Category: Torts – Other

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 teacher on mentally disabled child whilst on school trip to Spain. Such an assault was not a case of an authorised act carried out in unauthorised manner: ‘it is useful to stand back and ask: applying general principles, in which category in the Salmond test would one expect these facts to fall? A deputy headmaster of a special school, charged with the responsibility of caring for a handicapped teenager on a foreign holiday, sexually assaults him. Is that in principle an improper mode of carrying out an authorised act on behalf of his employer, the council, or an independent act outside the course of his employment? His position of caring for the plaintiff by sharing a bedroom with him gave him the opportunity to carry out the sexual assaults. But availing himself of that opportunity seems to me to be far removed from an unauthorised mode of carrying out a teacher’s duties on behalf of his employer. Rather it is a negation of the duty of the council to look after children for whom it was responsible. Acts of physical assault may not be so easy to categorise, since they may range, for instance, from a brutal and unprovoked assault by a teacher to forceful attempts to defend another pupil or the teacher himself. But in the field of serious sexual misconduct, I find it difficult to visualise circumstances in which an act of the teacher can be an unauthorised mode of carrying out an authorised act, although I would not wish to close the door on the possibility.’

Judges:

Butler-Sloss LJ, Thorpe LJ Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Gazette 26-Aug-1998, [1999] LGR 584, [1998] EWCA Civ 1208, [1999] IRLR 98, [1998] ELR 625, (1998) 10 Admin LR 573, [1999] BLGR 584, [1999] Ed CR 353, (1999) 49 BMLR 150

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Overruled – 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 . .
Criticised – Bazley v Curry 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) The court considerd the doctrine of vicarious liability: ‘The policy purposes underlying the imposition of vicarious liability on employers are served only where the wrong is so connected with the employment that it can be . .
Criticised – Jacobi v Griffiths 17-Jun-1999
(Canadian Supreme Court) A children’s club was not vicariously liable for the acts of an employee which took place in the employee’s home outside working hours. It was not enough that his employment in the club gave him the opportunity to make . .
Cited – Brown v Robinson and Sentry PC 14-Dec-2004
(Jamaica) The deceased claimant had been shot by a sentry employed by the respondent company. His estate appealed a finding that the sentry was not acting in the course of his employment.
Held: Older authorities had now been replaced by recent . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – KR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
Cited – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Mentioned – Maga v The Trustees of The Birmingham Archdiocese of The Roman Catholic Church CA 16-Mar-2010
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after alleging sexual abuse by a catholic priest. The judge had found the church not vicariously liable for the injuries, and that the archdiocese had not been under a duty further to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144687

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

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

Judges:

HH Judge Anthony Thornton QC

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 50 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Immigration, Prisons

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.520773

Raja v Mcmillan: ChD 22 Apr 2020

Claim against D for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and/or for deceit as a joint tortfeasor. C alleges that she was misled into buying a Flat by being falsely told that it was sold free of the affordable housing obligation imposed by a s.106 agreement. After C’s purchase of the Flat the Council pursued C and 8 other flat owners in the block for breaches of the planning conditions.

Judges:

Sarah Worthington QC (Hon) sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 951 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.650197

DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd: QBD 13 Mar 2020

Action against a football club in respect of historical sexual abuse by a coach against young boys.

Judges:

Mr Justice Griffiths

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 595 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Main Judgment – DSN v Blackpool Football Club Ltd QBD 20-Mar-2020
Indemnity costs award on ADR refusal
The claimant succeeded in his claim for damages for historic sexual abuse, and recovered more than his rejected offer for settlement. He now claimed his costs on an indemnity basis.
Held: ‘It is correct that an order for indemnity costs means . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.648928

Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2018

Action for damages for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and breach of s.6 Human Rights Act 1998. It is brought by Mr Phillip Rudall, a solicitor from Swansea who, between January 2002 and July 2013, was the subject of investigation by the South Wales Police Fraud Squad (‘SWP’) and two prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’).
Held: Dismissed.

Judges:

Lambert J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3287 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.631491

Zabihi v Janzemini and Others: CA 30 Jul 2009

The claimant said that he had left valuable jewelry with the defendant for sale. The defendant said at first they had been stolen, but then returned jewelry which the claimant denied was what had been left. The defendant appealed a finding that he had converted the jewelry left. The judge found that both parties had been dishonest as to the values.
Held: Since both parties had lied, the court could not rely on any presumption normally available against a destroyer of evidence. Since the defendant had substituted jewelry, the new jewelry should be assumed to be worth less than the originals. The judge had applied the correct principles to assess the evidence, and had the advantage of hearing the parties in a long trial. The appeal failed.

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 851

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd (Formerly STC Submarine Systems Ltd) CA 22-Jun-1998
Where damages were to be awarded for breach of warranty on sale of goodwill, an assessment according to a price earnings ratio was appropriate only if used in the contract or agreed as appropriate by the experts. In the context of a notice clause in . .
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 – Biggin v Permanite 1951
Devlin J discussed what a party must do to bring evidence to support his claim: ‘Where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it [but] where it is not, the court must do the best it can.’ . .
Cited – Chubb Cash Ltd v John Crilley and Son (a firm) 1983
The prima facie measure of damages for conversion of a chattel is the market value of the chattel at the time of its conversion. . .
Cited – Malhotra v Dhawan CA 26-Feb-1997
There had been litigation as to the payment due on fees earned during the partnership. One party had destroyed the evidence which would have settled many issues. The court discussed the principle that it should presume all against a destroyer of . .
Cited – Dover District Council v Sherred and Another CA 5-Feb-1997
In the context of an application to condemn a property as unfit for human habitation, the court was asked to consider ‘whether the County Court judge should adopt what he called ‘a commonsense, lay, factual approach’ in cases of this sort, or . .
Cited – Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd (Formerly STC Submarine Systems Ltd) CA 20-Dec-1996
. .
Appeal from – Zabihi v Janzemini and others ChD 28-Nov-2008
The claimant sought the return of jewellery of substantial value. The defendants said that they had been returned or sold and accounted for.
Held: The court must do its best on such evidence as it feels able to accept to place some kind of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Thwaytes v Sotheby’s ChD 16-Jan-2015
The claimant had sold a painting through the defendant auctioneers. He sought damages after it was certified to be an original rather than copy Caravaggio painting, and worth very substantially more. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.371880

