Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Negligence - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 30 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Holdlen Pty Ltd v Walsh [2000] NSWCA 87
2000

Giles JA
Commonwealth, Negligence
(New South Wales - Court of Appeal) Giles JA said: "but it is now more readily recognised that in causation, said to be a question of fact though tempered by value judgements and infused with policy considerations because with a view to allocating legal responsibility (March v E and MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506), an intentional act even of the person wronged may not break the chain of causation. The intentional act may be part of the chain of causation . .
Insanity is a concept of varying content, and the true enquiry (if the validity of any such enquiry be assumed) is into the worker's mental state so that it might be found whether his suicide should be regarded as an intentional act. The test of dethronement of the power of volition has been adopted, and it does not necessarily turn on insanity. The law recognises in context not involving insanity that the will may be overborne or subjected to such influences that, although the act is deliberate, it is not regarded as the actor's intentional act. In the context of duress, for example, Lord Simon said that duress "deflects, without destroying, the will of one of the contracting parties" (Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] AC 653 at 695) . ."
1 Citers


 
Zoan v Rouamba [2000] EWCA Civ 8; [2001] 1 WLR 1509
21 Jan 2000
CA
Henry, Chadwick, May LJJ
Damages, Road Traffic, Negligence
Appeal against award of damages for hire of vehicle by claimant after road traffic collision.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 284; [2000] BLR 97
28 Jan 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Wall
Construction, Negligence
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread. The fire passed over the top of the wall which was not constructed to good building practice. The claimant appealed a preliminary ruling that damages for part of the loss were unrecoverable as pure economic loss. Held: The claim amounted to a claim for an omission to act. In many circumstanmces it is not possible to draw a satisfactory line between misfeasance and malfeasance. There was no proper reason to differentiate between the original and subsequent owners. The judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and the appeal and cross appeal failed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
DS RL v Gloucestershire County Council and London Borough of Tower Hamlets and London Borough of Havering [2000] EWCA Civ 72; [2001] Fam 313
14 Mar 2000
CA
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Tuckey
Local Government, Negligence
The court considered and restated the criteria for liability set out in X (Minors).
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 W v Essex County Council and Another; HL 17-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 30 March 2000; Times, 17 March 2000; [2000] UKHL 17; [2000] 2 All ER 237; [2000] 2 WLR 601; [2001] 2 AC 592; [2000] 1 FLR 657; [2000] 1 FCR 568; (2000) 53 BMLR 1; [2000] BLGR 281
 
Connor v Secretary of State for Scotland Times, 22 March 2000
22 Mar 2000
OHCS

Employment, Health and Safety, Negligence
A prison governor sent out a warder with two violent prisoners where it was policy not to bring such prisoners together. The warder suffered injury as a result. There could be no breach of statutory duty where the governor exercised a discretion given to him as to how a statutory function was to be fulfilled. Nevertheless he might be liable in negligence.

 
Margolis v Imperial Tobacco Limited, Gallaher Limited, Hergall (In Liquidation) [2000] EWCA Civ 114; [2000] MLC 204
6 Apr 2000
CA

Negligence, Limitation
The court of appeal considered when it might interfere with the exercise of a judge's discretion to extend the limitation period. Held: The court "[will] not interfere with the judge's discretion unless it was exercised upon wrong principles, by reference to irrelevant matters or in disregard of matters which ought to have been taken into account. or unless it was plainly wrong."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Owners of the ship "SELAT ARJUNA" v Owners of the ship "Contship Success" [2000] EWCA Civ 121
11 Apr 2000
CA

Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex Parte F and I Services Ltd Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; [2002] HC Admin 327
14 Apr 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Lightman
Negligence, Customs and Excise, Estoppel, Administrative
The Commissioners gave advice to a tax payer, upon which the taxpayer relied, but the advice was incorrect. The law under which public authorities can be held responsible in negligence for the exercise of statutory functions is rapidly developing, and it is not possible to say that a claim against the Commissioners could not succeed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Slack v Glenie and others [2000] EWCA Civ 145
19 Apr 2000
CA

