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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 51 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
McGuire v Kidston 2002 SLT (Sh Ct) 66
2002
ScSf

Scotland, Torts - Other

Protection from Harassment Act 1997
1 Citers


 
Husain and Zafar v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [2002] EWCA Civ 82; [2002] 3 All ER 750; [2002] ICR 1258; [2002] IRLR 460; [2002] Emp LR 406; A3/2001/9016/CHANF
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker
Damages, Employment, Contract, Torts - Other
The appellants challenged the refusal of their claims for stigma damages following the collapse of their former employer. Held: If a relevant breach of contract is established, and causation, remoteness and mitigation are satisfied, recovery of financial loss in respect of damage to reputation in employment cases is not excluded. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to prove. The claim was the same whether in tort or in contract. The judge had excluded certain evidence as to the damages suffered. The onus of proving causation lies on the plaintiff. The particular claimants in this case had failed to establish their case. It was not necessary to call similar the evidence sought to be admitted. To require it would exclude many proper claims.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ellis and Another v Property Leeds (UK) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 32; [2002] 2 BCLC 175
31 Jan 2002
CA

Torts - Other
Norman Barry Ellis and David Clayton each claimed damages against Property Leeds (UK) Ltd (Eddisons) for the alleged fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations of one Thorpe acting as Eddisons servant or agent. On 21st June 2001 Rougier J gave summary judgment to Eddison's in respect of the greater part of both claims. He did so on the basis that any losses suffered by Mr Ellis and Mr Clayton simply reflected losses sustained by companies of which each was a director. Alternatively the judge held that, with regard to such losses as were represented by the diminished value of trust funds in which each claimant had a beneficial interest, the right to sue lay not with the claimants but with the trustees.
[ Bailii ]
 
Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v Mark Anthony McGrogan Gazette, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 86
12 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Mantell, And, Mr Justice Wall
Police, Torts - Other
The Chief Constable appealed a finding of false imprisonment of the claimant. He had once been properly arrested, but before he was freed, it was decided that he should be held for court and an information laid alleging breach of the peace. They purported to exercise the common law power to detain a person where it is believed that, having committed a breach of the peace, it was reasonably believed that a renewal was threatened. His detention was reviewed, but having been arrested early in the weekend, by Sunday, he might have been released. Held: A breach of the peace is not a criminal offence and the 1984 Act did not apply to detentions for a breach of the peace. Police constables have no special power of arrest for breach of the peace
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation v Rawi [2002] EWHC 222 (Commercial); [2002] EWHC 222 (Commercial)
21 Feb 2002
ComC

Torts - Other
Deceit of director attributed to company.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Malory Enterprises Ltd v Cheshire Homes (UK) Ltd and others Times, 21 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 151; [2002] Ch 216; [2002] 3 WLR 1
22 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke and Lady Justice Arden
Registered Land, Torts - Other
The applicant said that its land had been misappropriated, and sought rectification of the register against the respondent who was a successor in title having bought the land from the wrongdoer. Held: On registration, section 69 operated to vest only the legal title in the prior registered proprietor. The transfer being of no effect in law, it was not a 'disposition', and the beneficial owners retained the right to sue in trespass without prior rectification. The discretionary nature of the right of rectification did not prevent it being an over-riding interest under 70(1)(g), and that right was transmissible. Rectification could not be made subject to terms. The claimant being in actual occupation, so as to enjoy an overriding interest, their claim succeeded.
Land Registration Act 1925 69 70(1)(g) 82
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tibbs v London Borough of Islington [2002] EWCA Civ 362
8 Mar 2002
CA
Tuckey LJ
Litigation Practice, Local Government, Torts - Other
Application for leave to appeal against refusal to allow amendment to pleadings. She sought damages. The council had pursued her to bankruptcy for substantial sums of alleged arrears of Council Tax, but those claims were rejected by the trustee. Both the bankruptcy and the extension of it were caused by the council's wrongful claims. Held: New evidence substantially changed the prospects of success, and the appeal should proceed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Mccann Or Mcgurran Known As Mccann v Mcgurran [2002] ScotCS 67; 2002 SLT 592
14 Mar 2002
SCS
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Caplan and Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Torts - Other