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 contracts. An entire agreement clause limits the terms of the parties’ agreement to their written agreement and prevents a representation from assuming contractual force, but that it does not, without more, preclude or exclude liability for misrepresentation. As to the clause under which a party acknowledged that he had not been induced to enter the subject agreement by any representation, save those specified in a schedule.
Discussing the clause at issue, Jacob J said: ‘The problem is its scope. The Act of 1967 calls for consideration of the term as such. And it refers to ‘any liability’ and ‘any misrepresentation’. It does not call for consideration of the term so far as it applies to the misrepresentation in question or the kind of misrepresentation in question. The term is not severable: it is either reasonable as a whole or not. So one must consider its every potential effect. The clause does not seek to distinguish between fraudulent, negligent, or innocent misrepresentation. If it excludes liability for one kind of misrepresentation it does so for all. I cannot think it reasonable to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation . . It may well be, with a different clause, reasonable to exclude liability for innocent misrepresentation or even negligent misrepresentation. But since the width of this clause is too great I would have held it failed the requirement of reasonableness and was of no effect.
A possible route round this latter objection would be to construe the clause so that it did not apply to a fraudulent misrepresentation. This approach is artificial. It is unnecessary now that the 1977 Act exists to destroy unreasonable exclusion clauses. The construction involves creating an implied exception in the case of fraud. What about an implied exclusion of negligence? Or gross negligence? It is not for the law to fudge a way for an exclusion to be valid. If a party wants to exclude liability for certain sorts of misrepresentation, it must spell those out clearly’.

Judges:

Jacob J

Citations:

Ind Summary 08-Aug-1994, [1996] 2 All ER 573

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – National Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
Cited – E A Grimstead and Son Limited v McGarrigan CA 13-Oct-1998
. .
Not Followed – 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). . .
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 . .
Cited – Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd (Formerly STC Submarine Systems Ltd) CA 20-Dec-1996
. .
Cited – Senate Electrical Wholesalers Ltd v Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd (Formerly STC Submarine Systems Ltd) CA 22-Jun-1998
Where damages were to be awarded for breach of warranty on sale of goodwill, an assessment according to a price earnings ratio was appropriate only if used in the contract or agreed as appropriate by the experts. In the context of a notice clause in . .
Cited – Crehan v Courage Limited and Byrne and Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd and Langton v Inntrepreneur Beer Supply Co Ltd CA 27-May-1999
The court considered the validity of beer ties affecting public houses. . .
Cited – E A Grimstead and Son Ltd v McGarrigan CA 27-Oct-1999
The court considered the effect of an acknowledgement of non-reliance clause: ‘There are, as it seems to me, at least two good reasons why the courts should not refuse to give effect to an acknowledgement of non-reliance in a commercial contract . .
Cited – Floods of Queensferry Ltd, David Charles Flood v Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Construction Ltd TCC 17-Dec-1999
The claimant alleged that it had entered into a sub-contract relying upon misrepresentations made by the defendant, SCL that it was the main contractor, and that it was still trading. The defendant company operated through associated companies for . .
Cited – National Express Group Ltd v Campbell and Others SCS 7-Nov-2000
. .
Cited – LHS Holding Ltd v Laporte Plc CA 21-Jan-2001
. .
Cited – Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd CA 23-Feb-2001
The plaintiff had contracted to purchase software from the respondent. The system failed to perform, and the defendant sought to rely upon its exclusion and limitation of liability clauses.
Held: It is for the party claiming that a contract . .
Cited – Pankhania and Another v Hackney and Another ChD 2-Aug-2002
The claimant sought damages alleging misrepresentation of land sold at auction. . .
Cited – Huyton Sa v Distribuidora Internacional De Productos Agricolas Sa De Cv CA 24-Jul-2003
. .
Cited – Bottin (International) Investments Limited v Venson Group Plc Grant Scriven Clive Lawson Smith ChD 3-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Sere Holdings Ltd v Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd ChD 5-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Bottin (International) Investments Ltd v Venson Group Plc and others CA 22-Oct-2004
. .
Cited – Bottin (International) Investments Ltd v Venson Group Plcgrant Scriven Clive Lawson Smith CA 22-Oct-2004
Under a share purchase agreement, ‘notice of the claim had to be made in writing ‘specifying such details of the event or circumstances giving rise to such claim as are available to the investor and an estimate (if capable of preparation by the . .
Cited – The Rugby Group Ltd v Proforce Recruit Ltd QBD 2-Feb-2005
. .
Cited – Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group Ltd CA 17-Feb-2006
The parties to a contract disputed the meaning of the phrase ‘preferred supplier status’ in a service cleaning agreement. The Court was asked whether an otherwise unarguable case on construction could be saved from being struck out by reference to . .
Cited – Peart Stevenson Associates Ltd v Holland QBD 30-Jul-2008
Claim for damages for breach of franchise contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.185981

Deakin, JDeakin v Corbett, Corbett, Halifax Plc: CA 18 Dec 2002

The home owners requested the setting aside of the sale of their house after a re-possession, alleging impropriety, and that it had been sold at an undervalue. The respondent society had a rule that properties taken into possession could not be purchased by its own employees. The property had been purchased in breach of that rule.
Held: An impropriety which might allow a sale to be set aside would have to relate to the person taking possession. The lender had been deceived by its employee, and had not acted in bad faith, and no right was conferred on the original owners. The lender might have a right to avoid the transaction, but not the mortgagor.
Pumfrey J: ‘section 104(2) makes it clear that the purchaser is not protected if he has actual knowledge of the impropriety. But if the purchaser has no notice of the impropriety, then on the face of it he takes free. Thus, the completed sale by a mortgagee pursuant to his statutory power is vulnerable only if the purchaser has knowledge of, or participates in, an impropriety in the exercise of the power.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Scott Baker Lord Justice Schiemann The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey

Citations:

Times 28-Dec-2002, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1849, [2005] 1 WLR 964, [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 384, [2003] 1 WLR 964, [2003] 4 All ER 180

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 104(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Meretz Investments Nv and Another v ACP Ltd and others ChD 30-Jan-2006
The applicant challenged the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage, saying that the mortgagee’s purposes included purposes not those under the mortgage. The parties had been involved in an attempted development of a penthouse.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.178559