Damages, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Outram v Academy Plastics Ltd Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 141; [2001] 1CR 367
19 Apr 2000
CA
Tuckey LJ
Financial Services, Employment, Negligence
An employer, who also operated as trustee of the company's pension scheme, has no duty in negligence to give advice to scheme members as to how they should conduct their own membership of the scheme. No such obligation arises from the contractual relationship. Common law does not generally impose liability in tort for a pure omission. " Looking more generally at the nature of the duty alleged, it is, of course, a duty to avoid causing economic loss. Secondly, if there is a duty, breach of it will result in liability for an omission (failure to advise) in circumstances where it is not alleged that the company were asked or expressly or impliedly assumed any contractual responsibility to give such advice. As a general rule the common law does not impose liability in tort for what are called "pure omissions". In this respect it should be noted that in all the "advice"cases some advice had been given. The courts have had to decide whether it was given in circumstances which required the adviser to take care or whether a duty to do so, which was admittedly owed to some, was also owed to others. When advice has been given and a duty is owed the duty may be breached by omission but our case is one where no advice was given so it is one of pure omission."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pride Valley Foods Ltd v Hall and Partners [2001] 76 Con LR 1; [2000] EWHC Technology 106
4 May 2000
TCC
John Toulmin CMG QC
Negligence, Construction
TCC Contract - Project Management - Role of Quantity Surveyor acting as Project Manager - Duty to warn clients of fire hazards - Causation - Contributory Negligence - Test whether defendants are Partnership or Limited Company - role of experts in relation to evidence of Project Management
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
CLT v Connon [2000] SASC 223
8 May 2000

Gray J
Commonwealth, Negligence, Health Professions
Austlii (Supreme Court of South Australia) The father, the appellant, was accused of sexually abusing his three children. He sued for damages alleging negligence on the part of the medical practitioners who examined the children for signs of sexual abuse and on the part of the Department of Community Welfare who requested that police investigations be carried out and who took steps to ensure children were not returned to the care of the appellant - appellant's relationship with his children significantly impaired - appellant conceded that previous decision of this Court in Hillman v Black could not be distinguished - Master considered himself bound by Hillman v Black and struck out claim as disclosing no cause of action. Whether recent High Court decisions dealing with the approach to be taken to duty of care require a reconsideration of Hillman v Black - whether duty of care was owed to appellant by medical practitioners and/or Department of Community Welfare when investigating and reporting the claims of sexual abuse. Gray J "Devastating consequences can follow an incorrect finding that a child has been sexually abused. Those consequences flow not only to the person against whom the findings are made, but also to the child and the family."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Makepeace v Evans Brothers (Reading) (A Firm) and Another Times, 13 June 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 171; [2000] BLR 287
23 May 2000
CA
Mantell LJ
Negligence, Health and Safety, Personal Injury
Scaffolding is an ordinary piece of equipment on a building site. As a general rule an occupier of a building did not owe a duty of care for the safety of employees of its independent contractor. However, there may be occasions when such a duty of care might arise. It would be an unwarranted extension of the nursemaid school of negligence to hold a main contractor liable to the employee of a sub-contractor for failing to verify his training in the use of scaffolding on a building site. The main contractor's duties arose in favour of visitors to the site in respect of the condition of the site itself. Such judgements are not always easy or clear, since building sites and scaffolding are inherently dangerous places. Accordingly a main contractor was not liable in negligence nor under the Act where one contractor was injured as a result of using scaffolding erected by another sub-contractor. The person who erected the scaffolding was liable, but not in this case the site's main contractor.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council; HL 24-May-2000 - Times, 24 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1082; [2000] UKHL 31; [2000] 3 All ER 409
 
Mather v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] ScotCS 141
30 May 2000
SCS
Lord Osborne
Scotland, Personal Injury, Negligence
The pursuer sought damages for injury to her mental health, alleging it was sustained as a consequence of the fault of the defenders et separatim the fault of an employee of the defenders.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Greatorex v Greatorex and Others Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000
6 Jun 2000
QBD

Negligence, Personal Injury
Policy considerations meant that a person who injured themselves, could not be liable in negligence to third parties who suffered psychiatric injury having seen the incident. A fireman came to the rescue, by co-incidence, of his own son. As a rescuer, he was not owed a duty of care, and his relationship as father could not change that. To allow actions by relations in such circumstances would in general tend to encourage undesirable litigation, and encourage family strife.

