Lonhro plc v Fayed: 19 Jul 1988

The plaintiff and defendant competed in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff having been restrained by the Secretary of State, alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to achieve this.
Held: It was not a tort to intefere in another’s right to make a takeover bid.

Judges:

Pill J

Citations:

[1988] 3 All ER 464, Independent 19-Jul-1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLonhro plc v Fayed CA 1990
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 . .
First InstanceLonhro plc v Fayed HL 28-Jun-1991
The parties had competed in bidding to acquire a public company. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to the Secretary of State to achieve an advantage.
Held: To establish the tort of conspiracy to . .
Appeal fromLonrho plc v Fayed CA 1989
There had been a battle to purchase the share capital of the House of Fraser which owned Harrods. Lonrho alleged that the Fayed brothers had perpetrated a fraud on the Secretary of State, and thereby secured permission to buy the company without a . .
CitedTotal Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.223004

Atwood v Monger: 1658

Atwood brought an action upon the case against Monger, for causing a false presentment to be made against him before the Conservators of the River of Thames, for suffering 8 loads of earth to fall into the river of Thames, and obteins a verdict ;
the defendant moved in arrest of judgement, that it dh not appear by the record what authority the conservators had to take the presentment, and if they had no authority, then it was coram non judice, and the plaintiff could not be prejudiced by it. Twisden answered it is well enough, though their authority appears not by the record, because they have authority given them by the statute of 13 R. 2. c. 9. Which is a general law, and ought to be taken notice of; but if not, yet the action is well brought, for it is brought for the vexation the plaintiff was put unto by reason of the presentment, and the other matter alleged, is but by way of inducement to the action, 2 Car. in Dent and Olifes case in this Court so held, and though the conservators had no authority, yet the action lies for the rnalitious prosecution, and for unjustly vexing him, and so adjudged. Trin. 16 Car. in this Court in Damon and Sheremans case. Hales on the other side said, that this Court is not bound to take notice, that the Lord Maior of London hath this jurisdiction of conservatorship, for the statute which gave it him is a particular law touching him only, and so not to be taken notice of without it be shewn, and then if he have no such authority, all the proceedings against the plaintiff are void. Roll Chief Iustice, An action upon the case lies for bringing an appeal against one iri the Common Pleas, though it be coram non judice, by reason of the vexation of the party, and so it is all one whether here were any jurisdiction or no, for the plaintiff is prejudiced by the vexation, and the conservators took upon them to have authority to take the presentment. And I hold that an action upon the case will lye, for maliciously bringing an action agairist him where he had no probable cause, and if such actions were used to be brought, it would deter men from such malitious courses as are to often put in practice.

Citations:

[1658] EngR 37, (1658) Sty 378, (1658) 82 ER 793 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWillers v Joyce and Another (Re: Gubay (Deceased) No 1) SC 20-Jul-2016
Parties had been involved in an action for wrongful trading. This was not persisted with but the claimant sought damages saying that the action was only part of a campaign to do him harm. This appeal raised the question whether the tort of malicious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.410828

Britton v Royal Insurance Company: 1865

The insured made a claim under his insurance policy for twice the amount he had actually lost. It was an express condition of the insurance policy that a fraudulent part of a claim would avoid the balance of the claim.
Held: The duty of good faith in insurance contracts is a continuing one.
Willes J said: ‘A fire insurance, he said, is a contract of indemnity; that is, it is a contract to indemnify the assured against the consequences of a fire, provided it is not wilful. Of course, if the assured set fire to his house, he could not recover. That is clear. But it is not less clear that, even supposing it were not wilful, yet as it is a contract of indemnity only, that is, a contract to recoup the insured the value of the property destroyed by fire, if the claim is fraudulent, it is defeated altogether. That is, suppose the insured made a claim for twice the amount insured and lost, thus seeking to put the office off its guard, and in the result to recover more than he is entitled to, that would be a wilful fraud, and the consequence is that he could not recover anything. This is a defence quite different from that of wilful arson. It gives the go-bye to the origin of the fire, and it amounts to this – that the assured took advantage of the fire to make a fraudulent claim. The law upon such a case is in accordance with justice, and also with sound policy. The law is, that a person who had made such a fraudulent claim could not be permitted to recover at all. The contract of insurance is one of perfect good faith on both sides, and it is most important that such good faith should be maintained. It is the common practice to insert in fire-policies conditions that they shall be void in the event of a fraudulent claim; and there was such a condition in the present case. Such a condition is only in accordance with legal principle and sound policy. It would be most dangerous to permit parties to practise such frauds, and then, notwithstanding their falsehood and fraud, to recover the real value of the goods consumed. And if there is wilful falsehood and fraud in the claim, the insured forfeits all claim whatever upon the policy.’

Judges:

Willes J

Citations:

[1865] EngR 66, (1865) 4 F and F 905, (1865) 176 ER 843

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGalloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
The claimant’s policy had been declared void ab initio by the court. On the application form he had falsely stated that he had no convictions, but had only shortly before been convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Part of the . .
CitedPorter v Zurich Insurance Company QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insurance, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.214223

Haystead v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 2 Jun 2000

The defendant had hit a mother in the face as she held the child. The force was sufficient to cause her to drop the child causing injury to the child. He appealed against a conviction for beating the child.
Held: The appeal failed. A battery could be inflicted even though the force actually used was used only indirectly. There was no difference in principle between the use of a weapon to hit the child, and causing the injury through the mother. The only difference here was as to the presence of recklessness rather than intent.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Silber J

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2000, [2000] EWHC QB 181, [2000] COD 288, (2000) 164 JP 396, [2000] 2 Cr App Rep 339, [2000] Crim LR 758, [2000] 3 All ER 890

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 39

Citing:

CitedRegina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .
CitedRegina v Burstow, Regina v Ireland HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant was accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when he had made silent phone calls which were taken as threatening.
Held: An assault might consist of the making of a silent telephone call in circumstances where it causes . .
CitedRegina v Martin CCCR 1881
r_martin CCCCR
The defendant was accused of unlawful conduct in causing panic at a theatre (by turning off the lights and barring the doors) in the course of which a number of people were injured by trampling as they stampeded down a stairway. His conduct was . .
CitedRegina v Salisbury 9-Oct-1972
Australia – Victoria The court considered the nature of the act required to found an allegation of assault: ‘It may be that the somewhat different wording of section 20 of the English Act has played a part in bringing about the existence of the two . .
CitedRegina v Wilson (Clarence); Regina v Jenkins HL 1983
The court considered the application of the section on alternative verdicts available to juries on a trial for attempted murder. The allegations in a charge under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 or under section 9(1)(b) of the . .
CitedScott v Shepherd 1773
Squib Thrower’s Liability through Negligence
An accusation of assault and trespass will lie where the defendant threw a squib which was then thrown about by others in self defence, but eventually exploded putting out the plaintiff’s eye. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81287

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Cresta Holidays Ltd and Others: ChD 5 Apr 2001

Travel operators sold insurance on behalf of insurance companies who paid on Insurance Premium Tax. The level of tax was raised, but the increase was later found to be unlawful state aid. The operators sought a refund of the tax overpaid from the Commissioners. Such a claim could be made only under one of two provisions. One related to claims before payment, and the second to restitution. Since the claimants had not themselves paid the tax, there was no restitution, and the claim failed.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 215

Links:

Bailii

Insurance, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79376

Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Admn 24 Oct 1997

Police and prosecuting authority have no inherent immunity from suit for tort of misfeasance in public office if the breach is properly made out. Immunity extends to statements made or agreed to be made out of court ‘if these were clearly and directly made in relation to the proceedings in court, for example, witnesses’ proofs of evidence.’

Judges:

Sir Richard Scott VC

Citations:

Times 24-Oct-1997, (1997) 10 Admin LR 245

Cited by:

CitedDarker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL 1-Aug-2000
The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
CitedTaylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78337

O v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Apr 2012

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s continued detention pending deportation of her after her diagnosis with a medical condition.
Held: Lang J refused her permission to apply for judicial review. She had to decide: ‘whether the circumstances had changed such that the detention had become arguably unlawful under either Hardial Singh principles, as submitted, or because of an arguable failure on the part of the Secretary State properly to apply her policy on the mentally ill.’

Judges:

Lang J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2899 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At AdmnO, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Apr-2016
The appellant failed asylum seeker had been detained for three years pending deportation. She suffered a mental illness, and during her detention the medical advice that her condition could be coped with in the detention centre changed, recommending . .
At AdmnOgunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616743

Farrer v Beswick: 1836

Baron Parke said: ‘I have always understood, until the doubt was raised in Barton v. Williams, that one joint-tenant or tenant in common of a chattel could not be guilty of a conversion by a sale of that chattel, unless it were sold in such a manner as to deprive his partner of his interest in it. A sale in market overt would have that effect.’

