Allegation of use of excessive force on arrest – removal of clothing

Judges:

Lord Justice Pitchford

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 114

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.543047

Collins LJ said: ‘The right of abatement by individuals is not regarded with favour by the law. In the words of Lord Hale: ‘because this many times occasions tumults and disorders, the best way to reform public nuisances is by the ordinary courts of justice.”

Judges:

Collins LJ

Citations:

[1901] 2 Ch 518

Cited by:

Cited – Lagan Navigation Co v Lambeg Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Co Ltd HL 1927
Lord Atkinson stated: ‘It has been well said that the abatement of a nuisance is a remedy which the law does not favour and is not usually advisable, and that its exercise destroys any right of action in respect of the nuisance.’
Concluding, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.541707

Freeman had recovered in debt against Waterer, and had a fieri fac. and the sheriff takes the goods, and returns, that he could not have buyers, andc. and that yet F. knowing that, hath sued another fieri fac. and F. upon that brought an action upon the case, and the better opinion was that it was well, although that F. had sued it in course. The 2 R. 3. 9. was urged to the contrary. But note, there it does not appear whether the suit was determined or not, and res adhuc sub. judice. ve. 5 E. 4. 126. 4. rep. 18. and in the Kings Bench, M. 43. 44 Eliz

Citations:

[1669] EngR 575, (1669) Noy 23, (1669) 74 ER 994 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Waterer v Freeman 1792
Waterer brought an action of the case against Freeman, and declared, that the defendant had sued out at Westminster. a fieri fac. upon a judgment given against him for the deferidant, for a trespass in Oxfordshire, in the King’s Bench to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.407415

Conspiracy – In placito transg’ quod conspiraverunt or indictari procuraverunt, if trespass be the principal and this but for agravation of damages finding one guilty is sufficient, but in a bare conspiracy not, though no vilianous judgment be given ex motione Sanders for imparl’ bringing mony into Court.

Citations:

[1685] EngR 2937, (1685) 3 Keb 118, (1685) 84 ER 627 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.399712

In action sur case tried in Middlesex the sitting after the last term on taking forth an attachment of privilege against the plaintiff; and to the intent he should not put in bail, be affirm’d to the baily of Westminster that his cause of action was 600li. falsely arid malitiously, ubi revera, he had cause onely of 40li. the defendant pleaded that he had cause of action to 200li. absque hoc that he affirm’d he had cause of action to 600li. on which issue, after verdict pro plaintiff, Winnington moced in arrest of judgment that no action would lie in this case on the reason of Dawson against Read, an action sur case for suing fieri facias, and levying goods after judgrnent satistied ; and by the opinion of the Lord Bridgman, and the Barons at Serjeants Inn on error after judgment in B. R. on verdict of 700li. the judgment was reverst, because the suing execution was a lawful act, and so it’s here, and the sheriff is to inform himself of the cause of action ; and here it appears there was a good cause of action, therefore the faux information to the baily is no cause of action. Jones pro plaintiff; Here is a wrong apparent, arid the writ in C. B. doth never express the cause of action, therefore the information to the sheriff is the direction ; and the sheriff hath no means to find whether there be any cause of action: and the case of Read and Dawson was grounded on the remedy given by law for suing action without cause ; but here is no remedy by costs or amerciaments, for a cause of action is confest, and this is a falsity in his own knowledge, and the jury have found it falso and rnalitiose, the Court agreed no action would lie for arresting a man without cause, by reason all may sue forth the King’s writ; but as the case of Don Cardendo, a high charge to prevent bail without cause of action, is cause of action sur case, being a collateral matter for which no remedy can be had otherwise ; and the only evidence here is the falso and malitiose, which being found, it’s sufficient, as Osbom’s case adjudg’d here last term; and unless this be admitted, great mischief would ensue, and per Curiam judgment pro plaintiff, and the like in the case of Skinner and Gunton.

Citations:

[1685] EngR 900, (1685) 2 Keb 546, (1685) 84 ER 342 (D)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Daw v Swaine 1714
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.397675

Povy, an Attorney of the King’s Bench, brought an action of trespass there against the Warden of the Fleet, who came into the Common Pleas and demanded the advice of the Court, because he is an officer of this Court, and therefore ought not to be impleaded elsewhere : but it was said by the Court, that because that the plaintiff hath also his privilege in the King’s Bench, as well as the defendant hath here, this equality of privilege shall render the parties at liberty ; and he shal have the benefit of the privilege who first begins suit : and so the Warden of the Fleet was advised to answer.

