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.  














Torts - Other - From: 1990 To: 1990

This page lists 20 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Smith v Swansea City Council; HL 1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 1453
 
The Ermoupolis [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 16
1990


Torts - Other, Arbitration
A claim for the tort of conversion fell within the phrase "any dispute arising in any way whatsoever out of this bill of lading".
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Naughton v O'Callaghan [1990] 3 All ER 191; [1991] CLY 1319
1990

Waller J
Torts - Other, Damages
In 1981 the plaintiffs had bought a thoroughbred yearling colt called 'Fondu' for 26,000 guineas. In fact a mistake had been made and its pedigree was not as represented. Its true pedigree made it suitable only for dirt track racing in the United States, not for racing in this country. This mistake was not discovered until about two years later by which time the colt had been raced unsuccessfully in the UK and its value had as a result fallen to £1,500; substantial training fees had also been wasted. The defendants did not dispute that there had been a negligent misrepresentation. The issue was damages. The defendants said that the actual value of the colt at the time of its purchase was 23,500 guineas and that the plaintiff's damages should be limited to the difference, 2,500 guineas: the 'diminution in value' test. Held: The ourt assessed the plaintiffs' losses, including consequential losses, as at the date of their discovery of the misrepresentation.
Waller J said: "Where an article purchased as the result of a misrepresentation could have been sold immediately after the sale for the price paid but by the time the misrepresentation was discovered its value had fallen by reason of a defect in it which had by then become apparent the appropriate measure of damages could be the difference between the purchase price and its value at the time the misrepresentation was discovered and not the difference between the purchase price and its actual value at the time of purchase provided that the article purchased was altogether different from that which had been expected."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Metall and Rostoff v Donaldson Inc [1990] 1 QB 391
1990
CA

Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
The court looked at how to establish where a tort was committed in order then to test its jurisdiction: "As the rule now stands it is plain that jurisdiction may be assumed only where (a) the claim is founded on a tort and either (b) the damage was sustained within the jurisdiction or (c) the damage resulted from an act committed within the jurisdiction. Condition (a) poses a question which we consider below: what law is to be applied in resolving whether the claim is "founded on a tort?" Condition (b) raises the question: what damage is referred to? It was argued for A.C.L.I. that since the draftsman had used the definite article and not simply referred to "damage," it is necessary that all the damage should have been sustained within the jurisdiction. No authority was cited to support the suggestion that this is the correct construction of the Convention to which the rule gives effect and it could lead to an absurd result if there were no one place in which all the plaintiff's damage had been suffered. The judge rejected this argument and so do we. It is enough if some significant damage has been sustained in England. Condition (c) prompts the inquiry: what if damage has resulted from acts committed partly within and partly without the jurisdiction? This will often be the case where a series of acts, regarded by English law as tortious, are committed in an international context. It would not, we think, make sense to require all the acts to have been committed within the jurisdiction, because again there might be no single jurisdiction where that would be so. But it would certainly contravene the spirit, and also we think the letter, of the rule if jurisdiction were assumed on the strength of some relatively minor or insignificant act having been committed here, perhaps fortuitously. In our view condition (c) requires the court to look at the tort alleged in a common sense way and ask whether damage has resulted from substantial and efficacious acts committed within the jurisdiction (whether or not other substantial and efficacious acts have been committed elsewhere): if the answer is yes, leave may (but of course need not) be given. But the defendants are, we think, right to insist that the acts to be considered must be those of the putative defendant, because the question at issue is whether the links between him and the English forum are such as to justify his being brought here to answer the plaintiffs' claim."
1 Citers