Judges:

Baron Parke

Citations:

1836 Meeson and Welsby’s Reports 682

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Bonner and Others CACD 24-Feb-1970
The appellants challenged their convictions for theft, saying that as partners in a firm they could not be convicted of theft of partnership property.
Held: The appeals were allowed for the unsatisfactory and unsafe nature of the convictions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.566424

Lane v Capsey: 1891

A building society held a charge over property which enjoyed a right of way over neighbouring land. The right was obstructed by the neighbour building over it. Their request for the removal of the obstruction had been rejected by the court with no costs or damages being awarded. The neighbours property was held in receivership. The Society now sought a declaration that they were entitled to the remedy of self help to abate the obstruction.
Held: The earlier failure did not mean that any right of abatement or other remedy had also been lost.

Judges:

Chitty J

Citations:

[1891] 3 Ch 411, (1891) 61 LJ Ch 55, (1891) 65 LT 375, (1891) 40 WR 87

Cited by:

CitedLagan Navigation Co v Lambeg Bleaching, Dyeing and Finishing Co Ltd HL 1927
Lord Atkinson stated: ‘It has been well said that the abatement of a nuisance is a remedy which the law does not favour and is not usually advisable, and that its exercise destroys any right of action in respect of the nuisance.’
Concluding, . .
CitedChamberlain v Lindon Admn 18-Mar-1998
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his private prosecution of the defendant in destroying a new garden wall. The magistrates had found a lawful excuse in that the defendant said that the wall had been constructed to obstruct his private right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.541708

Bents Brewery and Co Ltd v Hogan: 1945

The employer complained that the defendant had disclosed details of the plaintiffs’ weekly sales and total wages’ bill.
Held: These were confidential. In order to prove that the tort of unlawful interference with contractual relations was committed, it would be necessary to prove that the plaintiffs suffered sime damage.
An employee owes a duty to his employer not to disclose confidential information gained through the employment. This can be implied without explicit assertion in the contract.

Citations:

[1945] 2 All ER 570

Employment, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.537577

Beaulieu v Finglam: 1401

Markham J considered the possibility of liability for the escape of fire to damage a neighbour’s property and said: ‘A man is held to answer for the act of his servant or of his guest in such a case; for if my servant or my guest puts a candle by a wall and the candle falls into the straw and burns all my house and the house of my neighbour also, in this case I shall answer to my neighbour for his damage . . I shall answer to my neighbour for each person who enters my house by my leave or my knowledge, or is my guest through me or through my servant, if he does any act, as with a candle or aught else, whereby my neighbour’s house is burnt. But if a man from outside my house and against my will starts a fire in the thatch of my house or elsewhere, whereby my house is burned and my neighbours’ houses are burned as well, for this I shall not be held bound to them; for this cannot be said to be done by wrong on my part, but is against my will.’

Citations:

(1401) B and M 557

Cited by:

CitedStannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore CA 4-Oct-2012
The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.512019

Case LXXI 29 Ass Pl 47 6 E 4, 9 7 H 4, 41 30 Ass Pl 20: 1220

Outlawry is a good plea in an audita querela, for the outlawry does not depend upon the audita querela ; and the judgment against which relief is prayed, is not to be reversed, but only the execution of it. In error, outlawry upon the judgment which is to be reversed by the writ of error, is not a plea,; for the said judgment being the foundation of the outlawry, the reversal of it reverses the outlawry: but a writ of error, to reverse any other judgment thn that upon which the outlawry depends, outlawry is a good plea. ‘Tis so of an attaint, where the attaint is to annul the verdict ; and by consequence, the judgment upon which the outlawry depends, doth not disable the plaintiff in the said attaint ; for the foundation is to be taken away, and therefore the outlawry in this case is no plea.
Judged by both benches.
If a writ of error be brought to reverse an outlawry in any action, outlawry in another action shall not disable the plaintiff in error; for otherwise, if the outlawry was erroneous, it shall never be reversed.
Exceptio rei cujus dissolutio petitur, nulla est.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 373, (1220-1623) Jenk 37, (1220) 145 ER 28 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461285

Case LXII, 2 Cr 545, S C Hob 38, 233 1 Sid, 98, 249 17 Jac Hob 272, Lancaster v Sidley: 1220

An action of trover and conversion was brought in the King’s Bench ; after verdict for the plaintiff; he had judgment ; affirmed in error ; although neither the bill nor bail was entered : for he may be in custodia mareschalli, notwithstanding; and the want of a bill is aided by 18 El. cap. 14, for it is an original; and to be in custodia mareaschalli os only a fiction ; it is sufficient to declare that the defendant is in custodia mareschalli. This judgment was affirmed in the Exchequer chamber and both the records sent into the King’s Bench.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 234, (1220-1623) Jenk 900, (1220) 145 ER 218 (E)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461146

CASE XXXVIII 2 H 7, 8 By The Judges of Both Benches Forms, Precedents: 1220

Upon a venire facias upon an issue joined, the sheriff returns 12 jurors only according to the words of the writ; where he ought to have returned 24 according to constant usage, for speeding: the trial in case of challenge, death, sickness, or delay of the tales ; the sheriff shall be amerced for this return. So in a praecipe quod reddat, if he returns that the tenant has restored the land to the demandant . So in debt, that the defendant has paid the debt to the plaintiff. So on a distringas jurutores, that distrinxit illos per omnes exitus; without mentioning how much upon every one. All these are bad returns ; and the sheriff shall be amerced for such returns. So upon an habeas corpora against the jurors, that he has attacthed the jurors,without saying and habeo corpora, and.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 268, (1220-1623) Jenk 172, (1220) 145 ER 112 (E)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.461180

Case XXII 10 Jac 10 Co 115 B, 117 B, Pitfold’s Case Damages, Count: 1220

In trespass the plaintiff declares to 40l damages ; upon not guilty pleaded by the defendant, a verdict gives 49l damages with costs of suit to the plaintiff ; the plaintiff releases 9l. Of the damages, and has judgment for the 40l. damages, with the costs. Damages are for the wrong done before the writ purchased. Costs are pro expensis litis.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 57, (1220-1623) Jenk 288, (1220) 145 ER 208 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Costs

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.460969

Winkworth v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd: ChD 1980

The right to sue in conversion at common law is available to a person who is entitled at the time of the conversion to the immediate possession of the goods.
Slade J discussed the applicability of the law of renvoi in an international dispute about the ownership of goods.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[1980] Ch 496

Cited by:

CitedIran v Berend QBD 1-Feb-2007
The Republic of Iran sought the return of a fragment of ancient Achaemenid relief in the possession of the defendant, saying that it was part of an ancient monument. The defendant said that she had bought it properly at an auction in Paris. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.442756

Morley v Loughnan: 1893

Wright J in the context of this claim for undue influence, relied on a passage from an earlier case in which Wilmot CJ had said, ‘Let the hand receiving [a gift] be ever so chaste, yet, if it comes through a polluted channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it’.

Judges:

Wright J

Citations:

[1893] Ch 736

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSoutzos v Asombang and Others ChD 21-Jun-2011
The claimant had obtained a freezing order against the defendants. His claim having been dismissed, the court now considered if and what damages should be paid under the cross-undertaking he had given.
Held: Setting out and applying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Undue Influence

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.441144

Bulwer’s Case: 1572

B. brought an action on the case in the county of N. for maliciously causing him to be outlawed in London upon process sued out of a Court at Westminster, and causing him to be imprisoned in N. upon a capias iutlagutum directed to the sheriff of that county, but issued at Westminster; and upon demurrer it was adjudged that the action was well brought in the county of N.
In all cases where the action is founded on two things done in several counties, and both are material or traversable, and the one without the other does not maintain the action, the plaintiff may bring his actiori in which county he will.

Citations:

[1572] EngR 58, (1572-1616) 7 Co Rep 1, (1572) 77 ER 411

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.432025

Plange v Chief Constable for Humberside Police: CA 23 Mar 1992

Where an arresting officer knows at the time of arrest that no charge is possible, the arresting officer acts unlawfully. However, it is for the claimant to establish on Wednesbury principles that the decision to arrest in any particular case was unlawful for want of proper exercise of discretion. Parker LJ said that ‘it will only be in very exceptional cases that the condition precedent [in section 24(6) reasonable grounds to suspect] being satisfied, a Wednesbury challenge can succeed’.

Judges:

Parker LJ

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-1992, [1992] 156 LG Rev 1024, (1992) TLR 137

Cited by:

CitedRichardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 29-Mar-2011
The claimant, a teacher, said he had been unlawfully arrested and detained after an allegation of assault from a pupil. Having attended the police station voluntarily, he said that the circumstances did not satisfy the required precondition that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.431558

Piggott v Canning: 1660

The defendant pleads a decree, and that the plaintiff was purchaser pendente lite, and the defendant was ordered to answer, saving the benefit of his plea. Note : The bill was there exhibited, to be relieved against the said decree, (1) Piggot being a purchaser without notice of Canning’s suit or trust, and said the decree was gotten by fraud.