Citations:

[1687] EngR 595, (1687) 2 Leo 41, (1687) 74 ER 342 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.395647

Knowing that C owed H andpound;20 under a judgment debt and that H had died, D unlawfully arrogated H’s name to himself and thereby maliciously caused C to be outlawed for non-payment of the debt, as a result of which he was imprisoned for two months and suffered forfeiture of his goods. C successfully sued D for compensation for the loss and damage sustained as a result of the outlawry.

Citations:

[1687] EngR 129, (1583) 4 Leo 52, (1687) 74 ER 724 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

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

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.395181

Citations:

[1714] EngR 169, (1714) 1 Sid 424, (1714) 82 ER 1195 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

See Also – Daw v Swayne, Attornies of C B 1685
In action sur case tried in Middlesex the sitting after the last term on taking forth an attachment of privilege against the plaintiff; and to the intent he should not put in bail, be affirm’d to the baily of Westminster that his cause of action was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.390992

D had unsuccessfully prosecuted C for exercising the faculty of a badger (ie the right to deal in corn) without a licence. C successfully sued D for malicious prosecution and recovered damages equal to his costs of andpound;100 expended in the criminal proceedings. Parker CJ reiterated that an action would lie for the malicious prosecution of civil proceedings if the claimant could ‘show special matter which shows malice’. Later he said: ‘The difficulty, which stood most in the way of these actions, was the fear of discouraging prosecutions, and the regard to what was done in a legal course to bring offenders to punishment . . [But] requiring satisfaction from those who proceed out of meer malice and wickedness without any reasonable ground, will be no discouragement at all to him who honestly proceeds on reasonable grounds.’

Judges:

Parker CJ

Citations:

[1760] EngR 108, (1713) Gilb Cas 185, (1760) 93 ER 300

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

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

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.376447

In an action for a malicious prosecution of an indictment for perjury, it is necessary to state in the declaration every allegation proper to support the action ; namely, that the defendant falsely, maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable came, caused the defendant to be indicted, and to state the trial and acquittal.

Citations:

[1788] EngR 162, (1788) 1 Bro PC 101, (1788) 1 ER 444

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.368462

A commitment under a warrant which does not specify the crime the party is charged with, is false imprisonment and therefore, if a serjeant at mace justifies an arrest by command of the mayor, his plea must shew in certainty for what cause the arrest was made.

Citations:

[1791] EngR 132, (1791) Cro Jac 81, (1791) 79 ER 69 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.361647

An action on the case, founded upon the general custom of the realm, against the defendant, for negligently keeping his fire; and the plaintiff declared that the defendant in his close did light up a fire to burn the stubble, and ignem suum tam improvide and negligenter custodivit quod defectu debitae custodiae ignis sui pred’ the clothes of the plaintiff in the close adjoining were burnt. After a verdict for the plaintiff Gould Serjeant moved in arrest of judgment, for that this action lay not, neither for the matter of it, nor for the manner ; for an action lieth not on account of a fire lighted up iri a close, but only for fire in a house, for there a man must take care of his fire at his own peril, and it may properly be said to be his own fire, but out of his house it cannot be said to be his fire, and where it is not his fire an action will not lie, as it seems. 2 H. 4, 18 a, but if an action would lie for the matter, yet in the present case it is ill brought, for the plaintiff ought to have declared that the defendant exarsit vel ardebat his clothes, and not to have declared upon the general custom of the realm. Northey contra : An action lieth as well where the fire is lighted in the close as in the house of the defendant; an action was maintained lately for fire in the woodstack of the defendant; arid then the declaration is well enough, for the plaintiff says that by the improvident keeping of the fire the clothes of the plaintiff were burnt, which is now found by the verdict. Holt, C.J. The only qnestion is, whether the plaintiff ought not to have shewn a special negligence in the defendant.
The case was afterwards adjudged in favour of the plaintiff by the whole Court ; for the action is as well for a fire kindled in the fields of the defendant as in his house, for it is the defendant’s fire and kindled in his ground, and he ought to have the same care of a fire which he kindles iri his field as of that which is made in his house, for the duty to take care of both is founded upon this maxim, sic utere tuo ut non laedas alienum ; but if the fire of the defendant by inevitable accident, by impetuous and sudden winds, and without the negligence of the defendant or his servants, (for whom he ought to be answerable) did set fire to the clothes of the plaintiff in his ground adjoining; the defendant shall have the advantage of this in evidence, and ought to be found not guilty. But here the verdict hath found negligence in the defendant.
Therefore judgment for the plaintiff.

