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: 1996 To: 1996

This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd v UPS Ltd [1996] 2 LL Rep 212
1996

Longmore J
Torts - Other
Longmore J sought to define the term 'wilful misconduct' as established by the authorities: "If I summarise the principle in my own words, it would be to say that for wilful misconduct to be proved there must be either (1) an intention to do something which the actor knows to be wrong or (2) a reckless act in the sense that the actor is aware that loss may result from his act and yet does not care whether loss will result or not."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep 200
1996

Longmore J
Vicarious Liability, Employment, Banking, Torts - Other
The Export Credit Guarantee Department was not liable to the Bank for the loss which the Bank sustained due to the fraud of one of its customers in which an employee was involved.
1 Citers


 
Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart (a Firm) [1997] 1 WLR 426; [1996] 3 All ER 344; [1996] CLY 5689
1996
CA
Hobhouse LJ
Torts - Other, Professional Negligence
The plaintiff purchased a book shop. He claimed that in doing so he had relied upon the accounts prepared and signed off by the respective defendants. Held: The judge had been wrong by testing what would have been the true figures as against those prepared when deciding what the plaintiff would have done. In deceit the plaintiff need only first to establish that there had been a material fraudulent misrepresentation. Had the plaintiff known of the deceit he would not have purchased the business, and therefore damages were to be calculated on that basis. Once he became aware of the misrepresentation, they failed to act upon an offer of purchase, and that was their own act, and damages were adjusted accordingly. Changes in the market were too remote and were not to be awarded. It then fell to decide whether the the torts themselves caused the loss. Since here if the figures had been true, the plaintiffs could have financed the purchase, no windfall was created by the award.
Hobhouse LJ said: "The judge was wrong to ask how they [the representees] would have acted if they had been told the truth. They were never told the truth. They were told lies in order to induce them to enter into the contract. The lies were material and successful . . The judge should have concluded that the plaintiffs had proved their case on causation . ."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Hyland v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary; CA 7-Feb-1996 - Times, 07 February 1996
 
Mcleod v Butterwick Times, 12 March 1996
12 Mar 1996
ChD

Torts - Other
Sheriff with walking possession has right to use force to re-enter for sale.

 
Downs and Another v Chappell and Another [1996] EWCA Civ 1358; [1996] 3 All ER 344; [1996] CLC 1492; [1997] 1 WLR 426
3 Apr 1996
CA
Butler-Sloss, Roch, Hobhouse LJJ
Torts - Other, Damages
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures. Held: Where a plaintiff has been induced to enter into a transaction by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or negligent, he is entitled to recover as damages the amount of the (consequential) loss which he has suffered by reason of entering into the transaction. The principle is the same. Where the representation relates to the profitability and, by necessary inference, the viability of the business, the plaintiff can recover both his income and his capital losses in the business.
"Causation and the assessment of damages is a matter of fact. In a misrepresentation case, where the plaintiff would not have entered into the transaction, he is entitled to recover all the losses he has suffered, both capital and income, down to the date that he discovers that he had been misled and he has an opportunity to avoid further loss. The diminution in value test will normally be inappropriate. Where what is bought is a business the losses made in the business are prima facie recoverable as is the reduction in the value of the business and its premises. Foreseeable market fluctuations are not too remote and should be taken into account either way in the relevant account. These cases do not however discuss whether there is any question of causation beyond the no-transaction test. In my judgment it may still be necessary to consider whether it can fairly and properly be said that all the losses flowing from the entry into the transaction in question were caused by the tort of the defendant. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd; CA 3-Apr-1996 - Gazette, 05 June 1996; Times, 08 April 1996; [1997] QB 897; [1996] EWCA Civ 1345
 
Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another Gazette, 10 July 1996; Times, 08 April 1996; [1998] QB 22; [1996] EWCA Civ 1356
3 Apr 1996
CA
Neill, Peter Gibson, Hobhouse LJJ
Torts - Other, Banking
Appeal by the Defendant from a judgment on an application for summary judgment under RSC Order 14 by the Plaintiffs, Camdex International Ltd judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs in the sum of Kuwaiti Dinars 20,595,557.429. The Plaintiffs pleaded that the Central Bank of Kuwait deposited with the Defendant the sum of Kuwaiti Dinars 15,000,000 for a period of a year at an agreed rate of interest. The deposit was renewed in a number of subsequent years with the interest being accumulated. The Central Bank of Kuwait and the Defendant entered into two further agreements which had the effect of rescheduling part of the Defendant's interest liability and extended the deposit of the principal sum and the balance of the interest for a further year. The Defendant paid a sum of 616,098 Kuwaiti Dinars during 1990 but otherwise failed to pay the sums due under the 1988 agreements. Having pleaded the indebtedness of the Defendant to the Central Bank of Kuwait, the Plaintiffs pleaded that the Central Bank of Kuwait assigned absolutely to the Plaintiffs the debts due under the 1988 agreements and that the Plaintiffs had given written notice of the assignment to the Defendant and that they had accordingly become entitled to the payment of the debt to them. Held: The appeal failed. There was no maintenance in the assignment of debt though litigation was required to recover it. It remains objectionable to traffic in litigation. The assignment had no essence in maintenance and was contemplated by statute, and was effective.
Law of Property Act 1925 136
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England; QBD 22-Apr-1996 - Times, 22 April 1996; [1996] 3 All ER 558; [1996] 3 All ER 634
 
Allason v Campbell and Others Times, 08 May 1996
8 May 1996
QBD

Torts - Other
Claim for malicious falsehood dismissed without evidence of financial loss.

 
Olotu v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Times, 08 May 1996
8 May 1996
QBD

Torts - Other
A prison governor was not liable for false imprisonment on a CPS' failure to extend the custody time limit.
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299)
1 Citers


 
Percy and Another v Hall and Others [1996] EWCA Civ 1348; (1996) 160 JP Rep 788; [1997] QB 924; [1996] 4 All ER 523; [1997] 3 WLR 573
10 May 1996
CA
Simon Brown, Peter Gibson, Schiemann LJJ
Torts - Other, Police
The claimants, demonstrators at Menwith Hill Station, asserted that repeated arrests for trespass were made under unlawful byelaws. Iparticular they said that the restrictions on trespass were unlawful, since the area was not clearly defined.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Times, 09 July 1996; [1996] 8 Admin LR 633; [1996] EWCA Civ 1311
24 May 1996
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Neill LJ, Waite LJ
Police, Torts - Other
The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed against the striking out of his actions for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and misfeasance in public office. He had remained in prison after conviction on another charge of murder. Held: The appeal failed. The public policy purposes underlying the immunity were essentially two-fold. First, as in Munster, namely '. . to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions' and secondly as in Roy v. Prior '. . to avoid a multiplicity of actions in which the value or truth of their evidence would be tried over again."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Percy and Another v Hall and Others Times, 31 May 1996; [1997] QB 924
31 May 1996
QBD
Simon Brown LJ, Schliemann LJ
Torts - Other, Police, Administrative
There was no wrongful arrest where the bylaw under which it was made was invalid. The question is the belief of the arresting officers. The effect of retrospective legislation is not always fully worked through. English law provides no cause of action for invalid administrative acts as such. A "second actor" may be blameless if he detains a person in reliance on what appears to be a lawful authority, whether issued by a "first actor" or otherwise.
Simon Brown LJ said of a byelaw under consideration: "Better . . to treat the instrument as valid unless so uncertain in its language as to have no ascertainable meaning, or so unclear in its effect as to be incapable of certain application in any case."
1 Citers


 
Farah v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis Gazette, 06 November 1996; Times, 10 October 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 684; [1998] QB 65
9 Oct 1996
CA

Discrimination, Torts - Other, Police
Individual officers, but not the police force itself are answerable in a race discrimination claim. The force is not vicariously liable for an individual officer's acts.
Race Relations Act 1976 20(g)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Michelle Louise De Bretton v Hampshire County Council [1996] EWCA Civ 688
9 Oct 1996
CA