Citations:

[1660] EngR 199, (1660-1706) 2 Freem Chy 149, (1660) 22 ER 1121 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.410189

Bromage And Another v Prosser: 1825

Bayley J distinguished ‘malice in law’, inferred from the defendant’s intentional interference with the plaintiff’s rights, from ‘malice in fact’ and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.’

Citations:

[1825] EngR 42, (1825) 4 B and C 247, (1825) 107 ER 1051

Links:

Commonlii

Citing:

See AlsoBromage and Another v Prosser 20-Aug-1824
Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBromage And Another v Prosser 2-Jun-1825
Thls case having been again argued, by J L Adolphus, for the plaintiffs, and Campbell, for the defendants, the Court now gave Judgment on the motion for a new trial.
Abbot CJ (after stating the nature of the case) — On the general question, . .
CitedRhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.326133

Green v The London General Omnibus Company (Limited): 18 Nov 1859

A corporation aggregate may be liable to an action for intentional acts of misfeasance by its servants, provided they are sufficiently connected with the scope and object of its incorporation. Therefore, in an action against a company established for conveying passengers by omnibuses in the streets of London, charging that the company by its servants wrongfully, vexatiously, and maliciously did certain acts (describing them) with a view to, and which in the result did, obstruct and annoy the plaintiff’ in the conduct of a similar trade :- Held, that, as the acts complained of were connected with the object and purpose for which the company was incorporated the company was responsible.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 999, (1859) 7 CB NS 290, (1859) 144 ER 828

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.288351

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt: 1972

In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance.

Citations:

[1972] Ch 498

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTotal Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Taxes Management, Insolvency, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.268780

Rex v Ford: 1817

It is not necessary for a person making an arrest to state the charge to the person detained in technical or precise language.

Citations:

(1817) R and R 329

Cited by:

CitedChristie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.259577

Gruppo Torras v Al Sabah: ChD 24 Jun 1999

Liability based on knowing receipt did not ‘depend on the commission of any wrong or give rise to any obligation to make good any loss other than by way of restitution.’

Judges:

Mance J

Citations:

Unreported, 24 June 1999

Cited by:

CitedCharter Plc and Another v City Index Ltd and others ChD 12-Oct-2006
An employee of the claimant had fraudulently spent several million pounds of the claimant’s money on personal bets through the defendant company. The claimant said that the defendants knew the origin of the funds and were liable to repay them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.247621

Kingdom of Spain v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd: 1986

The court questioned the basis of the cause of action asserted in Austria -v- Day.

Judges:

Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1120

Citing:

CitedEmperor of Austria v Day and Kossuth 1861
The defendants had printed banknotes in London. Kossuth intended to use the notes in Hungary after overthrowing the Emperor of Austria by revolution. The Emperor obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing to manufacture them. . .

Cited by:

CitedMbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245565

Thomas v NUM: 1986

Threats made by pickets to miners going in to work were not an assault because the pickets had no capacity to put into effect their threats of violence whilst they were held back from the vehicles carrying the workers.

Judges:

Scott J

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 20

Cited by:

CitedMbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245579

Farrington v Thomson and Bridgland: 1959

(Supreme Court of Victoria) Smith J said: ‘Proof of damage is, of course, necessary in addition. In my view, therefore, the rule should be taken to go this far at least, that if a public officer does an act which, to his knowledge, amounts to an abuse of his office, and he thereby causes damage to another person, then an action in tort for misfeasance in a public office will lie against him at the suit of that person’.

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

[1959] VR 286

Cited by:

ApprovedTampion v Anderson 1973
(Full Court of Victoria) . .
CitedWatkins v Home Office and others HL 29-Mar-2006
The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.239999

Roncarelli v Duplessis: 1959

(Canada) The court discussed what was ‘targeted malice’ in the context of misfeasance.

Citations:

[1959] SCR 121

Cited by:

CitedOdhavji Estate v Woodhouse 2003
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court reviewed the ingredients of misfeasance in public office.
Held: Iacobucci J said: ‘To summarize, I am of the opinion that the tort of misfeasance in a public office is an intentional tort whose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.240008

Harrop v Hirst: 1868

The inhabitants of a named district, Tamewater, in the parish of Saddleworth, claimed a right to take water from a spout in the highway The claim was for diverting water.
Held: The right was upheld. An action for diverting water is maintainable without proof of any actual personal damage, inasmuch as the act of the defendant might, if repeated often enough without interruption, furnish evidence in derogation of the plaintiff’s legal rights. If you have an infringement of a legal right there is a right of action without actual damage being proved.

Citations:

(1868) LR 4 Ex 43

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNicholas v Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd CA 1936
The plaintiff owned several fisheries and sought damages after the defendant polluted the riner. He was unable to prove any actual loss.
Held: Disturbance of a several fishery was an invasion of a legal right, and in such a case the injury to . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.199942

Akerhielm v De Mare: PC 1959

A company prospectus contained the following: ‘About a third of the capital has already been subscribed in Denmark.’ Though the directors believed this to be true, it was not true at the time the prospectus was issued.
Held: The statement was not fraudulent having been made with an honest belief in its truth. When a party has been acquitted of fraud the decision in his favour should not be displaced except on the clearest grounds.
Lord Jenkins said: ‘their Lordships are satisfied that this is not one of those exceptional cases in which an appellate court is justified in reversing the decision of a judge at first instance when the decision under review is founded upon the judge’s opinion of the credibility of a witness formed after seeing and hearing him give his evidence. Their Lordships can hardly imagine a case in which the credibility of a witness could be more vital than a case like the present where the claim is based on deceit, and the witness in question is one of the defendants charged with deceit. Their Lordships would add that they accept, and would apply in the present case, the principle that where a defendant has been acquitted of fraud in a court of first instance the decision in his favour should not be displaced on appeal except on the clearest grounds.’ and ‘The question is not whether the defendant in any given case honestly believed the representation to be true in the sense assigned to it by the court on an objective consideration of its truth or falsity, but whether he honestly believed the representation to be true in the sense in which he understood it albeit erroneously when it was made.’

Judges:

Lord Jenkins

Citations:

[1959] AC 789, [1959] 3 All ER 485

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

CitedGlasier v Rolb 1889
A finding by a judge that a party is innocent of fraud should only reluctantly be disturbed. . .
CitedSS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
CitedWatt (or Thomas) v Thomas HL 1947
When Scots Appellate Court may set decision aside
The House considered when it was appropriate for an appellate court in Scotland to set aside the judgment at first instance.
Lord Thankerton said: ‘(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question . .
CitedYuill v Yuill CA 1944
Appellate Court’s Caution in Reassessing Facts
The Court of Appeal was invited to reverse the decision of the judge at first instance to accept the evidence of the petitioner (no evidence having been called by the respondent).
Held: The court considered the caution needed when overturning . .
CitedBenmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .

Cited by:

CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedThe Ikarian Reefer CA 1995
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When . .
AppliedRyan and Another v Strickland Jarvis PC 29-Jun-2005
(Antigua and Barbuda) The parties disputed the effect of a joint venture of the sale of an additional range of cars through a car showroom. One party said the other had misrepresented thir contractual status, and the other said that an approach had . .
CitedYaqoob and Another v Royal Insurance (Uk) Ltd CA 25-May-2006
Appeal against refusal of insurance company to pay on fire loss claim. Building entered by intruders with key.
Held: ‘If after hearing the evidence the judge had been left in the position that he could not be satisfied, on the balance of . .
CitedCrystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd v Dowie QBD 14-Jun-2007
The parties had agreed a compromise on the leaving of the defendant as manager. The club now said that the agreement had been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. He had been released but had said he had not had contact with another London club . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.187260

Moore v News of the World: CA 1972

An article was published which the plaintiff said left readers with the false apprehension that she had written it. She claimed under the statutory tort of false attribution.
Held: The judge was correct to direct the jury to make up their minds what the impression was to the reader. Confirming that a judge need not deal in detail with facts which were admitted by both parties when directing the jury in a defamation trial, ‘There were left out of the summing up, as out of every summing up which deserves the name, some of the things which one party, and probably both parties, would have liked put in; but there was no omission which could have led to a misunderstanding or injustice.’
Lord Denning MR set out section 5 of the 1952 Act and said: ‘That is a very complicated section, but it means that a Defendant is not to fail simply because he cannot prove every single thing in the libel to be true. If he proves the greater part of it to be true, theneven though there is a smaller part not proved, nevertheless the Defendant will win as long as the part not proved does not do the Plaintiff much more harm.’

Judges:

Stephenson LJ, Lord Denning MR

Citations:

[1972] 1 QB 441

Statutes:

Copyright Act 1956 843, Defamation Act 1952 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBasham v Gregory and Little Brown and Co CA 2-Jul-1998
The defendant sought a retrial of his action for defamation.
Held: The judge’s directions on meaning as to the respective contentions was correct, and also the allocation of the burden of proof. Whilst the court had reservations about the . .
CitedAlan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd PatC 21-Jan-1998
The claimant was a member of Parliament and an author. The defendant published a column which was said to give the impression that the claimant had written it. It was a parody. The claim was in passing off.
Held: The first issue was whether a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.185253

Elsee v Smith: 1822

The court considered a claim that a search warrant had been issued for malice.