Regina v London Borough of Sutton, ex parte Jolley: CA 19 Jun 1998

The plaintiff, a boy, was injured when playing on a derelict boat left on council land. The council appealed an award of damages against it.
Held: A local authority may be liable for injury caused by a derelict boat not removed from their land which attracted children, but not for an injury arising from unforeseeable later dealings with that boat. Lord Woolf MR: ‘Even making full allowance for the unpredictability of children’s behaviour, I am driven to conclude that it was not reasonably foreseeable that an accident could occur as a result of the boys deciding to work under a propped up boat. Nor could any reasonably similar accident have been foreseen. Ironically the state of the boat was so poor that it made it less likely that it would be repairable or that boys would embark on doing the necessary repairs. The photographs of the boat and the evidence of Mr. Hall indicate that it was a fairly heavy structure. It would be by no means easy for the boat to be moved or raised. In deciding whether the accident was foreseeable it is important not only to consider the precise accident which occurred but the class of accident.’
Roch LJ: ‘If a result of its unsafe condition a child had been injured while doing so the subsequent claim for damages would have succeeded. Whether it would have succeeded on the basis of an injury resulting from the mere presence of the boat – as opposed to its unsafe condition – is a separate question which does not arise for decision.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf MR, Roch LJ

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jul-1998, Times 23-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1049, [1998] 1 WLR 1546, [1998] PIQR P377, [1998] 3 All ER 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 2(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council QBD 1998
The claimant, a boy was injured when playing around a boat abandoned on land owned by the defendant. He had propped it up to attempt a repair, and was crushed when it fell on him. He said that in not removing the boat they had been negligent.
Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) PC 18-Jan-1961
Foreseeability Standard to Establish Negligence
Complaint was made that oil had been discharged into Sydney Harbour causing damage. The court differentiated damage by fire from other types of physical damage to property for the purposes of liability in tort, saying ‘We have come back to the plain . .
Cited – Hughes v Lord Advocate HL 21-Feb-1963
The defendants had left a manhole uncovered and protected only by a tent and paraffin lamp. A child climbed down the hole. When he came out he kicked over one of the lamps. It fell into the hole and caused an explosion. The child was burned. The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Negligence

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144528

Morris v Kwik Save Stores Ltd: CA 26 Jun 1998

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the level of damages awarded to him after his wrongful imprisonment by the defendant.
Held: Refused: ‘I do not see that there is any point which is reasonably arguable before the full court if leave were granted.’

Judges:

Kennedy, Morritt LJJ

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144581

Yukong Lines of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia: CA 4 Jun 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144390

Phillips v Wiles: CA 2 Jun 1998

The claimant was a burglar. The defendant appealed an award of damages for having assulted the claimant in the course of the burglary. The claimant had suffered injury to his face from being kicked by the defendant after the defendant had tied him up and he was on the ground. The defendant said that some injuries were caused by accident, and the others in self-defence. The injuries were serious.
Held: ‘it defies common sense on the totality of the facts of this case to say that the defendant was using reasonable force in any sense when he kicked the plaintiff whilst the plaintiff was on the ground. It does not, in reality, accord with the defendant’s own evidence, and certainly does not accord with the evidence of Dr Milroy. ‘ Appeal denied.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 896

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for security for costs – Phillips v Wiles CA 17-Feb-1998
The claimant, a burglar, was injured by the respondent in the course of burgling the defendant’s home. His claim had been dismissed in all but a small part. The defendant farmer wanted to appeal. The claimant sought security for his costs.

Cited by:

Full Appeal – Phillips v Wiles CA 17-Feb-1998
The claimant, a burglar, was injured by the respondent in the course of burgling the defendant’s home. His claim had been dismissed in all but a small part. The defendant farmer wanted to appeal. The claimant sought security for his costs.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144375

London Borough of Lambeth v Pead: QBD 12 Feb 2013

return day for continuation of interim injunctions: ‘he first was a non-disclosure order made on short notice on behalf of the applicant (‘Lambeth’). The second application was to restrain the Defendant from harassing the officers, partners and employees of the First and Second Claimants, and the two personal Claimants in that action.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Tugendhat

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 212 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Information

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.470903

Alleyne v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: QBD 21 Sep 2012

The Claimant claimed for damages for trespass to premises, contending that the entry and search of his premises was unlawful (whether in itself or because he was assaulted during the course of entry); for trespass to the person, in that he was unlawfully handcuffed and deliberately kicked in the right eye and deliberately struck to the right ankle; alternatively that these injuries were inflicted from a want of proper care for his safety and in breach of a duty of care owed to him by officers entering the flat; and for false imprisonment, ‘for approximately 4 hours and 14 minutes between 13.55 hours and 18.09 hours’.

Judges:

HHJ Seys-Llelwellyn QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3955 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.470630

Towry EJ Ltd v Bennett and Others: QBD 14 Feb 2012

On the claimant taking over the company employing them, the several defendants had left to form their own investment business. The claimant said that they had acted improperly in encouraging clients to move with them, and alleged unlawful means conspiracy and breach of confidence, and cliamed losses of almost andpound;6 million.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 224 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.451442

Baron v Crown Prosection Service: 13 Jun 2000

Morison J said: ‘Equally, citizens have an unfettered access to the Courts to resolve disputes and to conduct those proceedings forcefully, causing legitimate aggravation to the other party within the procedural rules. Persons will or may feel harassed as a result of the lawful conduct of forcefully conducted litigation. On the other hand, if proceedings are being used for an ulterior purpose, namely not to air legitimate grievances but to cause distress to those involved in the process, then the line may be crossed and the acts may become unlawful under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Unreported, 13 June 2000

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cheltenham Borough Council v Laird QBD 15-Jun-2009
The council sought damages saying that their former chief executive had not disclosed her history of depressive illness when applying for her job.
Held: The replies were not dishonest as the form could have been misconstrued. The claim failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.346907

Moon v Kent County Council and Another: 1995

Citations:

[1995] 3 WLR 318

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ikea Ltd and Others v Brown and Others ComC 7-May-2009
Action short of standard for malicious prosecution
The claimants alleged a fraud by the eight defendants. The sixth defendant counterclaimed for damages alleging malicious prosecution. The claimant sought the strike out of the counterclaim.
Held: The allegations failed insofar as they related . .
See also – Moon v Kent County Council and Another CA 15-Nov-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.342125

Raglan Housing Association Ltd v Southampton City Council and Southern Water Services Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2007

The claimant sought damages in nuisance from the defendants saying that a channel for which they were responsible flooded causing damage. The defendant appealed a finding that the culvert had become a sewer. It had been a natural stream, but had been covered over and was now entirely surrounded by concrete. The second defendant appealed a preliminary finding that the culvert was a surface water sewer.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Where work has been done to the structure of a channel through or along which a watercourse flows, the statutory authority for the work could be such that it changes the character of the flow from that of a watercourse to that of a sewer. Whether it does will depend on the facts of the given case and the terms of the statute. However, the stream started as a watercourse, carrying natural ground water, as well as, inevitably, some surface water. It still starts in the same place and is still partly open there. The natural assumption should be that it still carries natural ground water. Therefore: ‘the status of the stream as it flows through the culvert as a watercourse has not changed, however much its appearance may have changed in that part, and whatever changes there may have been to its character and even its status elsewhere in the channel, both upstream and downstream.’