Protection from Harassment Act 1997
1 Citers

[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others; HL 21-Mar-2002 - Times, 25 March 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 AC 164; [2002] 38 EGCS 204; [2002] PNLR 30; [2002] 2 All ER 377; [2002] NPC 47; [2002] 2 WLR 802; [2002] WTLR 423
 
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 515
27 Mar 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Contract
Appeal in Spares action
[ Bailii ]
 
Daniel v Gregory and others [2002] EWCA Civ 566
12 Apr 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Insurance

[ Bailii ]
 
BG Plc v Nelson Group Services (Maintenance) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 547
24 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy
Torts - Other

Misrepresentation Act 1967 1(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Spencer v West Midlands Police [2002] EWCA Civ 649
24 Apr 2002
CA
Pill LJ. Chadwick LJ
Police, Torts - Other
Application for permission to appeal against award of damages for assault by police officers.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5); HL 16-May-2002 - Times, 21 May 2002; [2002] 2 WLR 1353; [2002] 2 AC 883; [2002] UKHL 19
 
Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney Times, 26 June 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002
27 May 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Park
Damages, Torts - Other, Equity, Costs
The landlord sought an injunction against the defendant. The defendant countered, relying upon sec 2(1). Held: The remedy provided by the section was limited to the award of damages. It could not, therefore, be used to defend an action for an injunction. Whilst he might be entitled in equity to repudiate the lease, he could not repudiate only part of the lease. The landlord might e criticised for its earlier conduct of the case, but rule 44 was concerned with the behaviour of the parties in conducting the litigation itself, and the rule could not be used to overturn the costs consequences because of misbehaviour outside the litigation.
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1) - Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)


 
 Stafford v The United Kingdom; ECHR 28-May-2002 - Times, 31 May 2002; 46295/99; ECHR 2--2-iv; [2002] 35 EHRR 1121; [2002] ECHR 466; [2002] ECHR 470; [2002] Crim LR 828; [2002] Po LR 181; [2002] 35 EHRR 32; 13 BHRC 260
 
Three Rivers District Council and others v Bank of England [2002] EWHC 1118 (Commercial)
31 May 2002
ComC