Citations:

(1822) 2 Chit 304

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedRoy v Prior HL 1970
The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
Held: . .
CitedCrawford v Jenkins CA 24-Jul-2014
The parties had divorced but acrimony continued. H now complained of his arrests after allegations from his former wife that he had breached two orders. He had been released and no charges followed. The court had ruled that W’s complaints were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.184699

Janvier v Sweeney: 1919

During the First World War Mlle Janvier lived as a paid companion in a house in Mayfair and corresponded with her German lover who was interned as an enemy alien on the Isle of Man. Sweeney was a private detective who wanted secretly to obtain some of her employer’s documents and sent his assistant to induce her to co-operate by pretending to be from Scotland Yard and saying that the authorities wanted her because she was corresponding with a German spy. Mlle Janvier suffered severe nervous shock from which she took a long time to recover.
Held: The assistant was acting within the scope of his employment and the two detectives were liable. The jury awarded her andpound;250.

Citations:

[1919] 2 KB 316

Citing:

FollowedWilkinson v Downton 8-May-1997
Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. He told her, falsely, that her husband had been involved in an accident and . .

Cited by:

CitedWong v Parkside Health NHS Trust and Another CA 16-Nov-2001
The claimant had sued her former employer for post-traumatic stress resulting from alleged harassment at her place of work. The claimant appealed against an order refusing damages. The court had held that outside the 1997 Act which was not in force . .
CitedWainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedRhodes v OPO and Another SC 20-May-2015
The mother sought to prevent a father from publishing a book about her child’s life. It was to contain passages she said may cause psychological harm to the 12 year old son. Mother and son lived in the USA and the family court here had no . .
CitedOPO v MLA and Another CA 9-Oct-2014
The claimant child sought to prevent publication by his father of an autobiography which, he said, would be likely to cause him psychological harm. The father was well known classical musician who said that he had himself suffered sexual abuse as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182251

Davy v Garrett: 1878

It is not sufficient in pleadings to allege facts from which fraud might be inferred but which are also consistent with innocence.
Thesiger LJ said: ‘Fraudulent conduct must be distinctly alleged and distinctly proved, and it [is] not allowable to leave fraud to be inferred from the facts’ and ‘General allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice.’

Judges:

Thesiger LJ

Citations:

(1878) 7 ChD 473

Cited by:

CitedArmitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
CitedStocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.548011

Rowland v Veale, And Others: 9 Feb 1774

In justification by process out of an Inferior Court, the plea stated ‘that the plaintiff below levied his plaint, in a plea of trespass on the case; for a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court;’ and had well enough, without setting forth the cause of action, or that the defendant became indebted within the jurisdiction.

Citations:

[1774] EngR 43, (1774) 1 Cowp 18, (1774) 98 ER 944 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.373899

Cattle v The Stockton Waterworks: 1875

The owner of land had contracted with the plaintiff for him to build a tunnel under a road, along which there was a defective water pipe. The pipe leaked, and when the contractor started to dig, the water that had accumulated under the road flowed out, obstructing the works. This either reduced the contractor’s profit or caused him to make a loss, and he claimed in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held: The contractor had no title to claim.
Blackburn J said: ‘In the present case the objection is technical and against the merits, and we should be glad to avoid giving it effect. But if we did so, we should establish an authority for saying that, in such a case as that of Fletcher v. Rylands . . the defendant would be liable, not only to an action by the owner of the drowned mine, and by such of his workmen as had their tools or clothes destroyed, but also to an action by every workman and person employed in the mine, who in consequence of its stoppage made less wages than he would otherwise have done. And many similar cases to which this would apply might be suggested. It may be said that it is just that all such persons should have compensation for such a loss, and that, if the law does not give them redress, it is imperfect. Perhaps it may be so. But, as was pointed out by Coleridge, J., in Lumley v. Gye . . Courts of justice should not ‘allow themselves, in the pursuit of perfectly complete remedies for all wrongful acts, to transgress the bounds, which our law, in a wise consciousness as I conceive of its limited powers, has imposed on itself, of redressing only the proximate and direct consequences of wrongful acts.’ In this we quite agree.’

Judges:

Blackburn J

Citations:

(1875) LR 10 QB 453

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedD Pride and Partners (A Firm) and Others v Institute for Animal Health and Others QBD 31-Mar-2009
The claimants sought damages after the loss of business when the defendants’ premises were the source of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The organism had escaped from their premises via a broken drain.
Held: Much of the damage claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.331089

Turner v Ambler: 13 Feb 1847

In an action for malicious prosecution, the facts material to the question of probable cause must be found by the jury; and the Judge is then to decide, as a point of law, whether the facts so found establish probable cause or want of it : among these facts are the defendant’s knowledge of the alleged ground of accusation at the time when he prosecuted ; and his belief, at that time, that the conduct forming such ground of accusation amounted to the offence charged. If the defendant did not so believe, the want of reasonable and probable cause is established, though the imputed offence appear prima facie to have been committed by the plaintiff, and the fact to have been known to the defendant, before the charge was made. The absence of belief must be proved by the plaintiff. And, if it be not proved, the defect is not supplied (for the purpose of shewing want of probable cause} by evidence that the defendant made use of the charge as a means of obtaining an
unfair advantage over the plaintiff.

Citations:

[1847] EngR 270, (1847) 10 QB 252, (1847) 116 ER 98

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.300886

Mellor v Spateman (1): 1845

Citations:

[1845] EngR 154, (1845) 1 Wms Saund 339, (1845) 85 ER 489

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMellor v Spateman (2) 1845
A corporation may prescribe for common in gross for cattle levant and couchant within the town, but not for common in gross without number . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.303296

Smith and another v Lloyds TSB Group plc: QBD 23 Dec 1999

A cheque was altered and presented and paid through an account operated by the defendants. The claimants asserted that the collecting bank had converted the cheque and were liable to repay its value. The cheque having been fraudulently altered, it was held that it had, under the Act, ceased to be a cheque as such, it became avoided, and neither collecting nor paying bank were liable for its face value in conversion.

Citations:

Times 23-Dec-1999

Statutes:

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 64, Cheques Act 1957 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Banking, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89318

Mead Corporation and Another v Riverwood Multiple Packaging Division of Riverwood Etc: ChD 28 Mar 1997

The Court must have evidence of a foreign company’s involvement in an infringement before a joinder could be ordered.

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-1997, [1997] FSR 484

Cited by:

CitedSea Shepherd UK v Fish and Fish Ltd SC 4-Mar-2015
Accessory Liability in Tort
The court considered the concept of accessory liability in tort. Activists had caused damage to vessels of the respondent which was transporting live tuna in cages, and had caused considerable damage. The appellant company owned the ship from which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83587

Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Another (No 2): HL 8 Feb 2001

Where a party sought to allege that a decision of the House had been obtained by the other party having presented perjured evidence, the correct remedy was not to petition the House direct for this purpose. Such a case would involve investigation of the facts for which the House was not an appropriate forum. The case should proceed by way of a fresh court action entirely.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

Citations:

Gazette 15-Feb-2001, Times 14-Feb-2001, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 485, [2001] 1 WLR 429, [2001] UKHL 72

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoKuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company and Others (Nos 4 and 5) HL 16-May-2002
After the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi government had dissolved Kuwait airlines, and appropriated several airplanes. Four planes were destroyed by Allied bombing, and 6 more were appropriated again by Iran.
Held: The appeal failed. No claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.82864

Martin v Watson: CA 26 Jan 1994

The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, saying that the defendant had made a complaint to the police knowing it to be false that the claimant had indecently exposed himself. Acting on the complaint the police had arrested and charged him, but then the charges were dropped with no evidence offered.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against a finding of malicious prosecution succeeded. A complainant to the police is not a prosecutor for malicious prosecution purposes. It is not he who sets the law in motion. A more direct involvement in the process of the prosecution had to be shown.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Mar-1994, Times 27-Jan-1994, Independent 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 2 WLR 500, [1994] QB 425, [1994] 2 All ER 606

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromMartin v Watson HL 13-Jul-1995
The plaintiff had been falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbour, for indecent exposure whilst standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been arrested and charged, but at a hearing before the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown . .
CitedHunt v AB CA 22-Oct-2009
The claimant sought damages from a woman in malicious prosecution, saying that she had made a false allegation of rape against him. He had served two years in prison.
Held: The claim failed. A complainant is not a prosecutor, and is not liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.83451

Gotha City v Sotheby’s and Another; Federal Republic of Germany v Same: QBD 9 Sep 1998

Limitation does not run in favour of a thief. A painting stolen during the war and dealt with by those knowing its true origin remained in the ownership of the original owner however long it had been held by someone who was not a purchaser in good faith. Moses J said: ‘In resolving the disputes as to foreign law, I must be guided by the following principles:
(1) when faced with conflicting evidence about foreign law, I must resolve differences in the same way as in the case of other conflicting evidence as to facts (Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362 at 1368G);
(2) where the evidence conflicts I am bound to look at the effect of the foreign sources on which the experts rely as part of their evidence in order to evaluate and interpret that evidence and decide between the conflicting testimony (Bumper Corporation at 1369H ;
(3) I should not consider passages contained within foreign sources of law produced by the experts to which those experts have not themselves referred (Bumper Corporation at 1369D to G);
(4) it is not permissible to reject uncontradicted expert evidence unless it is patently absurd (Bumper Corporation at 1371B);
(5) In considering foreign sources of law I should adopt those foreign rules of construction of which the experts have given evidence (this principle underlies the principle that an English court must not conduct its own researches into foreign law);
(6) whilst an expert witness may give evidence as to his interpretation as to the meaning of a statute, it is not for the expert to interpret the meaning of a foreign document. His evidence will be limited to giving evidence as to the proper approach, according to the relevant foreign rules of construction to that document’.’

