tradesman of another, it will lie for a malicious act done by one to another, for in both cases it is prejudicial to the plaintiff. If one man keeps a school in such a place, another may do so likewise in the same place, though he draw away the scholars from the other school, it is true, this is damnum, but it is absque injuria; but he must not shoot guns at the scholars of the other school, to fright them from coming there any more. And as to the other objection, the plaintiff needs not shew how many ducks were frighted, because it is impossible for him to do it, and though they were wild, yet they were flumineae volucres, and in the plaintiff’s decoy pond, and so in his possession, which is sufficient without shewing that he had any property in them.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 2265, (1795) 3 Salk 9, (1795) 91 ER 659 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Keeble v Hickeringill 1796
. .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall (472) 1738
. .
See Also – Keeble v Hickeringall 1738
Holt CJ, delivered the opinion of the Court for the plaintiff, and said, that this is a new action, but is supported by the old reason and principles of law ; taking of wild-fowl is a lawful and profitable employment, it is as if it were his trade . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.354610

Dovaston v Payne: CCP 10 Jan 1795

A plea in bar of an avowry for taking cattle damage-feasant, that the cattle escaped from a public highway into the locus in quo, through the defect of fence, must show that they were passing on the highway when they escaped; it is not sufficient to state that being in the highway they escaped.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 4015, (1795) 2 H Bl 527, (1795) 126 ER 684

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Jones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.356360

Garnett v Ferrand And Another: 28 May 1827

No action will lie against the Judge of a Court of Record for an act done by him in his judicial capacity, and therefore trespass cannot be maintained against a coroner for turning a person out of a room where he is about to take an inquisition.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: ‘This freedom from action and question of the suit of an individual is given by the law to the Judges, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the public, and for the advancement of justice, that being free from actions, they may be free in thought and independence in judgment, as all who are to administer justice ought to be.’
‘There is not any occasion to inquire into the power of the coroner before Magna Charta, for by c 17 his power to hold pleas of the Crown was taken away. ‘No sheriff, constable, escheator, coroner, nor any other our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.’ Upon this, Lord Coke says, ‘And what authority had the coroner? The same authority he now hath, in case when any man come to violent or untimely death, super visum corporis, ande., abjurations and outlawries, ande., appeals of death by bill, ande. This authority of the coroner, viz. the coroner solely to take an indictment super visum corporis, and to take an appeal, and to enter the appeal ; and the count remaineth to this day. But he can proceed no further, either upon the indictment or appeal, but to deliver them over to the justices: and this is saved to them by Stat. Westm. 1, c. 10.’It may, however, be said, that as to some matters arising out of this inquiry, the inquest of the coroner is final, ex. gr., that the deceased was felo de se ; that a certain thing was deodand; that a certain person was guilty, and fled for it. There are one or two dicta in the books that these findings are not traversable. But it appears by the best authorities, that the inquests of the coroner are in no case conclusive, and that any one affected by them, either collaterally or otherwise, may deny their authority, and put them in issue .’

Judges:

Lord Tenterden CJ

Citations:

[1827] EngR 492, (1827) 6 B and C 611, (1827) 108 ER 576

Links:

Commonlii

Coroners, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.324246

Bassford v Blakesley: 27 Jan 1842

Where deeds are impeached for fraud, the mere allegation of fraud by the bill will not entitle the Plaintiff to an order for their production ; on the other hand, in order to obtain a production, it is not necessary that the fraud should be admitted by the answer, the Court must look at the circumstances of each case.
Order made for the production of a deed impeached for fraud, though the fraud was denied by the answer, the case on the whole being such as to render an inspection proper.

Citations:

[1842] EngR 189, (1842) 6 Beav 131, (1842) 49 ER 775

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.307144

Railton v Mathews and Leonard and Another: 14 Jun 1844

A party became surety in a bond for the fidelity of a commission agent to his employers. After some time the employers discovered irregularities in the agent’s accounts, and put the bond in suit. The surety then instituted a suit to avoid the ‘bond, on the ground of concealment by the employers of material circumstances affecting the agent’s credit prior to the date of the bond, and which, if communicated to the surety, would have prevented him from undertaking the obligation. On the trial of an issue whether the surety was induced to sign the bond by undue Concealment or deception on the part of the employers, the presiding Judge directed the jury, that the concealment, to be undue, must be wilful and intentional, with a view to the advantages the employers were thereby to gain : Held by the Lords (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session) that the direction was wrong in point of law. Mere non-communication of circumstances affecting the situation of the parties, material for the surety to be acquainted with, and within the knowledge of the person obtaining a surety bond, is undue concealment, though not wilful or intentional, or with a view to any advantage tor himself.