Citations:

[1792] EngR 2683, (1792) 1 Com 32, (1792) 92 ER 944

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Turberville v Stamp 1792
The defendant’s haystack spontaneously combusted and it was alleged that he had ‘wrongfully negligently and improperly kept his haystack so that it became liable to ignite’ and so be a danger to the claimant’s property. The jury were left to . .

Cited by:

See Also – Turberville v Stampe 1792
Case on the custom of the realm lies against a man for damage done by a fire he has lighted in his field. D. acc. 1 Bl. Com. 431. Unless such damage was occasioned by the Act of God. A master is responsible for all acts dons by his servant in the . .
See Also – Turberville v Stamp 1796
Action upon the case on the custom of the realm, for negligently keeping of his fire; declaring that the plaintiff was possessed of a close of heath ; that the defendant possessed of another close next adjoining ; and that the defendant tam . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.360895

Case for causing and maliciously procuring the plaintiff to be indicted for a riot. It was held by Holt, Chief Justice, it is not sufficient that the plaintiff prove he was innocent but he must prove express malice in the defendant; he likewise held, that this action is not grounded upon the conspiracy, but in the damage, and therefore the plaintiff must prove his damages, otherwise the action will not lie : but in a writ of conspiracy it is otherwise, and where such a writ is brought, if one is acquitted the other cannot be found guilty.
Holt CJ said: ‘if he shew any special matter, whereby it appears to the court that it was frivolous and vexatious, he shall have an action’.

Judges:

Holt CJ

Citations:

[1795] EngR 3039, (1795) 3 Salk 16, (1795) 91 ER 664 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See Also – Savill v Roberts CCP 1738
On a writ of error of a judgment in CB in an action on the case in nature of a conspiracy, brought by Roberts against Savill and others, for maliciously causing him the said Roberts to be indicted, with other persons, of a riot, of which he had been . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Savill v Roberts CCP 1790
. .
See Also – Savile v Roberts 1792
D had maliciously caused C to be indicted for riot. Following his acquittal C sued D for malicious prosecution. The court affirmed the judgment which had been given for C.
Held: It was irrelevant that D had not been part of a conspiracy. An . .

Cited by:

Cited – Savill v Roberts 1796
. .
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

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.355384

It is a good defence to an action for a malicious arrest, that the defendant, when he caused the plaintiff to be arrested, acted bona fide upon the opinion of a legal adviser of competent skill and ability, and believed that he had a good cause of action against the plaintiff. But where it appeared that the party was influenced by an indirect motive in making the arrest, it was held to be properly left to the jury to consider whether he acted bona fide upon the opinion of his legal adviser, believing that he had a good cause of action.
Bayley J said: ‘if a party lays all the facts of his case fairly before counsel, and acts bona fide on the opinion given by that counsel (however erroneous that opinion may be) he is not liable to an action.’

Judges:

Bayley J

Citations:

[1824] EngR 512, (1824) 2 B and C 693, (1824) 107 ER 541

Links:

Commonlii

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: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.327503

Quaere, whether an action for a malicious prosecution will lie against a corporation aggregate? Per Alderson, B., that it will not.
It has to be shown that the prosecutor’s motives is for a purpose other than bringing a person to justice.

Judges:

Alderson B

Citations:

[1854] EngR 661, (1854) 10 Exch 352, (1854) 156 ER 480

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

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

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.293518

The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant grappled with him. He wrested the bat from him and hit him on the head, causing his skull to fracture.
Held: The claimant’s claim for assault and battery failed both because the defendant was acting in self-defence and because it was defeated by the illegality defence.
The court considered the ambit of the defence of ‘ex turpi cause non oritur actio’: ‘In my view the principle applies when the claimant’s claim is so closely connected or inextricably bound up with his own criminal or illegal conduct that the court could not permit him to recover without appearing to condone that conduct.’ (Judge LJ) ‘In my judgment, where the claimant is behaving unlawfully, or criminally, on the occasion when his cause of action in tort arises, his claim is not liable to be defeated ex turpi causa unless it is also established that the facts which give rise to it are inextricably linked with his criminal conduct. I have deliberately expressed myself in language which goes well beyond questions of causation in the general sense.’ and ‘The medieval concept of outlawry is unacceptable in modern society. An outlaw forfeited the protection of the law. He could not invoke the assistance of the court to enforce non-existent rights. In the United Kingdom today there are no outlaws. However abhorrent the crime, whatever the subsequent conviction, the protection of the law extends to the criminal who enjoys rights not only in theory but enforceable in practice. This is the context in which the application in tort of the principle encompassed in the maxim falls to be examined.’
Judge LJ discussed the doctrine of ex turpi causa: ‘In my judgment, where the claimant is behaving unlawfully, or criminally, on the occasion when his cause of action in tort arises, his claim is not liable to be defeated ex turpi causa unless it is also established that the facts which give rise to it are inextricably linked with his criminal conduct. I have deliberately expressed myself in language which goes well beyond questions of causation in the general sense.’
Beldam LJ remarked: ‘I do not believe that there is any general principle that the claimant must either plead, give evidence of or rely on his own illegality for the principle to apply. Such a technical approach is entirely absent from Lord Mansfield’s exposition of the principle.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Otton LJ, Judge LJ

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 426, Times 05-Apr-2000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited CA 11-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order.
Held: There was no absolute . .
Cited – Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
Cited – Gray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
Cited – Moore Stephens (A Firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) HL 30-Jul-2009
The appellants had audited the books of the respondent company, but had failed to identify substantial frauds by an employee of the respondent. The auditors appealed a finding of professional negligence, relying on the maxim ex turpi causa non . .
Cited – Hounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
Cited – Patel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.188243

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 such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.

Judges:

Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1967] 3 All ER 129, [1968] 1 QB 379

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Watson v Christie 1800
A sea captain had one of his able-bodied seamen severely beaten so that he became extremely ill and likely to continue so for the rest of his life. When the seaman brought an action, the defendant set up by way of defence and in mitigation of damage . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Coney QBD 18-Mar-1882
A public prize-fight was unlawful. Spectators were tried at Berkshire County Quarter Sessions with common assault. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions directed the jury to convict the spectators of common assault on the basis that having stayed to . .
Approved – Fontin v Katapodis 10-Dec-1962
(High Court of Australia) The plaintiff struck the defendant with a weapon, a wooden T-square. It broke on his shoulder. The defendant then picked up a sharp piece of glass with which he was working and threw it at the plaintiff, causing him severe . .
Cited – Burrows v Rhodes 22-Mar-1899
The plaintiff was induced to enlist in the Jameson Raid of 1895, contrary to section 11 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, by the defendants’ fraudulent representation that it had the sanction of the Crown (which would have made it lawful). Kennedy . .

Cited by:

Cited – Blake v Galloway CA 25-Jun-2004
The claimant was injured whilst playing about with other members of his band throwing sticks at each other. The defendant appealed against a denial of his defence on non fit injuria.
Held: The horseplay in which the five youths were engaged . .
Cited – Kirkham v Anderton, The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester police CA 20-Dec-1989
The claimant’s husband hanged himself in Risley Remand Centre after the police had failed to warn the prison authorities that he was (as the police knew) a suicide risk. He was suffering from clinical depression and had previously attempted suicide . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.189992

leave

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 70

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Sinclair Investment Holdings Sa v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2005
. .
See Also – Sinclair Investment Holdings Sa v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and others ChD 30-Apr-2007
Claim for recovery of a proprietary nature in consequence of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance in a breach of trust. . .
See Also – Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Others ChD 30-Jun-2010
Lord Neuberger MR said that Carl Zeiss ‘supports the proposition that notice of a claim is not the same as notice of a right’. . .
See Also – Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Others CA 29-Mar-2011
The appellant challenged a decision that it was not entitled to a proprietary interest in the proceeds of sale of some shares which had been acquired with the proceeds of a breach of trust. Specifically, the claims gave rise to (i) an issue as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245863