Judges:

Moses J

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoCity of Gotha v Sotheby’s and Another CA 19-Jun-1997
An abandonment of privilege within discovery proceedings did not imply general waiver of same privilege; limited to instant proceedings. . .

Cited by:

See alsoCity of Gotha v Sotheby’s and Another CA 19-Jun-1997
An abandonment of privilege within discovery proceedings did not imply general waiver of same privilege; limited to instant proceedings. . .
CitedRachmaninoff and Others v Sotheby’s and Another QBD 1-Mar-2005
The defendant had offered for sale by auction recently discovered works of Rachmaninoff. The claimants, descendants of the composer asserted ownership through his estate. The defendants refused to identify the seller.
Held: The claim should . .
CitedIran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd QBD 29-Mar-2007
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.80941

The Carlgarth: 1927

Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used.’ and ‘Another distinction is that in a highway by land one proceeds by physical contact, but in water one proceeds by floating along in the water and it is only in special circumstances that there is any right to ground or sit on the bottom of a river just as there is no right to sit in the middle of a road and say one is exercising a right to use a public roadway.’

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

[1927] P 93

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThames Heliport Plc v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 28-Nov-1996
The use of a tethered barge as a heliport constituted a change of use of the land under the river. . .
CitedKeown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust CA 2-Feb-2006
The claimant a young boy fell from a fire escape on the defendant’s building. He suffered brain damage and in later life was convicted of sexual offences.
Held: His claim failed: ‘there was no suggestion that the fire escape was fragile or had . .
CitedGeary v JD Wetherspoon Plc QBD 14-Jun-2011
The claimant, attempting to slide down the banisters at the defendants’ premises, fell 4 metres suffering severe injury. She claimed in negligence and occupiers’ liability. The local council had waived a requirement that the balustrade meet the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.238291

Robert Addie and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck: SCS 1928

A boy trespassed on land and was injured on machinery there. The local working-classes resorted to the field regularly ‘(1) as an open space; (2) as a playground; (3) as a means of access to chapel and railway station; and (4) – as regards the less well disposed members of the local community – as a means of approach to the defenders’ coal bing and wood depot for purposes of depredation. ‘ The defendant had taken steps to prevent the latter, but not otherwise.
Held: Lord President Clyde said that if the presence of a trespasser near a dangerous machine is known to the proprietor he cannot disregard it: ‘I am unable to distinguish that case from the case in which the proprietor knows of the habitual resort of adults or children, or both, to the near neighbourhood of the dangerous machine – a habit of resort which makes it to his knowledge likely that one or more of such persons may be at the machine when he applies the motive power.’

Judges:

Lord President Clyde

Citations:

1928 SC 547

Citing:

CitedLowery v Walker HL 9-Nov-1910
A trespasser was injured by the land owner’s savage horse.
Held: If a land-owner knows of but does nothing to stop acts of trespass by the public on his land, there may be an implied license. Decision reversed. In Scottish courts the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAddie (Robert) and Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck HL 25-Feb-1929
No occupier is under any duty to potential trespassers, whether adults or children, to do anything to protect them from danger on his land, however likely it may be that they will come and run into danger and however lethal the danger may be. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Scotland, Land

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.211428

Arbroath v North Eastern Railway: 1883

In a case alleging malicious prosecution, the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause is on the Plaintiff, who thus takes on the notoriously difficult task of proving a negative

Citations:

(1883) II QBD 440

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSinclair v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and British Telecommunications Plc CA 12-Dec-2000
The claimant had been prosecuted, but the charge was dismissed as an abuse of process. He now appealed a strike out of his civil claim for damages for malicious prosecution.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision to dismiss the criminal charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Torts – Other

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196690

Duke of Athol v Torrie: 1849

Citations:

(1849) 12 D 328

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd HL 4-Mar-1999
21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192199

Tee v Lautro Limited: CA 20 Nov 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1009

Statutes:

Financial Services Act 1986 187(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDavis v Radcliffe PC 5-Apr-1990
(Isle of Man) Misfeasance in public office.
Held: No duty of care was owed by financial regulators towards investors. . .
CitedYuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.140876

Kelly v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2001

The appellant had been convicted by the magistrates of an offence under section 2 of the Act. He had made three abusive telephone calls within a few minutes of one another to the victim’s mobile, in the middle of the night. The victim did not receive the calls at that time and they were recorded on her voicemail facility. In the morning she listened to all three messages one after the other. He submitted that the three calls were all so much part and parcel of one another that there was no course of conduct, and that in any event the victim had to feel alarm on more than one occasion.
Held: The appeal failed. Each call was abusive and alarming, but the peculiar facts there were that the calls were very close in time and the victim was only alarmed on one occasion.
Burton J said: ‘Similarly, the purpose of the Act, it seems to me plain, is intended to render actionable conduct which might not be alarming if committed once, but becomes alarming by virtue of being repeated – the repetitious conduct to which Latham LJ referred [in Pratt (2001) 165 JP 800] . . It seems to me that . . what was intended was that something which might not be alarming the first time would become actionable, criminally and civilly, on the second occasion. It is, therefore, in my judgment, not necessary for there to be alarm caused in relation to each of the incidents relied upon as forming part of the course of conduct. It is sufficient if, by virtue of the course of conduct, the victim is alarmed or distressed.’

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2003] Crim LR 45, [2002] EWHC Admin 1428, [2002] 166 JP 621

Statutes:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors CA 15-Feb-2011
The claimant sought protection under the Act from his former employers’ behaviour in making repeated allegations against him. He appealed against the striking out of his claim.
Held: The appeal suceeded. The matter should go to trial. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.429626

Lister and others v Hesley Hall Ltd: CA 7 Oct 1999

Where a residential worker at a children’s home committed sexual abuse on children within his care, the company running the home were not vicariously liable for the acts themselves, but also were not responsible where the worker did not report his own activities but kept them secret. It was unrealistic to try to separate the acts from the secrecy. Neither was within the course of employment. Waller LJ said: ‘The simple point in this case is that if wrongful conduct is outside the course of employment, a failure to prevent or report that wrong conduct cannot be within the scope of employment so as to make the employer vicariously liable for that failure when the employer was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct itself.’

Judges:

Waller LJ

Citations:

Times 13-Oct-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedST v North Yorkshire County Council CA 14-Jul-1998
The court considered the liability of the respondent for sexual assaults committed by an employee teacher when taking students on school trips.
Held: The Local Authority was not vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by employee . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedDubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others HL 5-Dec-2002
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor
A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners.
Held: The acts complained of were so close to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83090

County Natwest Bank Ltd v Barton and Others: CA 29 Jul 1999

Where misrepresentation had been established, it was presumed that if the fact misrepresented would reasonably form part of a basis of a decision, that it did so unless it could be shown that it was not so relied upon. It was not right to limit the level of evidence needed to rebut such a presumption. A misrepresentation is relied upon if it results in the continuance of an action already begun.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Sep-1999, Times 29-Jul-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79559

Abrahams v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: CA 8 Dec 2000

The claimant had been arrested for swearing at a police officer. After her arrest, the claimant made admissions to secure a caution, rather than risk prosecution. She later sought to begin a civil action for damages against the police in the course of which she the denied the matters which she had earlier admitted.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against a strike out of her claim succeeded. The admissions had been secured by an apparent breach of duty by the officer, and she was not be estopped from bringing the claim. The formal caution is not so closely analogous to a conviction that the claimant should be barred from beginning civil proceedings because of it. An attack on the caution did not involve attacking any decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Lord Justice Mantell said: ‘the caution was not brought about by any decision of a court of justice, so did not fall foul of the rule in Saif Ali. An attack on it did not involve attacking a decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Mantell LJ, Kay LJ

Citations:

Gazette 01-Feb-2001, Times 21-Dec-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 1257, [2000] EWCA Civ 3043, [2000] Po LR 374

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSaif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .

Cited by:

CitedRoberts, Regina (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another SC 17-Dec-2015
The Court considered the validity of suspicionless stop and search activities under s 60 of the 1994 Act, by police officers.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The safeguards attending the use of the s 60 power, and in particular the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Criminal Practice, Police

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77618

Wallingford v Mutual Society: HL 1880

Lord Hatherley said: ‘Now I take it to be as settled as anything well can be by repeated decisions, that the mere averment of fraud, in general terms, is not sufficient for any practical purpose in [a pleading]. Fraud may be alleged in the largest and most sweeping terms imaginable. What you have to do is, if it be matter of account, to point out a specific error, and bring evidence of that error, and establish it by that evidence. Nobody can be expected to meet a case, and still less to dispose of a case, summarily upon mere allegations of fraud without any definite character being given to those charges by stating the facts upon which they rest.’
Lord Selbourne LC said: ‘With regards to fraud, if there be any principle which is perfectly well settled, it is that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice. And here I find nothing but perfectly general and vague allegations of fraud. No single material fact is condescended upon; in a manner which would enable any Court to understand what it was that was alleged to be fraudulent.’

Judges:

Lord Hatherley, Lord Selbourne LC, (Lord Blackburn

Citations:

(1880) 5 App Cas 685

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Litigation Practice, Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.592688

Australian Steel and Mining Corpn Pty Ltd v Corben: 1974

Complaint was made that a statement (as to the identity of a purchaser to whom Mr Corben, who had decided to sell, was to give an option to purchase) was a ‘but for’ cause of the agreement. Mr Corben would not have persevered with the deal if he had not known the identity of the purchaser.
Held: The trial Judge or jury have to answer the question – did the misrepresentation cause the representee to enter into the contract, it being understood that the representation ‘was one among the factors which induced the contract”. That issue is one of fact.

Judges:

Hutley JA

Citations:

[1974] 2 NSWLR 202

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.588901

Inntrepreneur Pub Company (CPC) and Another v Sweeney: ChD 27 May 2002

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.

Judges:

Mr Justice Park

Citations:

Times 26-Jun-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002

Statutes:

Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Torts – Other, Equity, Costs

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.174083

Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd v Mann: PC 1961

The respondent Mann practiced as a solicitor in partnership with Richardson. They kept a ‘trust account’ in the partnership name with the Australian and New Zealand Bank in Sydney (‘ANZ’). Under the partnership agreement, all assets belonged to Mann, but cheques might be drawn on the partnership bank account by either. Mann gave the necessary authority to ANZ. Richardson used that authority to draw cheques, inserting on each after the printed word ‘Pay’, the words ‘Bank cheque favour H. Ward’ or ‘Bank cheque H. Ward;’. He also filed application forms for bank cheques in favour of H. Ward to a like amount, purporting to sign them on behalf of the firm. He took the documents to ANZ, which in each case debited the firm’s account and issued a bank draft of an equal amount in the form ‘Pay H. Ward or bearer.’ He took the cheques to the appellant bank, and cashed them over the counter. The bank paid the cheques. He was fraudulent throughout; Ward was not a client of the partnership, nor had any client authorised the payment to him of any money held in the trust account. Mann sued the appellant bank for conversion of the bank cheques, or alternatively to recover the sums received by it from ANZ bank as money had and received to his use. He succeeded before the trial judge, whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. Mann never obtained any title to the cheques, and he could not obtain title by ratifying the conduct of Richardson in obtaining the cheques from ANZ bank, without at the same time ratifying the dealings in the cheques by Ward and the appellant bank. Mann’s claim for damages for conversion failed, and that his alternative claim for money had and received also failed. Where a partner in a firm wrongfully draws a cheque on the partnership account, the proceeds of the cheque are legally his.
Viscount Simonds said: ‘It is important to distinguish between what was Richardson’s authority in relation on the one hand to the A.N.Z. bank and on the other to Mann. No question arises in these proceedings between Mann and the A.N.Z. bank. It is clear that Mann could not as between himself and the bank question Richardson’s authority to draw cheques on the trust account. The position as between Mann and Richardson was different. Richardson had no authority, express or implied, from Mann either to draw cheques on the trust account or to obtain bank cheques in exchange for them except for the proper purposes of the partnership. If he exceeded those purposes, his act was unauthorised and open to challenge by Mann. It is in these circumstances that the question must be asked whether, as the judge held, the bank cheques were throughout the property of Mann. It is irrelevant to this question what was the relation between Richardson and Ward and whether the latter gave any consideration for the bank cheques that he received and at what stage Mann learned of the fraud that had been practised upon him. The proposition upon which the respondent founds his claim is simple enough: Richardson was his partner and in that capacity was able to draw upon the trust account and so to obtain from the bank its promissory notes: therefore the notes were the property of the partnership and belonged to Mann, and Richardson could not give a better title to a third party than he himself had.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Tucker and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest

Citations:

[1961] AC 1, [1960] 3 All ER 482

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedUnion Bank of Australia Ltd v McClintock PC 1922
Where a partner obtains money by drawing on a partnership bank account without authority, he alone and not the partnership obtains legal title to the money so obtained. . .

Cited by:

CitedLipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Company, Banking, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.259437

In re D (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation): 1976

Citations:

[1976] Fam 185

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedF v West Berkshire Health Authority HL 17-Jul-1990
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Health Professions

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.250058

Kingzett v British Railways Board: 1968

Citations:

(1968) 112 SJ 625

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.182881

Gould v Vaggelas: 6 Nov 1984

A deceit was alleged.
Wilson J said: ‘The representation need not be the sole inducement in sustaining the loss. If it plays some part, even if only a minor part, in contributing to the course of action taken a causal connection will exist.’ and ‘If a material representation is made which is calculated to induce the representee to enter into a contract and that person in fact enters into the contract there arises a fair inference of fact that he was induced to do so by the representation.’
Wilson J referred to a situation in which one party ‘has made false statements to [others] intending thereby to induce [them] to enter into a contract and those statements are of such a nature as would be likely to provide such inducement’, saying that, ‘common sense would demand the conclusion the false representations played at least some part in inducing the plaintiff to enter into the contract’.

Judges:

Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson(5) JJ.

Citations:

(1984) 157 CLR 215, [1984] HCA 68, (1984) 56 ALR 31, (1984) 58 ALJR 560

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588900

Betjemann v Betjemann: CA 1895

A father and his two sons had carried on the business as partners from 1856 to 1886; the father died in 1886 but the sons continued the business until 1893 when one of the sons died. The deceased son’s executor brought an action against the surviving partner for an account of the partnership dealings from 1886. The surviving partner claimed that the accounts of the old partnership should be taken from 1856.
Held: The surviving son was entitled to an order for the accounts to be taken against the deceased son’s executor with effect from 1856, on the basis that the accounts of the original firm had been carried on into the new firm without interruption or settlement.
Rigby LJ said: ‘What is the duty of a man to inquire? To whom does he owe that duty? Certainly not to the person who had committed the concealed fraud.’

Judges:

Rigby, Lindley LJJ

Citations:

[1895] 2 Ch 474

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Company

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.588902

Spittle v Davis: 1650

In a replevin, the case was; One Turk seised of lands in fee, devised parcell thereof to his eldest son in taile, arid the other parcell to his youngest son in fee. Provided, and his intent was, that if any of his sons or any of their issues, do alien or demise any of the said Iands, before any of them comes to the age of thirty years, that then the other shall have the estate, and does not limit what estate, and then one of the sons makes a Iease for years before such age, whereupon the other enters,
and before he comes to the age of thirty years, he aiiens that part into which he made entry, and the other brother beirig the eldest enters and makes a lease to Spittle the plainiff for three years, and Davies by commandment of the younger brother enters, and takes a horse damage-feasant, and Spittle brought a replevini : and upon demur, it seemed to the Court, that this was a limitation, and by vertue of the will the estate devised to them untill they aliened, and upon the alienation to go to the other; and upon such alienation the land is clischarged of all limiitations, for otherwise the land upon one alienation shall go to one, and upon another alienation should go back again, arid so to and fro ad infinitum, vide Dyer 14. and 29. And afterwards all the Judges agreed, that after one brother had entred into the land by reason of the alienation that land was discharged forever of the limitation by the will ; and judgment was given accordingly.

Citations:

[1650] EngR 15, (1650) Owen 55, (1650) 74 ER 895

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Land

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.416835

Turner v Hockey: 1887

The owner of a cow gave a bill of sale over it (and others) but then asked the defendant auctioneer to sell it. He did not inform the auctioneer of the bill of sale.
Held: An auctioneer who unknowingly but in the ordinary course of business sells the goods of one person having been told they are the goods of another, and pays the proceeds of sale to that other, is not guilty of conversion of the goods. The original purchaser was not able to pursue an action against the auctioneer.