Torts - Other, Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Lord Ashcroft v Attorney General and Department for International Development [2002] EWHC 1122 (QB)
31 May 2002
QBD
The Hon Mr Justice Gray
Information, Torts - Other, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights
The claimant was the subject of confidential reports prepared by the defendants which were leaked to newspapers causing him damage. He sought leave to amend his claim to add claims for breach of the Data Protection Act and for public misfeasance. Under the Civil Procedure Rules a new claim should be allowed if it is arguable. It was claimed that the failure to investigate the leak by the public authority itself amounted to an infringement of the claimant's human rights. However an investigation into the investigation of the source of the leak would be an improper diversion of the case. A case of misfeasance required the clearest of proof. There was none against the third named defendant, and the associated claim would not be allowed. Lateness is not to be a ground for refusing a claim for aggravated damages. Derogatory statements by third parties could not be relied upon to found a claim for aggravated damages.
courtcommentary.com DPA 1998 s4(4) creates free-standing duty on data processors to comply with principles in Sch 1 Part I. Commissioner enforces compliance with principles, but his jurisdiction is non-exclusive so far as claims for damages by data subjects are concerned
Data Protection Act 1984 - Data Protection Act 1998 4(4) - Civil Procedure Rules 17.3.5
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Matin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 907
20 Jun 2002
CA
The President Lady Justice Hale And Mr Justice Hart
Torts - Other
The claimant sought to have restored his claim for malicious prosecution. Held: "The fact that there might be an arguable case that the prosecutor was activated by malice, that is to say, to prosecute for an improper motive, does not of itself demonstrate a want of honest belief that there was reasonable and probable cause to mount the prosecution." The plaintiff's claim was bound to fail.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Latvian Shipping Company and Others v Stocznia Gdanska Sa [2002] EWCA Civ 889; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 436; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 768
21 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Tuckey, Rix LJ
Contract, Torts - Other
A payment condition was just that and that a failure to pay entitled the seller to terminate at common law. Rix LJ said: "It is established law that, where one party to a contract has repudiated it, the other may validly accept that repudiation by bringing the contract to an end, even if he gives a wrong reason for doing so or no reason at all".
Rix LJ set out the policy considerations of the "wide ranging" tort of inducing breach of contract: "The tort is an economic tort designed to place limits on the self-interested rough and tumble of the business world. Its philosophical basis appears to be that contracts should be kept rather than broken. Where, as here, A (Latco) procures B's (Latreefers') breach of his contract with C (the yard), adopting it as his own because he is interested to do so, seeking a benefit for himself or a fortiori a detriment for C, and does so deliberately, knowingly and intending the breach to take place, then A puts himself in the way of incurring a liability, even though not himself a party to the contract, unless (i) he does not directly procure the breach, and (ii) he uses no (relevant) unlawful means, or (iii) he can claim some justification. The significance of (i) is that where A directly procures a breach of contract he makes himself as it were directly privy to the breach. The significance of (ii) is that in the absence of making himself privy to the breach, he cannot be faulted as long as he acts as he is entitled to act, but if (deliberately, knowingly and intending the breach to take place) he commits an unlawful act, by which I have in mind an unlawful act of sufficient causative relevance, then he renders himself liable. It may be that unlawful means ought to be necessary even where there is direct procurement (see the wide-ranging work by Hazel Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts, 2001, at 82). The significance of (iii), an area which has not been clearly worked out in the cases, appears to be that there may be moral or perhaps economic factors which may mitigate even to the point of justifying conduct otherwise incurring a prima facie liability."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
X v Berkoff [2002] EWCA Civ 1042
25 Jun 2002
CA
Auld LJ
Torts - Other, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
ABCI v Banque Franco Tunisienne and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1117
5 Jul 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Litigation Practice, Arbitration
Renewed application for leave to appeal.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
SABAF SpA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd and Another Times, 24 July 2002; [2003] RPC 264; [2002] EWCA Civ 976; [2002] All ER (D) 160
11 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Longmore
Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
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 obviousness, and the test remained to be performed as to whether the bringing together of the two ideas, and a case involving collocation should be treated in the same way as the Windsurfing case, the question is whether it will be obvious to the skilled man, using his common general knowledge, to combine those concepts. The test for a joint tortfeasor was that each defendant should commit a tort himself. A mere supplier of goods without input or control as to what was done with them was not liable. It was artificial to regard as an importer of goods one who had no legal or beneficial interest in them. The patent was valid but Meneghetti had not imported the products.
Peter Gibson LJ said: "The underlying concept for joint tortfeasance must be that the joint tortfeasor has been so involved in the commission of the tort as to make himself liable for the tort. Unless he has made the infringing act his own, he has not himself committed the tort. That notion seems to us what underlies all the decisions to which we were referred. If there is a common design or concerted action or otherwise a combination to secure the doing of the infringing acts, then each of the combiners has made the act his own and will be liable."
Patents Act 1977 3 60
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Stocznia Gdanska Sa v Latvian Shipping Company and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1089
23 Jul 2002
CA