The plaintiff owned property by the sea. It was swamped by the tide because the corporation, who had been granted land by the Crown subject to a condition that it maintain the sea-defences of the cob, had ‘wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure, prejudice, and aggrieve the plaintiff’ permitted these defences to become ‘ruinous, prostrate, fallen down, washed down, out of repair, and in great decay’ for want of necessary maintenance.
Held: Best CJ said: ‘Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that, is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such public officer. The instances of this are so numerous, that it would be a waste of time to refer to them’. The Chief Justice gave the example of a man to whom a clergyman refused to administer the sacrament, who was described as ‘thereby prejudiced in his civil rights’ because, under the Corporation Act 1661 and the Test Act 1673, receiving the sacrament within a specified period was a condition of eligibility for membership of a town corporation and of holding civil and military offices. The corporation had neglected its duty and the plaintiff was clearly entitled to be compensated for the financial loss he had suffered.
Obiter: ‘What constitutes a public officer? In my opinion every one who is appointed to discharge a public duty, and receives a compensation in whatever shape, whether from the Crown or otherwise, is constituted a public officer.’

Judges:

Best CJ

Citations:

[1828] EngR 701, (1828) 5 Bing 91, (1828) 130 ER 995

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Cited – Regina v Bowden (T) CACD 24-Feb-1995
The defendant, a maintenance manager, was accused of misconduct in public office. He had caused works to be carried out by other employees of the local authority on premises occupied by a friend when such works were not required under the . .
Appeal from – Henley v The Mayor And Corporation Of Lyme Regis HL 27-Jun-1829
Where a verdict was taken by consent on two counts, the Court, on the application of the Plaintiff, amended the postea, by entering the verdict on one, (to which the evidence applied,) though the Judge who presided at the trial declined to interfere . .
Cited – Watson v Sadiq and Another CA 16-Jul-2013
The appellant and defendant said that the agreement compromising their action, and embodied within a Tomlin schedule, had been reached by duress and was vitiated. He said that the Recorder had exercised undue influence in advising the need for a . .
Cited – Mitchell, Regina v CACD 12-Feb-2014
‘Is a paramedic employed by a National Health Service Trust in its ambulance service the holder of a public office so as to be subject to criminal sanction for misconduct?’
Held: The appeal succeeded; he was not: ‘the nature of the duty . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.239996

(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Mr Garrett claimed damages for financial loss and damage to her reputation caused by the alleged failure of the police to investigate her complaint that she had been raped by a police constable in a police station.
Held: The court relied on Three Rivers. Blanchard J agreed: ‘that it is insufficient to show foreseeability of damage caused by a knowing breach of duty by a public officer. The plaintiff, in our view, must prove that the official had an actual appreciation of the consequences for the plaintiff, or people in the general position of the plaintiff, of the disregard of duty, or that the official was recklessly indifferent to the consequences and can thus be taken to have been content for them to happen as they would’. The common law had long set its face against any general principle that invalid administrative action by itself gives rise to a cause of action in damages by those who have suffered loss as a consequence of that action.

Judges:

Blanchard J

Citations:

[1997] 2 NZLR 332

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England QBD 22-Apr-1996
In an allegation of misfeasance in public office, a complainant who says he has been affected by the alleged misfeasance, has sufficient locus standi to claim. Parliamentary materials are admissible to discover purpose of an Act, and not just in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Followed – Rawlinson v Rice 1997
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The plaintiff asserted that a non-molestation order had been made against him by the defendant District Court Judge without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice. He sued, in tort, for misfeasance in public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.240002

(New Zealand Court of Appeal) The plaintiff asserted that a non-molestation order had been made against him by the defendant District Court Judge without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice. He sued, in tort, for misfeasance in public office and breach of statutory duty.
Held: To succeed in a claim of misfeasance in public office a plaintiff must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that:
(a) The defendant is a public officer;
(b) The defendant was purporting to exercise powers conferred on him or her for the benefit of the public or a section of the public;
(c) The defendant either –
(i) acted for an ulterior or improper motive, with intent to injure another (described as ‘targeted malice’) or
(ii) knew that he or she was acting outside the power conferred, or was recklessly indifferent thereto, and that this was likely to injure the plaintiff (described as ‘non-targeted malice’); and
(d) this caused damage to the plaintiff.

Citations:

[1997] 2 NZLR 651

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Garrett v Attorney-General 1997
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) Mr Garrett claimed damages for financial loss and damage to her reputation caused by the alleged failure of the police to investigate her complaint that she had been raped by a police constable in a police station.

Cited by:

Mentioned – Watkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.240003

The claimant was walking home from the pub. He fell down an embankment by a road bridge taking a short cut, and was injured.
Held: The claim failed. He was not a licensee of the defendant when he walked over the embankment. Questions arising under the 1957 and 1984 Acts had to be answered by reference to all the circumstances at the relevant time.