Citations:

(1887) 56 LJQB 301

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMarcq v Christe Manson and Woods (t/a Christies) QBD 29-Oct-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.181337

Case LXXVI P 6 Jac 1 Brown1 211 5 Co 49 A B Co Lit 126 B, Strickland v Thorpe Cr 207: 1220

Trespass was brought the 25 Sept. I Jac. with a continuando to the 27th of Novemb, after ; upon not guilty pleaded hy the defendant, the plairitiff had judgment : the judgment was not quoacl capiatur ; for a genera1 pardon pardonecl all offences until 24 Sept. I Jzc. ad upon this, the force, which gives a firn to the King, was pardoned.
The force is the cause of the fine ; tbe force was upon the first entry, and that being pardoned, the King shall not have a fine ; the judgment shall be quod non capiatur quia perdonatur :and he shatl not be amerced in this case.

Citations:

[1220] EngR 776, (1220-1623) Jenk 303, (1220) 145 ER 221 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.461688

Hassan v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 27 May 2011

The claimant prisoner complained that his confinement to a segregation unit had been unlawful.
Held: A period of segregation in HMP Full Sutton for some seven weeks ‘did not interfere with the claimant’s Article 8 rights as a prisoner sufficiently significantly as to require justification’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1359 (Admin)

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedKing, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 27-Mar-2012
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.440230

Hall v Hall: 11 Nov 1692

If a freeman of London absolutely gives away his goods in his life-time to any of his children, this is good. But if he keeps the deed of gift in his own power, or continues in possession of the goods, then it is a fraud upon the custom.

Citations:

[1692] EngR 54, (1692) 2 Vern 277, (1692) 23 ER 779 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.393143

Reynolds v Clerk: 16 Jun 1725

If a man has a right to the use of a yard in common with the owner, he does not commit in trespass by entering into the yard in order to fix a water-spout to his house; but if any injury is done to the owner of the yard, in consequence of fixing such spout, he may recover dmages in an action on the case.

Citations:

[1725] EngR 116, (1725) 8 Mod 272, (1725) 88 ER 193

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSouthport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd CA 3-Jun-1954
The defendant’s tanker came aground, spilling fuel, for which the corporation claimed damages. The corporation appealed against rejection of that claim.
Held: In order to support an action for private nuisance the defendant must have used his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.389076

Turner v Ford: 11 Feb 1846

The plaintiff lent a piano-forte to W, in whose hands it was seized under a distress for rent. While the lancllorcl’s bailiff remained iii possession by W.’s consent, a fieri facias against W, at the suit of another creditor, was put into the premises, and the officer seized the piano forte, and removed it to the premises of the defendant, an auctioneer, for sale : Held, that the plaintiff’ (after demarid arid refusal to deliver it) was entitled to recover it from the defendant in trover.

Citations:

[1846] EngR 407, (1846) 15 M and W 212, (1846) 153 ER 826

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.302302

The Leather Cloth Company, Limited, v The American Leather Cloth Company, Limited: 5 Dec 1863

The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in the protection given to trade marks rests upon property, and the Court interferes by injunction, because that is the only mode by which property of this description can be effectually protected.
Property in a trade mark is the right to an exclusive use of some mark, name or
symbol in connection with a particular manufacture or vendible commodity.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor Lord Westbury

Citations:

[1863] EngR 1050, (1863) 4 De G J and S 137, (1863) 46 ER 868

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoThe Leather Cloth Company v The American Leather Cloth Company 7-Jul-1863
Although a trade mark is not property as such, when a business is bona fide assigned, the right to exclusive use of the trade mark will pass with it. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLeather Cloth Co Ltd v American Leather Cloth Co Ltd HL 1-Feb-1865
Where an individual works in a partnership the goodwill generated by his acts will in the normal course vest in the partnership.
Lord Kingsdown said: ‘Nobody doubts that a trader may be guilty of such misrepresentations with regard to his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.283705

Gray v Thames Trains and Others: HL 17 Jun 2009

The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. He now sought damages for his loss of earnings through detention in prison and mental hospital.
Held: Such damages could not be claimed successfully once the claimant had been convicted. Though the defendants had admitted their negligence, success for the claimant would be against the public policy maxim that ex turpi causa non oritur actio. If the case was extreme, and the order for detention was made purely for the defendant’s mental condition, and not for the criminal behaviour, the maxim might not apply, but that was not the case here.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘there is no dispute that there was a causal connection between the tort and the killing. The evidence which the judge accepted was but for the tort, Mr Gray would not have killed. But the rule of public policy invoked in this case is not based upon some primitive psychology which deems mental stress to be incapable of having a connection with subsequent criminal acts . . the case against compensating Mr Gray for his loss of liberty is based upon the inconsistency of requiring someone to be compensated for a sentence imposed because of his own personal responsibility for a criminal act.’ and ‘the maxim ex turpi causa expresses not so much a principle as a policy. Furthermore, that policy is not based upon a single justification but on a group of reasons, which vary in different situations.’
Lord Brown said: ‘The law cannot at one and the same time incarcerate someone for his criminality and compensate him civilly for the financial consequences.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2009] UKHL 33, Times 19-Jun-2009, [2009] PIQR P22, (2009) 108 BMLR 205, [2009] 4 All ER 81, [2009] 3 WLR 167, [2009] 1 AC 1339

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 37 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedClunis (By his Next Friend Prince) v Camden and Islington Health Authority CA 5-Dec-1997
The plaintiff had killed someone and, as a result, been convicted of manslaughter and ordered to be detained in a secure hospital when subject to after-care under section 117 of the 1983 Act. He sought damages from the health authority on the basis . .
CitedRegina v Drew HL 8-May-2003
The defendant was mentally ill. He had been convicted of a second serious offence, and now appealed the life sentence imposed. Psychiatrists had recommended a hospital order, but such an order could not now be made by virtue of the 2000 Act save in . .
Appeal fromGray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another CA 25-Jun-2008
The claimant was a victim of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. He later committed and was convicted of a manslaughter and detained under the 1983 Act. He said that the accident had caused a major personality change. The defendant relied on the defence . .
CitedRegina v Birch CACD 1989
Even where there is culpability, a hospital order with a restriction order may well be the appropriate way to deal with a dangerous and disordered person.
Mustill LJ discussed the effect of a restriction order: ‘In marked contrast with the . .
CitedRegina v Eaton CACD 1976
A hospital order with a restriction order unlimited as to time was made in respect of a woman with a psychopathic disorder where her offence was minor criminal damage. . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
CitedHolman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
CitedAskey v Golden Wine Co Ltd 1948
Denning J said: ‘It is, I think, a principle of our law that the punishment inflicted by a criminal court is personal to the offender, and that the civil courts will not entertain an action by the offender to recover an indemnity against the . .
CitedNational Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
CitedChapman v Hearse, Baker v Willoughby HL 26-Nov-1969
The plaintiff, a pedestrian had been struck by the defendant’s car while crossing the road. The plaintiff had negligently failed to see the defendant’s car approaching. The defendant had a clear view of the plaintiff prior to the collision, but was . .
CitedBritish Columbia v Zastowny 8-Feb-2008
Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Damages – Past and future wage loss – Periods of incarceration – Plaintiff seeking damages for injuries suffered as consequence of sexual assaults – Whether plaintiff entitled to . .
CitedHunter Area Health Service v Presland 21-Apr-2005
(Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) The plaintiff, who had been negligently discharged from a psychiatric hospital, was acquitted of murdering a woman six hours later on the ground of mental illness but ordered to be detained in . .
CitedJobling v Associated Dairies HL 1980
The claimant suffered an accident at work which left him with continuing disabling back pain. Before the trial of his claim he was diagnosed as suffering from a disease, in no way connected with the accident, which would in any event have wholly . .
CitedMeah v McCreamer (No 1) QBD 1985
The claimant had suffered serious brain damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence, resulting in a personality change which caused him to commit offences for which he was imprisoned. He sought damages for that imprisonment.
Held: Woolf J . .
CitedMeah v McCreamer (No 2) 1986
The court rejected an attempt to recover the damages which the plaintiff had been found liable to pay to two women whom he had subjected to criminal attacks. The damages were too remote. But the claim would also have been rejected on the public . .
CitedVellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 31-Jul-2001
The police were not under any duty to protect someone who had been arrested from injuring himself in an attempt to escape. The claimant had a history of seeking to avoid capture by jumping from his flat window. On this occasion he injured himself in . .
CitedState Rail Authority of New South Wales v Wiegold 1991
(New South Wales) The plaintiff was seriously injured in an industrial accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. At first he received payments of worker’s compensation but when these ceased he took to supplementing his income by growing and . .
CitedRahman v Arearose Limited and Another, University College London, NHS Trust CA 15-Jun-2000
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 . .
CitedCross v Kirkby CA 18-Feb-2000
The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant . .
CitedWorrall v British Railways Board CA 29-Apr-1999
The plaintiff alleged that an injury which he has suffered as a result of his employer’s negligence had changed his personality. As a result, he had on two occasions committed sexual assaults on prostitutes, for which offences he had been sentenced . .
CitedRevill v Newbery CA 2-Nov-1995
The defendant owned a shed on an allotment and slept there at night in order to protect his property from the attentions of vandals and thieves. Among other items in the shed the defendant, aged 76 at the time, kept a 12-bore shotgun and cartridges. . .
At first instanceGray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another QBD 6-Jul-2007
The claimant had been injured in an accident for which the defendants were responsible. He developed a personality disorder which led to him committing manslaughter and being detained under section 37. The defendants denied being liable beyond the . .