Insolvency, Torts - Other
Application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cornelius v Hackney London Borough Council Times, 27 August 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1073
25 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Laws
Local Government, Torts - Other, Vicarious Liability
The applicant sought damages from the council for misfeasance in public office. Protracted litigation had followed his dismissal after he had attempted to bring allegations of misconduct within the authority to the attention of a council committee. He appealed an order striking out his claim. Held: The distinction between a public officer exercising his power and one abusing his position as a public officer, did not defeat the claim. It was possible that a senior officer of the council could be liable to the claimant for abuse, and also that the Authority could be vicariously liable for such acts. The issues were of fact, and inappropriate for a strike out.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Jaffray and others v Society of Lloyd's [2002] EWCA Civ 1101
26 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke
Company, Torts - Other
There is no more scope for corporate dishonesty in deceit than in misfeasance, other than by the attribution to a corporate body of the dishonesty of an individual. It was alleged that there was unfairness through inequality of representation: "In our judgment, those principles are not directly applicable to the question whether a trial was fair, but they are of assistance. They are not directly applicable because the question is not whether there was a real possibility or real danger that the trial was unfair, but whether it was unfair. We can see no reason why this court (or any court of review) should not be able to judge whether or not the trial was in fact unfair, once it has considered all the relevant circumstances.
The principles are, however, of assistance because they stress that the question must be viewed through the eyes of the reasonable observer or litigant. The same principle seems to us to apply here. Thus the question is not whether a disappointed litigant thinks the trial was unfair, but whether a reasonable person in his or her position would think so, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The circumstances are of importance because, before concluding that a trial is unfair, the court must consider all the relevant circumstances. As appears below, this is in our opinion important on the facts of the case.”
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Pankhania and Another v Hackney and Another [2002] EWHC 2441 (Ch)
2 Aug 2002
ChD
Rex Tedd QC J
Contract, Land, Torts - Other
The claimant sought damages alleging misrepresentation of land sold at auction.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
S v Airedale National Health Service Trust [2003] Lloyd's Rep Med 21; [2003] MHLR 63; Times, 05 September 2002; [2002] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
22 Aug 2002
QBD
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Health, Torts - Other, Judicial Review
The patient had been detained, and then secluded within the mental hospital for 11 days. He claimed to have been subjected to inhuman treatment, and false imprisonment. Held: His claim failed. The policy allowed the authority to confine him to a locked room under supervision for the protection of others. The fact of seclusion did not add to the fact that he was already and lawfully confined. A self evidently necessary power could be read into the 1983 Act to permit seclusion. Nevertheless a high degree of scrutiny was appropriate to prevent abuse.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton considered when it might be proper to hear oral evidence on an application for judicial review: "It is a convention of our litigation that at trial in general the evidence of a witness is accepted unless he is cross-examined and is thus given the opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him. There may be an exception where there is undisputed objective evidence inconsistent with that of the witness that cannot sensibly be explained away (in other words, the witness's testimony is manifestly wrong), but that is not the present case. The general rule applies as much in judicial review proceedings as in other litigation, although in judicial review proceedings it is relatively unusual for there to be a conflict of testimony and even more unusual for there to be cross-examination of witnesses."
Mental Health Act 1983 - European Convention on Human Rights 3 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Masters v Sussex Chief Constable [2002] EWCA Civ 1482
3 Oct 2002
CA

Police, Torts - Other
Appeal against finding of misfeasance.
[ Bailii ]
 
Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB)
4 Oct 2002
QBD
Gray J
Land, Torts - Other
The court was asked as to the interaction between the right and the duty of a local authority to remove obstructions from its highways, on the one hand, and the right of the individual citizen to use those highways to exercise his or her right to freedom of expression, on the other hand. It is an application by Westminster City Council, which is the local authority responsible for the highways, including the pavements, in Parliament Square in London, to restrain Mr Brian Haw from obstructing the pavement opposite the House of Commons by displaying there a considerable number of placards supporting his protest against the policies of the Government in relation to Iraq.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
McMeekin v Long [2003] 29 EG 120
4 Oct 2002
QBD
Astill J
Torts - Other, Contract
The sellers of a property did not disclose potential disputes with their neighbours about parking over an access way and the dumping of rubbish. They claimed that in each case they had taken advice and had accepted it and there had been no further disagreement, and that there had therefore been no dispute. The solicitor in his replies to standard Part II enquiries confirmed that the sellers replies were accurate so far as he knew. It was clear however that the potential for dispute remained and that it had been long running and personal. The form also asked if complaints had ever been received. Held: The sellers were guilty of a fraudulent misrepresentation. The evidence established to a sufficient standard, that the sellers had acted fraudulently, and, since the claimant would not have purchased the property if they had known of the difficulties, they had relied upon the misrepresentations and could claim in damages. Damages of £67,000 were awarded.