Judges:

LLoyd LJ, Toulson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 785, [2008] 2 All ER 44

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 219(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Shepherd v Croft 1911
Parker J said that ‘the mere fact that a natural watercourse is culverted or piped by the several owners of the lands which are intersected by it does not make it a drain or sewer so as to vest it in the local authority’ under the 1875 Act. . .
Cited – George Legge and Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation HL 1938
The question was whether the status of a natural stream could be changed to that of a sewer by the unlawful discharge for a long period of sewage into the stream. The claimant asserted that a right by way of an easement could be acquired despite the . .
Cited – Attorney General v Lewes Corporation 1911
The local authority was accused of discharging crude sewage into an intermittent partially tidal stream.
Held: Swinfen Eady J said: ‘The question then arises, is the culvert a sewer? The plaintiffs contend it is. The defendants dispute it. The . .
Cited – Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council v United Utilities Water Ltd CA 31-Jul-2001
Maghull Brook passed under a densely populated part of Merseyside, in an enclosed culvert constructed in about 1958. The question was whether this part had become a sewer before 1 April 1974, because of the culverting work. The parties discussed . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Tonbridge and Malling District Council CA 1981
The court was asked whether a culvert under a railway carried a sewer or a watercourse. It appeared that the construction of the railway had interrupted natural watercourses which drained a large catchment area, and the culvert was to carry the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Utilities

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.260133

Connor and others v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA 22 Nov 2006

The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for malicious prosecution after the obtaining of a search warrant.
Held: The appeals failed. There was no express power to use reasonable force and to temporarily those discovered in premises to be searched in order to execute a warrant under the 1968 Act, but one must be implied.

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Hallett LJ, Leveson LJ

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1549, [2006] Po LR 28

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Firearms Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.246346

Eliades, Panix Promotions Ltd, Panix of the US Inc v Lewis: CA 8 Dec 2003

The claimant had obtained an award of damges in the US, and had had orders made for its enforcement here. The appellants contended that the award, containing an element of ‘multiplied damages’ offended the rules which would allow its enforcement here.
Held: Since the original judgment the US court had restated its decision and clarified the elements of one single sum, and one part in respect of treble damages. The proper view of the rule was that it was an exception to the general desire to give effect to foreign judgments. The US had not signed any treaty for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments, and must therefore rely upon the common law. The award should be enforceable save to the extent where enforcement was proscribed. An English court could examine that judgment and enforce that part of it which did not infringe the rule.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Jacob Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1758, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 692, [2004] 1 All ER 1196

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.188643

Adams v Naylor: HL 1946

The House disapproved of the practice of appointing a nominee defendant in tort actions against whom damages could be awarded as opposed to a party with crown immunity. The House refused to entertain a claim against a nominated army officer arising from injuries which children had sustained in a derelict minefield.

Judges:

Lord Simonds

Citations:

[1946] 2 All ER 241, [1946] AC 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Adams v Naylor CA 1944
The court considered the practice of appointing a substitute defendant against whom damages could be awarded, ie to get around crown immunity. . .

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 . .
Followed – Royster v Cavey CA 1946
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured on her way to work. The Crown nominated the superintendent of a factory in which the plaintiff was injured as its occupier in order to allow the claim which would otherwise have failed for Crown . .
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.180524

Pollard v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police: CA 28 Apr 1998

Damages for assault by police dog.
Held: Though in principle reasonable force can be used in the course of assisting in the arrest of a suspected offender, that must always be reasonable and proportionate. The claimant’s appeal failed. The judge had properly taken account of all matters which he should have done, and no flaw in his reasoning had been found.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 732

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Farrell (Formerly McLaughlin) v The Secretary of State for Defence HL 1980
The purpose of pleadings is to enable the opposing party to know the case against him. Lord Edmund-Davies said that: ‘It has become fashionable in these days to attach decreasing importance to pleadings, and it is beyond doubt that there have been . .

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Chief Constable of Kent CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant had been bitten by a police dog while running away after being asked to provide a sample of breath. He was caught by the dog and then warned that if he attempted to run away again, the dog would be set to catch him. A struggle ensued, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144210

Abdollahi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 17 Apr 2013

The appellant had been detained for 26 months under immigration laws. He appealed against a finding that only 6 months of that period had been unlawful.

Judges:

Ward, Lightman, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 366

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472633

New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company v Jopes: 1891

(United States Supreme Court) The test of necessity as a defence to an accusation of assault is one of the actual presence of imminent danger and a reasonably apparent necessity of taking such action as was taken: ‘We hold, therefore, that the record shows that the exception to this instruction was duly taken, and pass to a consideration of the principal question, and that is, whether such instruction contains a correct statement of the law applicable. Its import is, that if the conductor shot when there was in fact no actual danger, although, from the manner, attitude and conduct of the plaintiff, the former had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that an assault upon him with a deadly weapon was intended, and only fired to protect himself from such apprehended assault, the company was liable for compensatory damages. In this view of the law we think the learned court erred. It will be scarcely doubted that if the conductor was prosecuted criminally, it would be sufficient defence that he honestly believed he was in imminent danger, and had reasonable ground for such belief. In other words, the law of self-defence justifies an act done in honest and reasonable belief of immediate danger. The familiar illustration is, that if one approaches another, pointing a pistol and indicating an intention to shoot, the latter is justified by the rule of self-defence in shooting, even to death; and that such justification is not avoided by proof that the party killed was only intending a joke, and that the pistol in his hand was unloaded. Such a defence does not rest on the actual, but on the apparent facts and the honesty of belief in danger. . . And the same rule of immunity extends to civil as to criminal cases. If the injury was done by the defendant in justifiable self-defence, he can neither be punished criminally nor held responsible for damages in a civil action. Because the act was lawful, he is wholly relieved from responsibility for its consequences.’

Judges:

Justice Brewer

Citations:

(1891) 142 US 18

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.244751

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others: QBD 11 Apr 2013

The claimant sought an order to restrain anticipated defamatory comments and evidence to be given to an employment tribunal.
Held: It could not be said as the claimant asserted that dfeences were bound to fail, and no determination should be made before trial. Nor were the claimant’spleadings yet to the required standard.