Citations:

[1844] EngR 683, (1844) 10 Cl and Fin 934, (1844) 8 ER 993

Links:

Commonlii

Agency, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.305275

Chittenden v Day: 1860

A memorandum stamped as a receipt having been rejected, because requiring a stamp as an agreement, an agreement for the hire of goods of which the value was mentioned only by reference to the receipt, was held not to require a stamp, the value of the hire not appearing to exceed the amount of 20L, and the rejected receipt allowed to be looked at, with reference to the real date of the transaction, and in order to show fraud.
Trover by the plaintiff its assignee of one Grainger, an insolvent.
Pleas. Not gullty and not possessed.

Citations:

[1860] EngR 34 (B), (1860) 2 F and F 77

Links:

Commonlii

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.284873

Southern Portland Cement Ltd v Cooper: PC 1974

Since the duty of an occupier towards a trespasser was based not on the relationship forced upon him but on consideration of humanity, the occupier’s duty only arose if he had knowledge of or had created the danger on his land; that no unreasonable burden was to be placed on an occupier and accordingly an occupier was entitled to consider all the disadvantages to himself in taking action for the protection of trespassers and weigh them against the degree of likelihood of trespassers and the degree of hidden or unexpected danger to which trespassers may be exposed: ‘If the occupier creates the danger when he knows that there is a chance that trespassers will come that way and will not see or realise the danger he may have to do more. There may be difficult cases where the occupier will be hampered in the conduct of his own affairs if he has to take elaborate precautions. But in the present case it would have been easy to prevent the development of the dangerous situation which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The more serious the danger the greater is the obligation to avoid it. And if the dangerous thing or something near it is an allurement to children that may greatly increase the chance that children will come there.
Next comes the question to whom does the occupier owe a duty. Their Lordships have already rejected the view that no duty is owed unless the advent of a trespasser is extremely probable. It was argued that the duty could be limited to cases where the coming of trespassers is more probable than not’
Lord Reid said: ‘Next comes the question to whom does the occupier owe a duty. Their Lordships have already rejected the view that no duty is owed unless the advent of a trespasser is extremely probable. It was argued that the duty could be limited to cases where the coming of trespassers is more probable than not. Their Lordships can find neither principle nor authority nor any practical reason to justify such a limitation. The only rational or practical answer would seem to be that the occupier is entitled to neglect a bare possibility that trespassers may come to a particular place on his land but is bound at least to give consideration to the matter when he knows facts which show a substantial chance that they may come there.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1974] AC 623, [1974] 2 WLR 152, [1974] 1 All ER 87

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rose v Plenty CA 7-Jul-1975
Contrary to his employers orders, a milkman allowed children to assist him in his milkround. One was injured, and sued the milkman’s employer.
Held: The milkman had not gone so far outside the activities for which he was employed for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.278319

British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited: CA 2 Jan 1984

The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US. That action alleged conspiracy by the plaintiffs to work together to put the defendant out of business on the North Atlantic route by anticompetitive practices outlawed under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
Held: The torts alleged were offences in the US but not here. The plaintiffs’ appeal failed.

Citations:

[1984] QB 186

Citing:

Appeal from – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited 1984
Laker began an action in the US seeking damages under the US Sherman and Clayton Acts against other airlines, including British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. They said that the other airlines had combined in a conspiracy to undermine . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.270739