Torts - Other, Road Traffic, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought damages after a car skidded on the road, and she was injured. She said the respondent was in breach of their statutory duty in having failed to clear the road. The authority said it had taken the appropriate steps to clear up the spillage, and that the accident was a result of the claimant driving too quickly. An employee of the respondent had spread the sand, but also had materials for the clearing up of oil which he had not used. This came up only after he had completed his evidence. The respondent objected to thie admission of this evidence, and then asked the judge to recuse herself. She had ordered a retrial. Held: there had been no impropriety. The case was remitted to the same judge for the hearing to be completed.
Highways Act 1980
[ Bailii ]
 
Peter Williams v Philip Lynch; Gary Gamble and C Gamble [1996] EWCA Civ 692
10 Oct 1996
CA

Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Theo Palomares v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [1996] EWCA Civ 709
11 Oct 1996
CA
Lord Justice Beldam, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Schiemann
Police, Torts - Other
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment. The claimant had been arrested, but later the charges were dismissed. The jury found on the trial for malicious prosecution that the officers had not believed the truth of the allegations they had made. The plaintiff had insulted the officer and later apologised. The defendant appealed saying the jury's verdict was inconsistent, and the judge's direction inadequate. Held: The jury's verdict was not inconsistent. Though the plaintiff had misbehaved, the officers had 'gilded the lily' and thrown the book at him, and the judge's approach on that point had been correct. However the judge had failed to draw distinctions which were necessary regarding the connection between the lawfulness of the arrest and later the reasonable and probable cause for the charges laid, and the honest or other belief of the officers, and later again as to damages. The jury's verdict must be set aside.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Lewis Frank Foley v Lavington Thatcher Taylor (a Firm) and others Lewis Frank Foley v David Goulding and Co (a Firm) and others [1996] EWCA Civ 867
1 Nov 1996
CA

Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]

 
 Wilson v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary; CA 5-Nov-1996 - (2000) 1 Po LR 367; [1996] EWCA Civ 883

 
 First National Commercial Bank Plc v Loxleys (a Firm); CA 6-Nov-1996 - Gazette, 20 November 1996; Times, 14 November 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 886
 
Sharpe and Another v Hodson [1996] EWCA Civ 989
18 Nov 1996
CA

Torts - Other
Misrepresentation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Daly v James Sharples [1996] EWCA Civ 1003
20 Nov 1996
CA

Police, Torts - Other, Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Victor Anthony Tee v Lautro Limited [1996] EWCA Civ 1009
20 Nov 1996
CA