Judges:

Sharp J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 795 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Apsion v Butler QBD 23-Feb-2011
The defendant applied for summary judgement in his favour. The defendant had submitted to the Bar Standards Board a statement complaining of the claimant barrister’s professional conduct. The Board had later suspended the claimant after findings . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – William Coulson and Sons v James Coulson and Co CA 1887
Lord Esher MR said: ‘It could not be denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction before trial. It was, however, a most delicate jurisdiction to exercise, because, though Fox’s Act only applied to indictments and . .
Cited – Bonnard v Perryman CA 2-Jan-1891
Although the courts possessed a jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to justify except where it was clear that that defence . .
Cited – Trapp v Mackie HL 1979
Dr Trapp had been dismissed from his post by the Aberdeenshire Education Committee of which Mr Mackie was chairman. Dr Trapp petitioned the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the reasons for his dismissal. An inquiry was set up, and in the . .
Cited – Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
Cited – ZAM v CFW and Another QBD 7-Mar-2011
The parties were in dispute over the management of a trust. One sought an injunction restraining the other from publishing allegations of breach of trust.
Held: In the unusual circumstances, an order could be made. The claimant had put forward . .
See Also – Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others EAT 1-Feb-2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Admissibility of Evidence
In support of a discrimination claim the Claimant sought permission to adduce in evidence 39 hours’ worth of covert recordings which she had made of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Defamation

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472545

Gizzonio and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: CA 26 Mar 1998

A decision by a police station custody sergeant whether or not to grant bail to a suspect after charge, and on what terms, has immunity from action so long as it forms part of the process of prosecution. No abuse of process or malicious prosecution action or misfeasance in public office could be maintained against him for such a decision.

Citations:

Times 29-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 543

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Keegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.80850

Bourne Rail Ltd and Another v Ashton and Others: QBD 26 Jan 2018

The Claimants claimed Damages, an Injunction and other relief against the Defendants on the basis that they were all party to an Unlawful Means Conspiracy to take from the Claimants their work and operatives.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Forster QC

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 73 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Employment

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.604798

University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others: CA 15 Aug 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1305

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others QBD 10-Nov-2004
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village.
Held: The orders made were justified with the additional . .
Appeal from – University of Oxford v Broughton and others QBD 26-May-2006
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.245361

Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd: CA 8 Mar 2013

The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against the striking out of its action as ‘not worth the candle’. No damage was pleaded, and the solicitors had selected the claimants.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘there is neither reality nor substance to the tort here alleged. It is not proportionate to permit the action to proceed to trial.’

Judges:

Laws, Arden, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 155

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barham v Lord Huntingfield CA 1913
The plaintiff pleaded that on a day at the end of 1910 or early in 1911 the defendant published specified defamatory words to Le Grys and further during the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 the defendant published similar words. The slander imputed immoral . .
Cited – Glennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
Cited – Proctor v Bayley CA 1889
A final injunction was refused in a patent case because, although the defendant had been found to infringe, the court did not accept there was any basis to infer that there would be a continuance of the wrongful activity to justify a quia timet . .
Cited – Joyce v Sengupta and Another CA 31-Jul-1992
The defendant published an article accusing the plaintiff of theft. Not having funds to launch a claim in libel, the plaintiff obtained legal aid to claim in malicious falsehood. She now appealed against a strike out of that claim.
Held: A . .
Cited – Hays Plc v Hartley QBD 17-May-2010
Mr Hartley operated a news agency, and provided to the publisher of the Sunday Mirror, MGN Ltd, allegations of racism that had been levelled at the claimant company by former employees. The allegations were reported in an article headed ”KKK . .
Applied – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471546

Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 5 Mar 2013

The claimant said that the defendant, in its Top Gear programme in a review of its car, caused it damage through malicious falsehood and defamation. They appealed against a finding that the words used were incapable of bearing the defamatory meanings complained of.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Though there were falsehoods in the programme, the claiant had been unable to identify its losses.

Judges:

Maurice Kay VP, Moore-Bick, Rimer LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 152

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1952

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Skuse v Granada Television CA 30-Mar-1993
The claimant complained that the defendant had said in a television programme that he had failed to act properly when presenting his expert forensic evidence in court in the trial of the Birmingham Six.
Held: The court should give to the . .
Cited – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 28-Oct-2011
The claimant company manufactured electric cars. They claimed that a review of a car on the defendant’s programme ‘Top Gear’ included malicious falsehoods and was defamatory.
Held: The defamatory meanings claimed could not properly be . .
Appeal from – Tesla Motors Ltd and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Feb-2012
The claimant, manufacturer of electric cars, complained of a review of its car on ‘Top Gear’. It’s pleaded meanings had been rejected, and it now sought leave to amend its pleading to add new alleged defamatory meanings. . .

Cited by:

Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 24-May-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in a tweet by the defendant. The court now decided as a preliminary point, the meaning of the words: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’. There had been other but widespread (mistaken) allegations against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471332

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors and Others (No 2): CA 5 Mar 2013

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Rix, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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.

Defamation, Torts – Other

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471330

Smith v Chief Constable of Kent: CA 26 Jan 1998

The plaintiffs had sought to claim against the defendants for tort of malicious prosecution The trial had been vacated once on the defendants paying costs, and they made a second application, saying that more days were needed. That application was granted, and the claimants now sought leave to appeal adjournment of the trial.
Held: The application had no prosepct of success and failed. Though applications to adjourn arising from a party’s delay were now to be granted less easily, this was a case which required a full and proper hearing. This was not to give the police a privileged status, but the nature of the claims required a full hearing, which was not available without the adjournment requested.

Judges:

Roch LJ, Wall J

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 63

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Beachley Property Ltd v Edgar CA 18-Jul-1996
Witness statements which had not been served in accordance with the rules were not be admitted. Courts are to adopt a far stricter approach to applications for adjournment based on lack of readiness for trial than hitherto: ‘I would like to make it . .
Cited – Joyce v King CA 6-Jul-1987
An appeal was made against a refusal of an adjournment.
Held: Although the question of whether to grant an adjournment is essentially a matter of discretion, only if the decision refusing to grant an adjournment was wholly wrong should the . .
Cited – The Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sandoes and Others CA 26-Nov-1996
Where the Parties had fallen behind a court timetable, they should agree a new one which would not delay the trial. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143541

BT v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 16 Dec 1997

The plaintiff appealed against dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution brought against the Service.
Held: Actions for malicious prosecution, against the Crown Prosecution Service are to be examined closely to ensure that they are not a mere circumvention of negligence immunity: ‘The fact that someone in the Crown Prosecution Service may have been negligent or incompetent in the course of reaching a decision to commence or to continue the prosecution – whether by failing to evaluate the evidence correctly at the outset, or in failing to review the evidence after committal or in the light of new material – cannot, in itself, justify an inference of malice. If that is all the evidence that there is, the question of malice cannot be left to the jury. It is because, in many of these cases, that that will be all the evidence there is, an attempt to dress up a claim in respect of negligence or incompetence in the guise of malicious prosecution must fail. ‘ The question to be asked was whether there was ‘a proper case to lay before the court’.