 
Equant Sas (UK Branch) v Ives and others [2002] EWHC 1992 (Ch)
4 Oct 2002
ChD

Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Tanner v Blueprint Books Ltd and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1429
16 Oct 2002
CA

Torts - Other, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ganesmoorthy v Ganesmoorthy; CA 16-Oct-2002 - [2002] EWCA Civ 1748; [2003] 3 FCR 167
 
Shaker v Al-Bedrawi and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1452; [2003] Ch 350
18 Oct 2002
CA

Company, Torts - Other

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Akenzua, Coy (Administrators of the Estate of Marcia Zena Laws (Deceased)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Comissioner of Police for the Metropolis Times, 30 October 2002; Gazette, 05 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1470
23 Oct 2002
CA
Simon Brown, Sedley Scott Baker, LLJ
Torts - Other, Police
The claimant sought damages for misfeasance in public office. The defendant had been involved in the release of a person known to be violent from custody, and where he had subsequently killed a member of the claimant's family. The family appealed a strike out of their claim following the decision in Three Rivers. Held Following that case, and in cases where the result was personal injury, it was no longer necessary to allege that the victim was to be identifiable, either himself, or as a member of an identifiable group, before the act complained of as a misfeasance. It was sufficient to aver that the person could not be identified until the act of violence. What mattered was showing that if released it was predictable that the person released might well kill someone. It remained necessary to show that the actual violence inflicted was of a kind with that which might be known to the defendant.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Orford v Rasmi Electronics and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1672; [2002] All ER (D) 397 (Oct)
25 Oct 2002
CA
Brooke L, Bodey J
Torts - Other, Defamation, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Marcq v Christe Manson and Woods (t/a Christies) Times, 25 November 2002; Gazette, 28 November 2002
29 Oct 2002
QBD
Jack J
Agency, Contract, Torts - Other
The claimant sought damages for conversion from the respondent auctioneers as bailees. The painting had been registered as stolen. It failed to achieve its reserve and had been returned. Held: It was for a bailee to prove that he had acted in good faith. That meant that he was not aware that the person for whom he held the goods was not the true owner. The situation differed where the goods were purchased, and where ownership passed. A bailee could be liable if he did not act in good faith and without notice (Hollins). Christies had made enquiry in the art loss register, and been reassured that it was not stolen. In the circumstances the claimant had to be given an opportunity to deal with issues raised in the response. An auctioneer who receives goods from their apparent owner and simply redelivers them to him when they are unsold is not liable in conversion provided he has acted in good faith and without knowledge of any adverse claim to them.
Limitation Act 1980 4
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and Others and Another and Others (Nos 2 and 4); HL 6-Nov-2002 - Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; [2002] UKHL 43; [2002] 3 WLR 1547; [2003] 1 AC 959; [2003] 1 All ER 173; [2002] CLC 1330; [2003] 1 LLR 227; [2002] BCC 846; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 931; [2003] 1 BCLC 244; [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 227
 
L E Jones (Insurance Brokers) Ltd v Portsmouth City Council Times, 21 November 2002; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 427; [2002] EWCA Civ 1723
7 Nov 2002
CA
Aldous, Dyson LJJ
Land, Negligence, Torts - Other
The claimant sought compensation for damage caused to his property by the roots of trees on the verge outside his premises. Held: The respondent did exercise lawful control over the trees, even though it did not own the land on which they grew, and therefore could be liable in negligence, and in nuisance for the damage they might cause. The highway might also be responsible, but that did not exclude the responsibility of the respondent, who had a right and a duty to maintain the roads. The basis of liability of an occupier for a nuisance on his land is not his occupation but that, by virtue of his occupation, he has it in his power to take the necessary measures to prevent the nuisance. The tree owner should be given a reasonmable opportunity to remedy the nuisance: "…What is a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance is a question of fact. "
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Inglewood Investments Company Ltd v Baker [2002] EWCA Civ 1733
8 Nov 2002
CA
Dyson LJ
Land, Torts - Other
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land. Held: Dyson LJ said: "to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to possess. That has two elements. First a subjective element requiring the person, the trespasser, to establish that he intended to possess the land, and also an objective element, namely an establishment of what Clarke LJ referred to as a possession which was apparent or would be apparent to the owner if he visited the site."
Dyson LJ referred to Batt v Adams and said: "In this particular case, the purpose of the fence appeared to be, and Mr Baker said it was, to keep sheep in. It does not seem that he would have put that fence up if he had been grazing cattle rather than sheep. In those circumstances it was open to the judge to conclude that there was no intention of Mr Baker to possess the land."
Limitation Act 1980 15
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Martins, Regina (on the Application Of) v Edmonton County Court [2002] EWCA Civ 1764
11 Nov 2002
CA

Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Komercni Banka, A S v Stone and Rolls Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 383
15 Nov 2002
ComC
Toulson J
Banking, Torts - Other
Toulson J discussed a set off against a claim for damages: "The question whether an alleged benefit should or should not be taken into account cannot be determined by mere application of the "but for" test. Where the wrongful conduct consists of causing the victim to enter into a venture or transaction which he would not otherwise have entered into, and the wrongdoer alleges that the victim has received a subsequent benefit which he would not have received but for entering into the venture or transaction, it seems to me that the question to be asked is whether the receipt of the benefit was not merely a result of the venture or transaction, in a historical sense, but was part of the complex of obligations and benefits intrinsic, ie belonging naturally, to the venture or transaction. Otherwise, it is hard to know where to draw the line."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Molestina and others v Ponton and others [2002] EWHC 2413 (Comm)
21 Nov 2002
ComC
Langley J
Wills and Probate, Torts - Other
The parties challenged agreements compromising claims on the estate of the deceased, saying they had been obtained by misrepresentations. Held: The claimants did not establish that the representations claimed had in fact been made.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Shaker v Al-Bedrawi and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1900
2 Dec 2002
CA

Company, Torts - Other

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Great Future International Ltd and Others v Sealand Housing Corporation and Others [2002] EWHC 2454 (Ch)
3 Dec 2002
ChD
Lightman J
Financial Services, Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheppard v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1921
11 Dec 2002
CA

Prisons, Torts - Other

[ Bailii ]
 
R Cruickshank Limited v The Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1840
13 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Tuckey
Police, Torts - Other
The claimant had sought damages from the defendant for unlawful interference with contractual relations, and for misfeasance in public office. It now appealed against an order striking out its claim. It claimed that the police had unlawfully abused their power causing it damage to its goodwill and business. Held: Three Rivers established two forms of claim for public misfeasance, acts of bad faith targeted against the claimant, and acting knowingly in excess of his powers, and causing damage to the claimant. Here the alternative claim of interfering in contractual relations was hopeless, following Lhonro. It would be wrong to water down the requirements of public misfeasance by reference to an economic tort. The case for public misfeasance was not unfit for trial, and should be allowed to proceed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Earl Gideon Foster Hepburn [2002] EWCA Civ 1841; Times, 19 December 2002; [2002] All ER (D) 214
13 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Tuckey
Police, Torts - Other, Litigation Practice
The claimant sought damages from the police. They had executed a search warrant, and one officer detained the claimant during the raid. Held: A person who mistakenly restrained an individual in the mistaken belief that he had been lawfully arrested is liable for trespass to the person. The terms of the warrant had to be carefully applied. The warrant provided for a search of the premises, but included no power to detain a person found on the premises. A citizen's freedom of movement is inviolable save under express power: "honest belief in a non-existent state of affairs does not excuse a trespass to the person". An obstruction could give a power of arrest, but there was no implied power as suggested by the Chief Constable. Late amendments of the sort allowed here should be discouraged.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alan John Deakin, Jillian Deakin v Ian Dudley Corbett, Elaine June Corbett, Halifax Plc Times, 28 December 2002; Gazette, 13 March 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1849; [2005] 1 WLR 964
18 Dec 2002
CA
Mr Justice Scott Baker Lord Justice Schiemann The Honourable Mr Justice Pumfrey
Land, Torts - Other
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."
Law of Property Act 1925 104(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Grabowski v Scott and Conway [2002] EWCA Civ 1885
20 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Schiemann Lord Justice Pill
Torts - Other
Conspiracy to defraud
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.