Citations:

Times 10-Jan-2006

Statutes:

Occupiers Liability Act 1984 3(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.237836

(Supreme Court of New South Wales) The claimant sought damages alleging assault by the making of telephone calls.
Held: Threats made over the telephone were capable of amounting to an assault. Taylor J: ‘Mr. Staff’s first and second propositions can, I think, be best dealt with together. They are the ones upon which he most strongly relied. There are, undoubtedly, many authorities which show that mere words do not constitute an assault, however insulting or even menacing they may be, and that the intention to do violence must be expressed in acts . .
Whatever the reason may be, it is clear from the many authorities cited on this subject that mere words themselves are not sufficient to constitute an assault and that the threatening act must put the victim in immediate fear or apprehension of violence. For these reasons Mr. Staff contended that all threats over the telephone could not in law be capable of constituting an assault.
I am not persuaded that threats uttered over the telephone are to be properly categorized as mere words. I think it is a matter of the circumstances. To telephone a person in the early hours of the morning, not once but on many occasions, and to threaten him, not in a conversational tone but in an atmosphere of drama and suspense, is a matter that a jury could say was well calculated to not only instil fear into his mind but to constitute threatening acts, as distinct from mere words. If, when threats in this manner are conveyed over the telephone, the recipient has been led to believe that he is being followed, kept under surveillance by persons hired to do him physical harm to the extent of killing him, then why is this not something to put him in fear or apprehension of immediate violence? In the age in which we live threats may be made and communicated by persons remote from the person threatened. Physical violence and death can be produced by acts done at a distance by people who are out of sight and by agents hired for that purpose. I do not think that these, if they result in apprehension of physical violence in the mind of a reasonable person, are outside the protection afforded by civil and criminal law as to assault. How immediate does the fear of physical violence have to be? In my opinion the answer is it depends on the circumstances. Some threats are not capable of arousing apprehension of violence in the mind of a reasonable person unless there is an immediate prospect of the threat being carried out.
Others, I believe, can create the apprehension even if it is made clear that violence may occur in the future, at times unspecified and uncertain. Being able to immediately carry out the threat is but one way of creating the fear of apprehension, but not the only way. There are other ways, more subtle and perhaps more effective.
Threats which put a reasonable person in fear of physical violence have always been abhorrent to the law as an interference with personal freedom and integrity, and the right of a person to be free from the fear of insult. If the threat produces the fear of apprehension of physical violence then I am of opinion that the law is breached, although the victim does not know when that physical violence may be effected.’

Judges:

Taylor J

Citations:

[1969] 2 NSWR 451

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

Appeal from – Barton v Armstrong PC 5-Dec-1973
(New South Wales) The appellant had executed a deed on behalf of a company to sell shares to the respondent in the context of a long running boardroom battle. He said that the deed had been obtained by duress and was voidable. The respondent was . .
Approved – Regina v Ireland CACD 14-May-1996
Silent telephone calls which resulted in psychiatric damage to the victim could constitute an ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ for the purposes of section 47 of the 1861 Act. Swinton Thomas LJ said: ‘The early cases pre-date the invention of . .
Cited – Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation HL 1-Apr-1981
A ship belonging to the appellants had been blacked by the defendant union. Negotiations to clear the threat resulted in payment by the appellants to a welfare fund of the defendant. The company sought its refund saying that it had been paid under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235712

The economic tort of interference with a pre-existing contractual or legal position can also protect statutory interests.

Citations:

[1979] ICR 494

Cited by:

Cited – OBG Ltd OBG (Plant and Transport Hire) Ltd v Raymond International Ltd; OBG Ltd v Allen CA 9-Feb-2005
The defendants had wrongfully appointed receivers of the claimant, who then came into the business and terminated contracts undertaken by the business. The claimant asserted that their actions amounted to a wrongful interference in their contracts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.222999