Judges:

Kennedy, Judge, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Times 29-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 3000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hicks v Faulkner 1878
Before charging a prisoner, a police officer must have ‘an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would . .
Cited – Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 16-Nov-1994
The Court upheld decisions striking out actions for negligence brought by claimants who had been arrested and held in custody during criminal investigations which were later discontinued. The Crown Prosecution Service owes no general duty of care to . .
Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Cited – Brown v Hawkes CA 1891
The court considered the issue of malice as an element of malicious prosecution. It is a matter to be proved by the plaintiff or the case may be withdrawn, but in a proper case it may be inferred from want of reasonable and probable cause although . .

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, Legal Professions

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143399

Powell and Another v Boldaz and others: CA 1 Jul 1997

The plaintiff’s son aged 10 died of Addison’s Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had taken place post death. The allegations included conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.
Held: An unlawful act actionable at the suit of the claimant was a necessary ingredient of unlawful means conspiracy.
No duty of care was owed because the element of proximity was lacking.
Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘I propose to consider first whether a sufficient relationship of proximity existed. It must be appreciated that prior to April 17th 1990 although the Plaintiffs were patients of the Defendants in the sense that they were on their register, the only patient who was seeking medical advice and treatment was Robert. It was to him that the Defendants owed a duty of care. The discharge of that duty in the case of a young child will often involve giving advice and instruction to the parents so that they can administer the appropriate medication, observe relevant symptoms and seek further medical assistance if need be. In giving such advice, the Doctor obviously owes a duty to be careful. It was to him [the child] that the defendants owed a duty of care. The discharge of that duty in the case of a young child will often involve giving advice and instruction to the parents so that they can administer the appropriate medication, observe relevant symptoms and seek further medical assistance if need be. In giving such advice, the doctor obviously owes a duty to be careful. But the duty is owed to the child, not to the parents.’ and ‘After the death, the defendants may owe the plaintiffs a duty of care; but this depends upon whether they are called upon, or undertake, to treat them as patients.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ, Morritt LJ and Shiemann LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2002, [1998] Lloyds Rep Med 116, [1997] 39 BMLR 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, Fatal Accidents Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital HL 21-Feb-1985
Explanation of Medical Risks essential
The plaintiff alleged negligence in the failure by a surgeon to disclose or explain to her the risks inherent in the operation which he had advised.
Held: The appeal failed. A mentally competent patient has an absolute right to refuse to . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Cited – Hargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .

Cited by:

Cited – AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust QBD 26-Mar-2004
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference.
Binding – Applied – 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.

Health Professions, Negligence, Torts – Other, Health Professions

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.142399

O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex: CA 12 Dec 1997

Police, when using force to enter premises, must still give their reasons for effecting their entry, to the occupant, unless this was impossible or undesirable.
Buxton LJ said: ‘This paragraph strictly speaking did not apply in the present case, because no search was contemplated. It is, however, a strong indication of the importance and relevance of the officer who seeks entry explaining his authority, and certainly explaining the reason why he seeks entry. I therefore respectfully agree with the burden of Donaldson LJ’s judgment that a very important factor in deciding whether the police have proved that use of force to enter was necessary. . is whether before using force the police have explained the (proper) reason why they require entry, and none the less have been refused.’
Roch LJ referred to the ‘severe burden which a constable has to discharge when trying to prove that the use of force was really necessary in order to justify his use of force.’

Judges:

Buxton, Thorpe, Roch LJJ

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2891, [1998] 1 WLR 374

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Keegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside CA 3-Jul-2003
The police had information suggesting (wrongly) that a fugitive resided at an address. An armed raid followed, and the claimant occupant sought damages.
Held: The tort of malicious procurement of a search warrant required it to be established . .
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 . .
Applied – Linehan v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Oct-1999
Appeal by way of Case Stated against a decision convicting the Applicant of two charges of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. He had refused entry to officers acting under a section . .
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, Police

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.84447

FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others: CA 29 Jan 2013

The defendants had taken a secret commission when acting for the claimant. They had succeeded in their action and had an order in their favour, but had been refused a proprietary remedy for the sum received.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and a declaration made that Cedar had received the 10m Euros fee on constructive trust for the claimants absolutely.
Pill LJ described described the debate on the availability of a proprietary remedy as revealing ‘passions of a force uncommon in the legal world’.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Pill, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 17, [2013] 1 P andCR DG24, [2014] 1 CH 1, [2013] 2 BCLC 1, 15 ITELR 902, [2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 257, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 416, [2013] WTLR 631, [2013] 3 WLR 466, [2013] WLR(D) 32, [2013] 2 EGLR 169, [2013] 3 All ER 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Mankarious and Others ChD 5-Sep-2011
The claimants sought return of what it said were secret commissions earned by the defendants when working as their agents, and the defendants counterclaimed saying that the commissions had been known to the claimants and that additional sums were . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – FHR European Ventures Llp and Others v Cedar Capital Partners Llc SC 16-Jul-2014
Approprietary remedy against Fraudulent Agent
The Court was asked whether a bribe or secret commission received by an agent is held by the agent on trust for his principal, or whether the principal merely has a claim for equitable compensation in a sum equal to the value of the bribe or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Agency, Torts – Other, Equity

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470617

Nulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council: CA 24 Jan 2013

There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
Held: the appeal failed.
Toulson LJ said: ‘The judge’s finding that the cause of the fire was ‘very much less likely’ to have been arcing of the Boa cable than the cigarette end discarded by Mr Nulty was reached after a painstaking examination of the evidence and was properly open to him. Rational analysis of the Boa cable theory showed that it was highly improbable. It would have required a remarkable combination of unlikely events. The objection to the discarded cigarette end theory was of a different nature. There was no comparable scientific or practical improbability about it. Mr Nulty was working alone at the relevant place and time. He had the opportunity and could well have had the temptation to do what the council alleged. The objection to it was that he would not have been expected to behave in such a way, but the circumstantial evidence that he did so on this occasion was compelling.’