 
Hilton International Hotels v Protopapa [1990] IRLR 316
1990
EAT
Knox J
Employment, Torts - Other
The claimant asserted constructive dismissal. Held: The trbunal rejected a submission that the absence of any provision for vicarious liability in the 1978 Act indicated that the general rule that an employer is vicariously liable for his employee's acts done in the course of his employment did not apply. Knox J: "We do not regard this argument as compelling because the context of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is quite different from the context of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is dealing with a very wide multiplicity of different situations besides the master and servant employer-employee relationship. In relation to many of those relationships where there is no necessary contractual nexus, it was necessary in our view to define in general terms the circumstances in which employers were liable for their employees' actions. Accordingly there being a different context which justifies the inclusion of the specific provisions in s. 41(1) we do not think it right to draw conclusions from the absence of such a provision in the different context of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978."
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

 
Euro-Diam Ltd v Bathurst [1990] 1 QB 1
1990
CA
Kerr LJ
Contract, Torts - Other
The illegality defence was invoked in response to a claim on a property insurance. Held: The court noted the extension of the concept of ex turpi causa non oritur actio: "It applies if in all the circumstances it would be an affront to the public conscience to grant the Plaintiff the relief which he seeks because the court would thereby appear to assist or encourage the Plaintiff in his illegal conduct or to encourage others in similar acts." He expressed that principle at by saying that the test was whether "in all the circumstances it would be an affront to the public conscience to grant the plaintiff the relief which he seeks because the court would thereby appear to assist or encourage the plaintiff in his illegal conduct or to encourage others in similar acts." That question needed to be approached "pragmatically and with caution, depending on the circumstances."
1 Citers


 
Lonhro plc v Fayed [1990] AC 479
1990
CA

Torts - Other
The parties competed against each other in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff's bid was referred to the Monopolies Commission, and they undertook to purchase no further shares. The defendant's bid was not so referred, and the plaintiff claimed that the defednant had influenced the Secretary of State's decision by fraudulent misrepresentations, and claimed in damages for wrongful interference in trade. They appealed an order striking out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause. Held: In such an action it was necessary to demonstrate that the unlawful act complained of was directed at the plaintiff, and was intended to cause him harm. The precise ambit of the tort remained unsettled, and would be better resolved after the factual circumstances had been established. Appeal allowed.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc [1990] 1 QB 391
1990
CA
Slade LJ
Jurisdiction, Torts - Other
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York. Held: Slade LJ said: "The judge's approach to the limitation point was further criticised by the defendants' counsel on the grounds that, following the guidance given by Lord Goff in Spiliada relating to the treatment of a 'legitimate personal or juridical advantage' he should first have considered which was the appropriate forum without reference to the juridical advantage which M. & R. would enjoy by proceedings in England, and only if he decided that New York was prima facie the appropriate forum, should have gone on to consider whether, none the less, the limitation point rendered a trial in England necessary for the purpose of doing substantial justice between the parties. We think that the approach to this point suggested on behalf of the defendants is correct in principle and that at least on one reading of the judge's judgment, he did not follow it, but took into account the juridical advantage point in his initial search for the appropriate forum."
Slade LJ said: "Relief in tort under the principle of Grainger v Hill is not, in our judgment, available against a party who, however dishonestly, presents a false case for the purpose of advancing or sustaining his claim or defence in civil proceedings. This may well cause hardship to an injured party who cannot be sufficiently compensated by an appropriate order for costs. However, if there is a gap in the law it rests on sound considerations of public policy, as does the rule of law which gives immunity to witnesses against civil actions based on the falsity of evidence given in judicial proceedings. If the position were otherwise, honest litigants might be deterred from pursuing honest claims or defences and honest witnesses might be deterred from giving evidence."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd; CA 1990 - [1990] 1 QB 665
 