The defendant entered into a five year solus tie agreement with the plaintiff which required the defendant before completing any sale or transfer of the garage or its business to notify Esso and procure such person to enter into a direct agreement with Esso in the same terms as the agreement between Esso and the defendant. During the continuation of the tie, another company acquired the shares in the defendant and procured it to transfer the garage to its own subsidiary without notice to Esso or procuring its subsidiary to enter into a direct agreement with Esso. Esso instituted proceedings against Impact and its subsidiary and sought a mandatory injunction requiring the subsidiary to retransfer the garage to Kingswood.
Held: The claim succeeded. If Esso had known the facts before the transfer had been completed it could have got injunctions restraining completion unless and until the transferee entered into the direct agreement with Esso which the tie required. He recorded the argument that it was now too late for the court to do anything about it. He rejected this submission. ‘There could be no clearer case than the present of an interference, namely, by Impact Holdings and Impact Motor as soon as they had control and were in a position to interfere, which procured not merely a prevention or hindrance to Kingswood in the performance of their obligations, but procured a direct breach by Kingswood of their contractual obligations. The interference was plainly deliberate and plainly direct.’ and ‘I am not asked to enforce an equitable doctrine which makes some party not privy to a contract nevertheless liable in certain circumstances to perform that contract. I am asked to enforce the personal liability incurred by a tortfeasor to undo the consequences of his tort which could have been restrained before it was committed. In a proper case, I ask myself: what reason can there be in principle why the tortfeasor should not be ordered to undo that which he has done?’

Judges:

Bridge J

Citations:

[1974] QB 142

Citing:

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 by:

Applied – Hemingway Securities Ltd v Dunraven Ltd and another ChD 16-Aug-1994
The lease contained a covenant against sub-letting. The tenant created a sub-lease in breach of that covenant and without the consent of the landlord.
Held: The head landlord was entitled to an injunction requiring the sub-tenant to surrender . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.216555

In a case alleging malicious prosecution, the existence of reasonable and probable cause is a question for the judge and not for the jury.
Lord Chelmsford said: ‘[T]here can be no doubt since the case of Panton v Williams, in which the question was solemnly decided in the Exchequer Chamber, that what is reasonable and probable cause in an action for malicious prosecution, or for false imprisonment, is to be determined by the Judge . . No definite rule can be laid down for the exercise of the Judge’s judgment. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances, and the result is a conclusion drawn by each Judge for himself, whether the facts found by the jury, in his opinion, constitute a defence to the action.’

Judges:

Lord Chelmsford

Citations:

(1870) LR 4 HL 521, (1870) 39 LJEx 177

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 – Alford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
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: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.196691

If there has been no intrusion upon the land of the plaintiff at all then the only remedy may be a quia timet prohibitory injunction: ‘But no-one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ‘Timeo’; he must aver and prove that what is going on is calculated to infringe his rights.’

Citations:

[1919] AC 999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd HL 1969
The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. Lord Upjohn said: ‘A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will . .
Cited – Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 26-Feb-2004
Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant’s land including areas not previously occupied.
Held: It was critical to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194592

‘The tort of deceit involves a false representation made by the defendant, who knows it to be untrue, or who has no belief in its truth, or who is reckless as to its truth. If the defendant intended that the plaintiff should act in reliance on such representation and the plaintiff in fact does so, the defendant will be liable in deceit for the damage caused.’

Judges:

Cresswell J

Citations:

[1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 684

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Another CA 17-Dec-1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
See Also – Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others (No 3) ComC 27-May-1998
A company making a false statement on a bill of lading would be held liable for the tort of deceit when it knew that the bill must be relied upon by bankers and others making arrangements on its contents. A claimant ‘cannot recover for a loss . .
See Also – Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another and Others (Nos 2 and 4) HL 6-Nov-2002
Fraudulent Misrepresentation by Company Director
Fraudulent bills of lading had been issued in order to rely upon letters of credit issued by the bank. The director signing the bills sought to avoid personal liability, saying it was the Act of the company. The defendant company also appealed on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187084

Citations:

[1992] 2 All ER 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Wainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.186861

A man mistakenly took the plaintiff’s suitcase from a train.
Held: As a gratuitous bailee his duties of care were limited.

Citations:

(1926) 1 DLR 312

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182763

The rights and obligations of a finder were considered. The court explained the balancing exercise required of the law when deciding to whom property should be returned and how the balance should be struck: ‘The rule as stated by Pratt CJ must be right as a general proposition, for otherwise lost property would be subject to a free-for-all in which the physically weakest would go to the wall . .’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ

Citations:

(1982) QB 1004

Citing:

Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary CA 22-Mar-2001
The police seized a car from Mr Costello, believing that it was stolen. The seizure was lawful at the time, by virtue of section 19 of PACE. The police never brought any criminal proceedings against Mr Costello, but they refused to return the car to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182766