 
Rahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust [2001] QB 351; [2000] EWCA Civ 190; (2001) 62 BMLR 84; [2000] 3 WLR 1184
15 Jun 2000
CA
Schiemann LJ, Laws LJ, Henry LJ
Damages, Negligence
The claimant had suffered a vicious physical assault from which the claimant's employers should have protected him, and an incompetently performed surgical operation. Three psychiatrists agreed that the aetiology of the claimant's very severe psychiatric disabilities was complex and that different elements of his mental troubles could be attributed to the two separate tortious incidents. Held: The court considered the relationship between the damage caused and the duty in negligence.
Laws LJ said: 'Once it is recognised that the first principle is that every tortfeasor should compensate the injured claimant in respect of that loss and damage for which he should justly be held responsible, the metaphysics of causation can be kept in their proper place: of themselves they offered in any event no hope of a solution of the problems which confront the courts in this and other areas.
So in all these cases, the real question is, what is the damage for which the defendant under consideration should be held responsible. The nature of his duty (here, in the common law duty of care) is relevant; causation, certainly, will be relevant - but it will fall to be viewed, and in truth can only be understood, in light of the answer to the question: from what kind of harm was it the defendant's duty to guard the claimant? . . Novus actus interveniens, the eggshell skull, and (in the case of multiple torts) the concept of concurrent tortfeasors are all no more and no less than tools or mechanisms which the law has developed to articulate in practice the extent of any liable defendant's responsibility for the loss and damage which the claimant has suffered.' In this case there was nothing in the way of a sensible finding that while the second defendants obviously (and exclusively) caused the right eye blindness, thereafter each tort had its part to play in the claimant's suffering.
Laws LJ considered the logical impossibility of apportioning the damage among different tortfeasors, and said: "The reason for the rule that each concurrent tortfeasor is liable to compensate for the whole of the damage is not hard to find. In any such case, the claimant cannot prove that either tortfeasor singly caused the damage, or caused any particular part or portion of the damage. Accordingly his claim would fall to be dismissed, for want of proof of causation. But that would be the plainest injustice; hence the rule. However, the rule was a potential source of another injustice. A defendant against whom judgment had been given, under the rule, for the whole of the claimant's damages had at common law no cause of action against his fellow concurrent tortfeasor to recover any part of what he had to pay under the judgment; so that the second tortfeasor, if for whatever reason he was not sued by the claimant, might escape scot free. Hence the Act of 1978 and its predecessor the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935. It provides a right of contribution between concurrent tortfeasors. The expression 'same damage' in s.1(1) therefore means (and means only) the kind of single indivisible injury as arises at common law in a case of concurrent torts."
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1) 2(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bailey and Another v HSS Alarms Ltd; CA 20-Jun-2000 - Times, 20 June 2000
 
David Yablon Minton v Kenburgh Investments (Northern) Ltd Times, 11 July 2000; Gazette, 20 July 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 202
28 Jun 2000
CA

Litigation Practice, Torts - Other, Negligence
An agreement 'in full and final settlement' of insolvency proceedings between a liquidator and directors, did not prevent an action in negligence against solicitors as regards the same contractual situation who had themselves issued third party proceedings against the directors under the Act. There is a difference between settlement and satisfaction. The second claim was sufficiently different, and might even give rise to a larger claim for damages. The settlement of one claim need not satisfy
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jebson v Ministry of Defence; CA 28-Jun-2000 - Times, 28 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 198; [2000] 1 WLR 2055

 
 Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; HL 27-Jul-2000 - Times, 01 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1607; [2000] UKHL 50; [2000] IRLR 720
 
Adams and Another v Rhymney Valley District Council Gazette, 03 August 2000; Times, 11 August 2000; [2001] 33 HLR 41; [2000] 3 EGLR 25; (2001) 3 LGLR 9; [2001] PNLR 4; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 777
3 Aug 2000
CA
Morritt, Sedley LL,
Negligence, Torts - Other, Landlord and Tenant
The landlord housing authority replaced windows with double glazing with locks on the windows with removable keys. Two children died in a fire in the house being unable to escape through the windows. The authority was not liable in negligence. They had followed the current standard practice in fitting the windows with locks of this type.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540; [2000] FCA 1099
9 Aug 2000