Middleweek v The Chief Constable of Merseyside (Note) [1990] 3 WLR 481
1990
CA
Ackner LJ
Torts - Other, Police
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for false imprisonment by the jury on the basis that his otherwise lawful detention at a police station had been made unlawful because it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep him in a police cell. Held. The defendant's appeal succeeded.
Ackner LJ said: "We agree with the views expressed by the Divisional Court that it must be possible to conceive of hypothetical cases in which the conditions of detention are so intolerable as to render the detention unlawful and thereby provide a remedy to the prisoner in damages for false imprisonment. A person lawfully detained in a prison cell would, in our judgment, cease to be so lawfully detained if the conditions in that cell were such as to be seriously prejudicial to his health if he continued to occupy it, eg, because it became and remained seriously flooded, or contained a fractured gas pipe allowing gas to escape into the cell. We do not therefore accept as an absolute proposition that if detention is initially lawful, it can never become unlawful by reason of changes in the conditions of imprisonment."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Snell v Farrell; 1990 - [1990] 2 SCR 311

 
 Regina v Portsmouth City Council, Ex parte Gregory and Mos; QBD 1990 - [1990] 2 Admin LR 681

 
 Jones v Swansea City Council; CA 1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 54

 
 Anangel Atlas Compania Naviera SA v Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co Ltd; 1990 - [1990] 1 Lloyd's Reports 167

 
 Jones v Swansea City Council; HL 2-Jan-1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 1453
 
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62; (1991) 19 IPR 147; [1990] EWCA Civ 21
16 Mar 1990
CA
Glidewell, Bingham, Leggatt LJJ
Torts - Other, Information
A newspaper reporter and photographer invaded the (famouse) plaintiff's hospital bedroom, purported to interview him and took photographs. Held: The law of trespass provided no remedy because the plaintiff was not owner or occupier of the room and his body had not been touched. Publication of the interview was restrained by interlocutory injunction on the ground that it was arguably a malicious falsehood to represent that the plaintiff had consented to it. But no other remedy was available.
Glidewell LJ said: "The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals."
He explained the ingredients of the tort of malicious falsehood: "The essentials of this tort are that the defendant has published about the plaintiff words which are false, that they were published maliciously, and that special damage has followed as the direct and natural result of their publication."
Bingham LJ said: "The problems of defining and limiting a tort of privacy are formidable but the present case strengthens my hope that the review now in progress may prove fruitful."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Davis v Radcliffe [1990] 1 WLR 821; [1990] UKPC 18
5 Apr 1990
PC

Torts - Other
(Isle of Man) Misfeasance in public office. Held: No duty of care was owed by financial regulators towards investors.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1; [1991] UKHL 1
17 Jul 1990
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Torts - Other, Health Professions
The parties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, through mental incapacity, unable to give her consent. Held: The appeal succeeded, and the operation would be lawful if the doctor considered it to be in the best interests of the patient. At common law a doctor cannot lawfully operate on adult patients of sound mind, or give them any other treatment involving the application of physical force however small ("other treatment"), without their consent. "[A]ny touching of another's body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass", but it is an essential element of the tort of battery that the application of force is without lawful excuse.
Mental Health Act 1983
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v The United Kingdom 12244/86; 12245/86; (1990) 13 EHRR 157; [1990] ECHR 18; 12383/86
30 Aug 1990
ECHR

Human Rights, Police, Torts - Other
The court considered the required basis for a reasonable suspicion to found an arrest without a warrant: "The "reasonableness" of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention which is laid down in Article 5(1)(c). The court agrees with the Commission and the government that having a "reasonable suspicion" presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. What may be regarded as "reasonable" will however depend upon all the circumstances."
As to the duty to inform a suspect about the reason and purpose of hs arrest: "Paragraph (2) of Article 5 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he is being deprived of his liberty. This protection is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph (2) any person arrested must be told in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph (4). Whilst this information must be conveyed 'promptly' (in French: 'dans le plus court délai'), it need not be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest. Whether the content and promptness of the information conveyed were sufficient is to be assessed in each case according to its special features."
ECHR Judgment (Merits) - Violation of Art. 5-1; No violation of Art. 5-2; Violation of Art. 5-5; Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 and 13; Just satisfaction reserved.
European Convention on Human Rights 5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Lewis and Evans v The Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary; CA 11-Oct-1990 - [1990] EWCA Civ 5; [1991] 1 All ER 206
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.