Judges:

Longmore, Toulson, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty and Others TCC 3-Nov-2011
There had been two fires at depots owned by the claimants. They brought proceedings against an employee, but his insurers repudiated liability saying that they had not been promptly notfied of the claim.
Held: The first fire was caused either . .
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Cited – Kiani v Land Rover Ltd Others CA 28-Jun-2006
Mr Kiani went to work at the Land Rover plant; his dead body was found in a tank in the area in which he worked. He had died of asphyxia. His personal representative sued on the basis that Mr. Kiani had accidentally fallen into the tank; Land Rover . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470553

Graiseley Properties Ltd and Others v Barclays Bank Plc and Others: ComC 24 Jan 2013

The claimants sought damages alleging that the defendant bank had manipulated the LIBOR bank rate whch was used to set interest rates on its loan. The defendant sought guidance as to the form to be taken by its electronic disclosures, and an order whereby the names of individuals involved in alleged manipulation of LIBOR only be referred to in open court both at the interim stage and at trial using a code.
Held: The order was rejected being an unwarranted derogation from the principles of open justice. There was an obvious and compelling public interest in establishing the true extent to which financial institutions had been engaged in the manipulation of LIBOR.

Judges:

Flaux J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 67 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Graiseley Properties Ltd and Others v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 29-Oct-2012
The claimant sought damages alleging that the wrongful manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate by the defendants had caused them losses. Loan facilities which they had taken out had been subject to interest rates set by reference to LIBOR. The . .

Cited by:

Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 19-Feb-2015
The claimant said that interest rate manipulation by the defendant bank had caused it losses in interest rate derivatives and SWAP agreements. In the course of that the claimants sought disclosure of internal documents. The defendants resisted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470560

Kevin Fox v United Kingdom: ECHR 20 Mar 2012

The claimant said that he had been severely assaulted by police officers when being arrested. He had been ‘tasered’ four times at least. The taser had been applied directly to the skin, rater than from a distance, and psychiatrist compared it to ‘extreme electro-convulsive therapy’. He was refused judicial review after the police investigation of his complaint found against him.

Judges:

Lech Garlicki, P

Citations:

[2012] ECHR 606, 61319/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Questions – Kevin Fox v United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2010
The claimant said that he had been severely assaulted by police officers on his arrest, and that the respondent had failed to provide a proper investigation and or remedy.
Held: The court replied with questions for the parties. . .
Cited – Morrison v The Independent Police Complaints Commission and Others Admn 26-Oct-2009
The claimant made a complaint of a serious assault by the police, by the use of a Taser. The defendant had referred the complaint to the IPCC, who said that they should investigate it themselves. The claimant said that to accord with his human . .
Cited – Jakobski v Poland ECHR 7-Dec-2010
The claimant, serving a long jail sentence, said that as a Buddhist, he needed a meat free diet. This was granted at first for medical reasons, but then withdrawn. All attempts failed, and he was mistreated by prison guards. The prison service . .

Cited by:

Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470467

Cummings and Others v The Ministry of Justice: QBD 17 Jan 2013

The claimant prisoners brought actions seeking damages for assault and other torts. They had complained of racist treatment and of the conditions of their segregation. The court now considered applications for the management of the case.
Held: Trial by jury was refused. The evidence sought to be presented as similar fact evidence was not such, since it dealt with the actions of prison officers other than those now defendants.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 33 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Principal judgment – Cummings and Others v The Ministry of Justice QBD 22-Jan-2013
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other, Evidence

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470147

SR v The Netherlands (Dec): ECHR 18 Sep 2012

ECHR Article 5
Article 5-4
Review of lawfulness of detention
Supreme Court decision declaring appeal inadmissible but nevertheless addressing the merits: inadmissible
Article 5-1-e
Persons of unsound mind
Court order for admission to psychiatric hospital for observation owing to concerns about applicant’s mental state: inadmissible
Facts – In July 2006 a public prosecutor submitted a request, supported by a psychiatric report, for provisional authorisation for the applicant’s committal to a psychiatric hospital. The Regional Court rejected that request and made an observation order instead, pursuant to which the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on points of law, inter alia, on the grounds that she had not been heard by the Regional Court before the observation order was issued and that Article 5 – 1 (e) of the Convention did not permit the detention of persons purely for observation for the purposes of determining whether they were of unsound mind. She left hospital three weeks after her admission. The Supreme Court subsequently declared her appeal inadmissible for lack of interest as the observation order had already lapsed. However, in view of the relevance of the legal questions raised, it nonetheless addressed the merits of a number of her grounds of appeal.
Law – Article 5 – 1: A medical report drawn up by a qualified practitioner not involved in the applicant’s existing treatment had been available to the Regional Court and the Court was not disposed to doubt that it reflected genuine concerns that the applicant’s mental state was such as to justify at least her detention for a limited period so as to make sure. The fact that the applicant was released after three weeks’ observation and that her mental condition was never determined to be dangerous could not be decisive. The Court had previously interpreted Article 5-1 (e) so as to allow the detention of persons who had abused alcohol and whose resulting behaviour gave rise to genuine concern for public order and for their own safety. The same applied to persons in respect of whom there was sufficient indication that they may be of unsound mind.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
Article 5-4: In the case of S.T.S. v. the Netherlands* the Court had noted that a former detainee might well have a legal interest in the determination of the lawfulness of his detention even after his release, for example, in relation to his ‘enforceable right to compensation’, so that by declaring his appeal on points of law inadmissible as having become devoid of interest, the Supreme Court had deprived the proceedings for deciding the lawfulness of his detention of effect, in breach of Article 5-4.
In the instant case, however, while it was true that the Supreme Court had declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible (as the order appealed against could no longer be overturned), it was not thereby prevented from ruling on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. Although it did not accept the applicant’s complaints as regards the legality of her detention, it did actually express itself in her favour on the complaint that she had not had a proper opportunity to argue her case against the delivery of an observation order as distinct from a provisional order. Had the applicant brought proceedings to obtain compensation for damage, the court seized of the case would have found the Supreme Court’s opinion impossible to ignore. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision did not have the effect of depriving the applicant of a decision on the merits of her appeal on points of law. Nor was it established that the applicant had been prevented from enjoying the effects of that decision in so far as it was favourable to her position. S.T.S. distinguished.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Citations:

13837/07 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 2020

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Health, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467005