Gaudron J
Commonwealth, Negligence
Austlii (Federal Court of Australia) TORT - Negligence - non-feasance by public authorities - non-exercise by local government council and State government to minimise faecal contamination of lake where oysters grown commercially - oysters carrying hepatitis A virus - consumer of oysters contracting hepatitis A - whether duty of care owed to be discharged by exercise of statutory powers - causation - whether local government council and State government required to carry out sanitary survey of shore of lake.
TORT - Negligence - whether duty of care owed by commercial farmer of oysters to consumers of them breached where oysters carrying hepatitis A virus due to faecal contamination of lake in which oysters grown - oyster farmer's depuration plant not shown to be working unsatisfactorily - whether discharge of oyster farmer's duty required it to carry out sanitary survey of shore of lake or to urge public authorities to do so - causation of oysters contaminated with hepatitis A virus as a result of faecal contamination of lake where oysters grown - whether circumstances show it was unreasonable for consumer to rely on skills or judgment of grower - whether oysters were as fit for purpose as reasonable to expect.
Gaudron J: "Although different concepts inform the law of negligence, ordinarily there is a duty to warn only if there is a foreseeable risk that a person will be led to believe that something is safe when it is not."
McHugh J: "The duty of care owed by a manufacturer or producer to a consumer is a duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to the consumer. To formulate the duty in more specific terms invites error because it is likely to mix a question of law (whether a duty existed) with a question of fact (whether a breach occurred). If the duty is formulated in specific terms, the issue on breach is whether the duty has been performed in accordance with the terms of the duty as formulated. But, as Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [footnote reference to (1980) 146 C.L.R. 40 at 47-48, per Mason J., Stephen and Aickin J.J. agreeing] shows, the question of breach is far more complex than an affirmative or negative answer to the question whether the defendant carried out the duty as formulated. It involves evaluating and weighing a number of competing considerations."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Codd v Thompson Tour Operations Ltd; CA 20-Oct-2000 - Times, 20 October 2000

 
 Martel Building Ltd v Canada; 30-Nov-2000 - 2000 SCC 60; [2000] 2 SCR 860
 
Mensah v Islington Council and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 405; [2002] CP Rep 2
1 Dec 2000
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Arden LJ
Local Government, Negligence, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
Permission was sought for a McKenzie friend to address the court. Peter Gibson LJ said: "In accordance with the overriding objective of the CPR and to avoid the waste of today's hearing, attended as this court had earlier directed, by counsel for the defendants, we took the exceptional course in this highly unsatisfactory situation of allowing Mr Alexander to speak for Mr Mensah.
But I must make it clear that this should not be taken as creating any precedent as to how those who have no right of audience can act as advocates for litigants in person. Anyone who aspires to be an advocate should obtain the requisite qualifications, and the court should be very slow to permit those who are allowed to be present in court as Mackenzie friends to act as advocates. That is not the proper function of a Mackenzie friend. The position in law was recently restated by this court in R v Bow County Court ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807. I repeat and endorse the warning given by Lord Woolf MR at page 1825 that if a person chooses to appear regularly as a Mackenzie friend and uses the litigant as a mere puppet, such behaviour could provide a firm foundation for a judge not wishing him to be present as a Mackenzie friend."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 05 December 2000
5 Dec 2000
QBD

Negligence, Education
A school had a duty to protect its pupils from bullying, but that duty stopped at the school gate. Even though the school might know of the bullying, it would not be practical, nor just, nor fair, nor reasonable, to extend its duty in such a way. The school should take effective defensive measure, as regards what happened within the school. It could choose to take pro-active measures beyond that, but it should not be obliged to do so.

 
Michael Alexander Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd, World Boxing Organisation Incorporated Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 02 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 2116; [2001] QB 1134; [2001] PIQR 16
19 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Phillips MR
Administrative, Personal Injury, Negligence
The claimant was seriously injured in a professional boxing match governed by rules established by the defendant's rules. Ringside medical facilities were available, but did not provide immediate resuscitation. By the time he received resuscitation in hospital he had sustained permanent brain damage which such treatment would have prevented. Held: A body which had responsibility for licensing and setting conditions for the boxing matches was liable in negligence when, having assumed responsibility for the boxer's medical care, the standards it set were inadequate. The setting of rules could be akin to the giving of advice and thus had an indirect influence on the occurrence of the injury. Had the Board said nothing, it might not be liable, but once it gave advice by setting rules, it came to be responsible. If it had in place the appropriate protocols for provision of medical care, the claimant's injuries would not have been so severe. "It seems to me that the authorities support a principle that, where A places himself in a relationship to B in which B’s physical safety becomes dependant upon the acts and omissions of A, A’s conduct can suffice to impose on A a duty to exercise reasonable care for B’s safety." and "Had the board simply given advice to all involved in professional boxing as to appropriate medical precautions, it would be strongly arguable that there was insufficient proximity between the board and individual boxers to give rise to a duty of care. The board, however, went far beyond this. It made provision in its rules for the medical precautions to be employed and made compliance with these rules mandatory."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd Times, 20 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 348
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright
Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European
The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act? Held: The statute must be interpreted "in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: "though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. "
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1) - Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.