Financial Services, Torts - Other

Financial Services Act 1986 187(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others Times, 05 December 1996; [1996] TLR 693
20 Nov 1996
ChD
Sir Richard Scott, V-C
Information, Police, Torts - Other
Sir Richard Scott discussed the tort of misfeasance in public office as described in Calveley: “I would agree that the tort of misfeasance in public office does require that the misconduct complained of should be sufficiently connected with the public office that has allegedly been abused. A police officer may, out of hours and not in uniform, commit an assault. In doing so, he does not abuse his office as a police officer, notwithstanding that he will of course be liable for damages for assault and may have committed a criminal offence. On the other hand, a police officer who, as a police officer, affects an arrest but does so unlawfully, either without reasonable cause or with excessive violence, and with a malicious motive – for example, with the intention of revenging himself against an individual against whom he has a grudge – does, I would have thought, clearly abuse his office. Both cases involve unlawful assault, but the latter involves also, as the former does not, an abuse of office.
I have taken the example of assault for the purpose of making the point which I think underlies Mr Rubin’s submissions. The distinction is no different if the injury caused by the conduct complained of is economic, as in the present case, rather than physical, as in my examples. Nor, in my view, does it matter whether the conduct complained of is physical or consists, as it does in the present case, of the giving of information. In either case there must, in my view, be a connection between the misconduct complained of and the office of which the misconduct is an alleged abuse. I express no view as to whether a mere omission could ever suffice.
In the present case, on the pleadings, there is, in my opinion, the requisite connection. The senior police officer, who provided the information to the news editor, was, it is to be inferred, in possession of the information about the convictions, or at least that part of the information that was true, because he was a police officer. The inference is that either he, or some subordinate acting on his instructions, had obtained information about the plaintiff from the National Police Computer. So the police officer came into possession of that information in his capacity as, and because of his office of, police officer. Second, the senior police officer in giving the information to the news editor was purporting to act in his capacity as a police officer. That that is so is to be inferred from paragraph 9 of the statement of claim. It appears from paragraph 9 that the individual identified himself to the news editor as a senior police officer. Among other things, he said to the news editor, “We do not want him down here.” “We”, in that context, must have meant the police. He said that if there were a robbery or rape, the police would “pull in” the plaintiff for questioning. That, too, is an indication that the individual, in supplying the information to the news editor, was speaking as a police officer.
Police officers have a status at common law, and perhaps at statute as well, which is both a privilege and the source of powers and duties. If in the apparent performance of functions pertaining to their office police officers commit misconduct, then if the other ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office, and in particular the requisite intention to injure and resulting damage, are present the tort of misfeasance in public office is, in my opinion, made out.”
Data Protection Act 1984 28
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 O'Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; HL 21-Nov-1996 - Gazette, 15 January 1997; Times, 13 December 1996; [1996] UKHL 6; [1997] AC 286; [1997] 1 All ER 129; [1997] 2 WLR 1; [1996] NI 8; [1997] Crim LR 432; [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 447

 
 Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers; HL 21-Nov-1996 - Gazette, 13 December 1996; Times, 22 November 1996; [1996] UKHL 3; [1997] AC 254; [1996] 4 All ER 769; [1996] 3 WLR 1051

 
 Olutu v Home Office; CA 29-Nov-1996 - [1997] 1 WLR 328; [1996] EWCA Civ 1070; [1997] 1 All ER 385
 
Rentall Limited Field Properties Limited and D S Willcock Limited Douglas Stewart Willcock Sylvia Christine Willcock Coopers and Lybrand (a Firm) and Christopher Michael Harrison Coopers and Lybrand (a Firm) Parties [1996] EWCA Civ 1103
4 Dec 1996
CA

Torts - Other, Contract

[ Bailii ]
 
Barker v Statesman and Nation Publishing Co Ltd; Duncan Campbell; British Broadcasting Corporation; Professor Anthony Pinching and Dr Matthew Helbert [1996] EWCA Civ 1118
5 Dec 1996
CA

Torts - Other
The claimant appealed against a decision rejecting his action for malicious falsehood.
[ Bailii ]
 
Jeanette Ann Olotu v Home Office and Another Times, 11 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1070; [1997] 1 WLR 328
11 Dec 1996
CA

Torts - Other, Prisons
The plaintiff was remanded in custody pending trial in the Crown Court and a warrant was issued for her detention which directed the prison governor to hold her until she was delivered to the Crown Court in due course of law. The custody time limit was 112 days, but the Crown Prosecution Service failed to obtain an extension of the period of detention and did not arrange for her to be brought back to court for admission to bail. As a result she was detained for 81 days in excess of the prescribed period. The first instance court held that although the plaintiff's detention became unlawful once the custody time limit had expired, so that the Crown Court would have been bound to release her on bail if an application had been made, the governor was not liable for false imprisonment because the period of custody could only be brought to an end by an order of the court and pending such an order the governor was neither entitled nor bound to release her. Held: The appeal failed. A Prison Governor and the CPS were not liable for detention of the defendant beyond the lawful custody time limits.
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Tejendrasingh v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire; CA 18-Dec-1996 - [1996] EWCA Civ 1256

 
 In Re Polly Peck International Plc; ChD 27-Dec-1996 - Times, 27 December 1996
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.