Stockwell and others v Society of Lloyd’s; Society of Lloyd’s v Henderson and Others; Lowe and Others v Society of Lloyd’s: CA 27 Jul 2007

The claimants sought to recover damages from the defendants in their alleged mishandling of their agencies. They had sought to amend the pleadings to add a claim for misfeasance in public office, and now appealed refusal of leave.
Held: the appeals failed. The House in Three Rivers had defined the tort, but there was little authority for what was meant by a public officer for the tort. Lloyds did not exercise a public office so as to bring it within the tort of public misfeasance.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Smith LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 930, Times 09-Oct-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 2255

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hilda Amoo-Gottfried v Legal Aid Board (No 1 Regional Committee) CA 1-Dec-2000
The claimant appealed an order dismissing her claim for misfeasance in public office by the defendant, for the way in which they had mishandled her membership of duty solicitor rota schemes.
Held: The court discussed the requirements for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Muuse v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant, a Dutch national, was detained pending deportation. He was arrested ‘for immigration’ after being given bail in other proceedings. It had been found that that detention was unlawful. He did not come within the criteria for deportation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.259668

Rex v Barnard: 1837

A buyer dressed as a member of the University to persuade the seller to give him credit.
Held: Active non verbal conduct can amount to deceit just as much as words can.

Citations:

(1837) 7 C and P 784

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v Bond Street Jewellers Ltd CA 4-Jul-2006
The claimant left a valuable necklace with the defendant jewellers for sale. The jewellers fell into financial difficulties, and the director gave the necklace as security for a loan to the company. The jeweller failed to maintain payments on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.242990

Alliance Bank Jsc v Aquanta Corporation and Others: CA 12 Dec 2012

Judges:

Lloyd, Elias, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1588, [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 819, [2012] 2 CLC 1027, [2013] 1 Lloyds Rep 175

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – King v The Victoria Insurance Company Limited PC 20-Mar-1896
Queensland – A cargo of wool was insured ‘at and from Townsville to London’. The lighter carrying the cargo to the ship capsized in the harbour. The insurers paid out and, taking an assignment of the action sued the defendant Government. The latter . .
Appeal from – Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corporation and Others ComC 14-Dec-2011
The defendants applied to have set aside the leave to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467056

Dubai Islamic Bank Pjsc v PSI Energy Holding Company and Others: ComC 19 Apr 2011

The bank claimant alleged that it was the victim of a substantial fraud. Defendants now sought the setting aside of worldwide asset freezing orders and some denied that the court had proper jurisdiction.

Judges:

Beatson J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1019 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Jurisdiction

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.432857

Mortgage Agency Services Number Four Ltd v Alomo Solicitors (a firm): Merc 25 Oct 2011

(Birmingham Mercantile Court) The claimant lender alleged tortious involvement by the defendant firm of solicitors in a mortgage frauds committed by their clients.

Judges:

Simon Brown QC J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC B22 (Mercantile)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Legal Professions, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.449895

Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK and Another: AdCt 25 Jun 2012

The claimant company was engaged in tuna fish culture off shore to Malta. The defendant ship was owned by a charity which campaigned against breaches of animal preservation conventions. Fish were being transporting live blue fin tuna in towed underwater cages. The defendant ‘attacked’ the cages causing much damage, on the basis that the fish had been caught illegally. The claimant denied this. The parties now disputed the responsibility of the ship owner for the torts of its captain.
Held: The claim against the ship’s paper owners failed. The practical reality is that at all times it was SSCS which had possession and control of the ‘STEVE IRWIN’, and ‘Although beneficial ownership does not carry with it the right to possession and control, in this case it helps to explain how and why possession and control was as a matter of fact exercised throughout by SSCS. Though there was no bareboat charter and such an arrangement would be necessary to transfer the right of possession to SSCS. However, if, as was the case, SSCS and SSUK acted on the basis that the ‘STEVE IRWIN’ was in SSCS’s possession and control there would be no need for any such formal arrangement. Watson and the crew were acting on behalf of SSCS and not SSUK or SSCS and SSUK whilst on board the ‘STEVE IRWIN’ during the Blue Rage campaign and at the time of the incident.’
Hamblen J set out the principles for establishing accessory liability in tort: ‘In respect of the common design issue, persons may be joint tortfeasors when their respective shares in the commission of a tort are done in furtherance of a common design . . The joint tortfeasor needs to join or share in the commission of the tort which generally means some act which at least facilitates its commission. . . there is no tortious liability for aiding and abetting or facilitating the commission of a tort, even knowingly. There may, however, be such a liability if that is done pursuant to a common design . . In considering whether there is any such liability it is relevant to consider whether the person has been so involved in the commission of the tort as to make the infringing act his own’
and ‘In summary, it is apparent that none of the matters relied upon by the claimant were of any real significance to the commission of the tort. The main thrust of the claimant’s pleaded case was that the attack was directed or authorised or carried out by [the appellant]. Once it is found that Watson and the crew were not acting on behalf of [the appellant] the claimant has to rely on participation which is remote in time and place. Whether considered individually or collectively I find that the matters so relied upon are of minimal importance and played no effective part in the commission of the tort.’

Judges:

Hamblen J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1717 (Admlty), [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – The Koursk CA 1924
The navigators of two ships had committed two separate torts or one tort in which they were both tortfeasors.
Held: Three situations were identified where A might be jointly liable with B for B’s tortious act. Where A was master and B servant; . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc CA 1987
Persons other than the Attorney General do not have standing to enforce, through a civil court, the observance of the criminal law as such. However, Sir Denys Buckley considered that such a claim might be maintained as a representative action . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Cited – Unilever Plc v Gillette (UK) Limited CA 1989
Unilever claimed infringement of its patent. The court was asked whether there was a good arguable case against the United States parent company of the existing defendant sufficient to justify the parent company to be joined as a defendant and to . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .
Cited – SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another CA 11-Jul-2002
The appellant challenged dismissal of its claim for patent infringement. The judge had held that the design was obvious, involving essentially only the collocation of two known features.
Held: Collocation was no more than a species of . .
Cited – Monsanto Plc v Tilly and Others CA 30-Nov-1999
A group carried out direct action in protesting against GM crops by pulling up the plants. The group’s media liaison officer, while not actually pulling up plants himself, ‘reconnoitred the site the day before. He met the press at a prearranged . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fish and Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd Uk and Others CA 16-May-2013
The claimant company sought damages after their transport of live tuna was attacked by a protest group. They now appealed against a decision that the company owning the attacking ship was not liable as a joint tortfeasor.
Held: The appeal was . .
At first instance – Sea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.467653