Mohammed Amin v Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee: PC 1947

The Board considered an action for malicious prosecution. Sir John Beaumont said: ‘The foundation of the action lies in abuse of the process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in motion, and it is designed to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose. The plaintiff must prove that the proceedings instituted against him were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour (if that be possible), and that he has suffered damage. As long ago as 1698 it was held by Holt CJ in Savile v Roberts that damages might be claimed in an action under three heads, (1) damage to the person, (2) damage to property, and (3) damage to reputation, and that rule has prevailed ever since. That the word ‘prosecution’ in the title of the action is not used in the technical sense which it bears in criminal law is shown by the fact that the action lies for the malicious prosecution of certain classes of civil proceedings, for instance, falsely and maliciously presenting a petition in bankruptcy or a petition to wind up a company ( Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre ). The reason why the action does not lie for falsely and maliciously prosecuting an ordinary civil action is, as explained by Bowen LJ in the last mentioned case, that such a case does not necessarily and naturally involve damage to the party sued. A civil action which is false will be dismissed at the hearing. The defendant’s reputation will be cleared of any imputations made against him, and he will be indemnified against his expenses by the award of costs against his opponent. … but a criminal charge involving scandal to reputation or the possible loss of life or liberty to the party charged does necessarily and naturally involve damage, and in such a case damage to reputation will be presumed.’

Judges:

Sir John Beaumont

Citations:

[1947] AC322

Citing:

Cited – Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co v Eyre CA 26-Jun-1883
The court considered whether an action lay without proof of special damage for maliciously presenting a winding up petition.
Held: There was. Though there was no general cause of action for maliciously bringing civil proceedings without . .
Cited – Savill v Roberts 1741
The plaintiff, Roberts, was entitled to recover andpound;11 damages in proceedings for malicious prosecution, the defendant having maliciously caused Roberts to be indicted for causing a riot, and Roberts having been acquitted. The andpound;11 was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gregory v Portsmouth City Council CA 5-Nov-1997
The plaintiff councillor had been disciplined by the defendant for allegations. The findings were later overturned, and he now sought damages alleging malicious prosecution.
Held: The categories of malicious prosecution are closed, and it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.267524

Berry v British Transport Commission: QBD 1961

Although in civil cases extra costs incurred in excess of the sum allowed on taxation could not be recovered as damages, the Court was not compelled to extend that rule (based as it is on a somewhat dubious presumption) to criminal proceedings in which an award of costs would not necessarily amount to a complete indemnity for costs properly incurred.
Although therefore it could be founded upon any form of legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal, the action on the case for malicious prosecution was usually brought in the wake of unsuccessful criminal proceedings; and in that regard an important aspect of public policy was engaged.

Judges:

Diplock J

Citations:

[1961] 1 QB 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Berry v British Transport Commission CA 1961
The plaintiff had been prosecuted by the defendant for pulling the emergency cord on a train without proper cause. After acquittal and payment of part of her costs, she sued for malicious prosecution, saying the damages were the part of her defence . .
Cited – Gregory v Portsmouth City Council CA 5-Nov-1997
The plaintiff councillor had been disciplined by the defendant for allegations. The findings were later overturned, and he now sought damages alleging malicious prosecution.
Held: The categories of malicious prosecution are closed, and it was . .
Cited – Crawford Adjusters and Others v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd and Another PC 13-Jun-2013
(Cayman Islands) A hurricane had damaged property insured by the respondent company. The company employed the appellant as loss adjustor, but came to suspect advance payments recommended by him, and eventually claimed damages for deceit and . .
Cited – Williamson v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 3-Sep-2014
(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.267525

Turner v Hockey: 1887

The owner of a cow gave a bill of sale over it (and others) but then asked the defendant auctioneer to sell it. He did not inform the auctioneer of the bill of sale.
Held: An auctioneer who unknowingly but in the ordinary course of business sells the goods of one person having been told they are the goods of another, and pays the proceeds of sale to that other, is not guilty of conversion of the goods. The original purchaser was not able to pursue an action against the auctioneer.

Citations:

(1887) 56 LJQB 301

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Marcq v Christe Manson and Woods (t/a Christies) QBD 29-Oct-2002
The claimant sought damages for conversion from the respondent auctioneers as bailees. The painting had been registered as stolen. It failed to achieve its reserve and had been returned.
Held: It was for a bailee to prove that he had acted in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.181337

Docker, Head, and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police: CA 17 Mar 1998

Immunity from suit for abuse of process attaching to judicial process was attached also to steps taken as part of the investigation of a crime with a view to a possible prosecution of the matter. Auld LJ said: ‘The whole point of the public policy reason for the immunity is to encourage honest and well-meaning persons to assist justice even if dishonest and malicious persons may on occasion benefit from the immunity.’

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 522

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.144000

Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd: QBD 31 Mar 2000

In a contract for the purchase of airplanes, the plaintiff claimed misrepresentation, and as a result, rescission and damages. The issue was whether, once the right to rescind had been lost, any claim for damages had also lapsed under section 2(2).
Held: The power to award damages was properly an alternative to rescission, which a judge could award where he felt that it was a more equitable solution. As an alternative, it fell with the claim for rescission.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-2000, [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 387

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not Followed – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .
See also – Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd ComC 26-Jan-2000
The claimant had bought an airplane from the defendant in 1992. It brought an action in misrepresentation. The defendant asked that it be struck out as without chances of success for delay and breach of the court rules.
Held: The court asked . .

Cited by:

Cited – Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels Gmbh QBD 21-Sep-2006
The claimant had licensed the defendant to use its trademarks in connection with the naming of their hotels in Germany. The defendants failed to pay their fees as agreed, the claimants terminated the license and now sought payment under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.90686

Spicer v Holt: HL 1977

Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘ ‘Arrest’ is an ordinary English word. Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not on the legality of the arrest but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases.’
Lord Edmund-Davies said that there is no separate tort of unlawful or wrongful arrest and that it is a species of false imprisonment because it has the effect of depriving a person of their liberty.

Judges:

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies

Citations:

[1977] AC 987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Murray v Ministry of Defence HL 25-May-1988
The plaintiff complained that she had been wrongfully arrested by a soldier, since he had not given a proper reason for her detention.
Held: The House accepted the existence of an implied power in a statute which would be necessary to ensure . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259574

Pollivitte Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Company Plc: 1987

An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise.

Judges:

Garland J

Citations:

(1987) 1 Lloyds Rep 379

Cited by:

Cited – Toth v Jarman CA 19-Jul-2006
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for nervous shock, associated with the alleged negligence of the defendant doctor in treating his son. It was said that the medical expert had not disclosed a conflict of interest.
Held: . .
Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.244628

British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000

The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of another’s trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though possibly ambiguous was not misleading: ‘the use was honest comparative advertising. I suspect the real reason BA do not like it is precisely because it is true.’

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

[2001] FSR 32, [2000] EWHC Ch 55

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 10(6), Comparative Advertising Directive of 6th October 1997 (97/55/EEC)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Gregory v Portsmouth City Council HL 10-Feb-2000
Disciplinary proceedings had been taken by the local authority against Mr Gregory, a council member, after allegations had been made that he had failed to declare conflicts of interest, and that he had used confidential information to secure a . .
Cited – Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd ChD 11-Nov-1996
The freedom for a claimant in registered design right to frame his claim, as to whether he asserts an infringement of the entire design, or limits it to the section infringed, is important.
Laddie J said: ‘This means that the proprietor can . .
Cited – Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions and Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber and another ECJ 4-May-1999
Registration is to be refused in respect of descriptive marks, ie marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the categories of goods or services in respect of which registration is applied . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc ChD 1998
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallonne ECJ 18-Dec-1997
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta ChD 8-Feb-1996
A party complaining about the use of a trade mark in a comparative advert is required to show some dishonesty. Section 10(6) of the Act was described as ‘home grown’ rather than derived directly from the Directive. . .
Cited – Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd ChD 1997
The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: ‘Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to . .
Cited – Estee Lauder Cosmetics GmbH and Co OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH ECJ 13-Jan-2000
Europa Approximation of laws – Cosmetic products – Packaging and labelling – Directive 76/768 – Measures to prevent advertising attributing to cosmetic products characteristics which they do not possess – Ban on . .
Cited – Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v J Townend and Sons (Hull) Limited (‘Advocaat’) HL 1979
The trademark was the name of a spirit-based product called ADVOCAAT. The product had gained a reputation and goodwill for that name in the English market and the defendants were seeking to take advantage of that name by misrepresenting that their . .

Cited by:

Cited – Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others ChD 31-Jul-2002
The trade mark owners sought to restrain the defendants from selling within the EU, articles bearing their mark which had been imported other than through their own channels. The defendants resisted summary judgement after reference to the European . .
Cited – Quinton v Peirce and Another QBD 30-Apr-2009
One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act.
Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Media, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.162997

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

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

Judges:

Arthurson QC

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 185

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.518585