Cited by:

CitedPrison Officers Association v Iqbal CA 4-Dec-2009
The claimant, a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities. In view of the strike, a governor’s order had . .
CitedGnango, Regina v SC 14-Dec-2011
The prosecutor appealed against a successful appeal by the defendant against his conviction for murder. He and an opponent had engaged in a street battle using guns. His opponent had shot an innocent passer by. The court was now asked as to whether . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
CitedHounga v Allen and Another SC 30-Jul-2014
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
CitedHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.347027

Eccles v Bourque: 11 Oct 1974

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) An action was brought by the appellant against the respondents, three constables on the Vancouver Police Force, for damages for trespass alleged to have been committed when the police officers entered the appellant’s apartment to apprehend one C, for whom there were three outstanding warrants. The officers were in plain clothes but were armed. They gave notice of presence by knocking on the door of the apartment and after it was opened notice of identity was given. An officer then told the appellant the reason for the entry. C was not found in the apartment. The appellant was successful at trial, but, on appeal, the Court of Appeal by a majority reversed. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Canlii Per Laskin C.J. and Judson, Spence and Dickson JJ.: The submission that a person who is by s. 450 of the Criminal Code authorized to make an arrest is, by s. 25, authorized by law to commit a trespass with or without force in the accomplishment of that arrest, provided he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, was not accepted. Section 25 merely affords justification to a person for doing what he is required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, if he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, and for using necessary force for that purpose. The question was whether the respondents were required or authorized by law to commit a trespass, not whether they were required or authorized to make an arrest. If they were authorized by law to commit a trespass, the authority for it must be found in the common law for there is nothing in the Criminal Code.
Unlike civil process, in the execution of criminal process the test is whether there are reasonable and probable grounds for acting. If the police officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the person named in the warrant for arrest is in the home of a stranger he has the right, after proper demand, to enter the home forcibly, to search and to arrest. In the present case the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that C was in the appellant’s apartment.
Except in exigent circumstances, the police officers must make an announcement prior to entry. In the ordinary case, before forcing entry, they should give (i) notice of presence by knocking or ringing the doorbell, (ii) notice of authority, by identifying themselves as law enforcement officers and (iii) notice of purpose, by stating a lawful reason for entry. On the facts of this case, proper notice was given.

Judges:

Laskin CJ and Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpre JJ

Citations:

(1974) 50 DLR (3d) 753

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedGillies v Procurator Fiscal, Elgin HCJ 1-Oct-2008
The police went to the defendant’s flat to find her boyfriend. She refused them access, but when they saw him, the police officers called out that he was under arrest under the 1995 Act, and forced their way past the door and the defendant. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Police

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276521

Paragon v Thakerer: 1993

A claim for fraudulent or intentional breach of trust/fiduciary duty is a different cause of action from a claim for breach of trust/fiduciary duty generally and must be separately and distinctly pleaded.

Citations:

[1993] 1 All ER 400

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBerezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Torts – Other, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.268053

National Semiconductors (UK) Ltd v UPS Ltd: 1996

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.’

Judges:

Longmore J

Citations:

[1996] 2 LL Rep 212

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHorobin 1952
Barry J sought to define wilful misconduct through negligence as: ‘he took a risk which he knew he ought not to take.’ . .

Cited by:

CitedTNT Global Spa and Another v Denfleet International Ltd and Another CA 2-May-2007
The driver of a lorry carrying the claimant’s goods was said to have fallen asleep at the wheel, and the cargo damaged in the accident. The carrier appealed a finding of liability for wilful misconduct.
Held: ‘I am unable to accept that mere . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258459

Hounga v Allen and Another: SC 30 Jul 2014

The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging racial discrimination, but the only element of her claim which succeeded was of unfair dismissal, rejecting others saying that it had no jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the contract was unlawful, asking the Court: ‘In what circumstances should the defence of illegality defeat a complaint by an employee that an employer has discriminated against him by dismissing him contrary to section 4(2)(c) of the Race Relations Act 1976? ‘
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The defence of illegality of the employment of an illegal immigrant did not operate to defeat a claim of the tort of discrimination.
Lord Wilson set out a definition of human trafficking: ‘The accepted international definition of trafficking is contained in the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (‘the Palermo Protocol’) signed in 2000 and ratified by the UK on 9 February 2006. Article 3 provides:
‘(a) ‘Trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability . . for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, . . sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered ‘trafficking in persons’ even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article’.’
Lord Wilson said: ‘The defence of illegality rests upon the foundation of public policy. ‘The principle of public policy is this . . ‘ said Lord Mansfield by way of preface to his classic exposition of the defence in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343. ‘Rules which rest upon the foundation of public policy, not being rules which belong to the fixed or customary law, are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modification’: Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Nordenfelt [1893] 1 Ch 630, 661 (Bowen LJ). So it is necessary, first, to ask ‘What is the aspect of public policy which founds the defence?’ and, second, to ask ‘But is there another aspect of public policy to which application of the defence would run counter?”
Lord Hughes said: ‘When a court is considering whether illegality bars a civil claim, it is essentially focussing on the position of the claimant vis-a-vis the court from which she seeks relief. It is not primarily focusing on the relative merits of the claimant and the defendant. It is in the nature of illegality that, when it succeeds as a bar to a claim, the defendant is the unworthy beneficiary of an undeserved windfall. But this is not because the defendant has the merits on his side; it is because the law cannot support the claimant’s claim to relief. ‘
Lord Toulson’s concluded generally:
‘Looking behind the maxims, there are two broad discernible policy reasons for the common law doctrine of illegality as a defence to a civil claim. One is that a person should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. The other, linked, consideration is that the law should be coherent and not self-defeating, condoning illegality by giving with the left hand what it takes with the right hand.’
Lord Toulson set out how the courts should approach the question:
‘So how is the court to determine the matter if not by some mechanistic process? In answer to that question I would say that one cannot judge whether allowing a claim which is in some way tainted by illegality would be contrary to the public interest, because it would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system, without (a) considering the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed, (b) considering conversely any other relevant public policies which may be rendered ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim, and (c) keeping in mind the possibility of overkill unless the law is applied with a due sense of proportionality. We are, after all, in the area of public policy. That trio of necessary considerations can be found in the case law. . . The courts must obviously abide by the terms of any statute, but I conclude that it is right for a court which is considering the application of the common law doctrine of illegality to have regard to the policy factors involved and to the nature and circumstances of the illegal conduct in determining whether the public interest in preserving the integrity of the justice system should result in denial of the relief claimed. I put it in that way rather than whether the contract should be regarded as tainted by illegality, because the question is whether the relief claimed should be granted.’
Lord Toulson brought the elements together: ‘The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary (a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, (b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and (c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2014] UKSC 47, [2014] ICR 847, [2014] Eq LR 559, [2014] 4 All ER 595, [2014] 1 WLR 2889, [2014] IRLR 811, [2014] WLR(D) 353, UKSC 2012/0188

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EATAllen (Nee Aboyade-Cole) v Hounga and Another EAT 31-Mar-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Fraud and illegality
The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay as well as racial discrimination arising out of her . .
At CAHounga v Allen and Another CA 15-May-2012
. .
CitedBoulter v Clark 1747
A party to an illegal prize fight who is damaged in the conflict cannot sue for assault . .
CitedNational Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
CitedSaunders v Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
The parties had agreed for the sale and purchase of land and chattels, but had deliberately misdescribed the apportionment so as to reduce tax liability. The purchasers then brought an action for misrepresentation. The vendor replied that the action . .
CitedHoward v Shirlstar Container Transport Ltd CA 1990
The parties contracted for the recovery from Nigeria of an aircraft owned by the defendants which was being detained by the Nigerian authorities at Lagos. Under the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a fee of andpound;25,000 if he . .
CitedCross v Kirkby CA 18-Feb-2000
The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant . .
CitedHall v Woolston Hall Leisure Limited CA 23-May-2000
The fact that an employment contract was tainted with illegality of which the employee was aware, did not deprive the employee of the possibility of claiming rights which were due to her under a statute which created rights associated with but not . .
CitedEnfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; Grace v BF Components Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction
These two appeals consider the circumstances in which contracts will be considered illegal so as to preclude an employee from taking claims . .
CitedEnfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne and Another CA 22-Apr-2008
The appellant company appealed dismissal of their defence to a claim for unfair dismissal that the employment contract was tainted with illegality. The EAT had heard two cases with raised the question of the effect on unfair dismissal claims of . .
CitedV v Addey and Stanhope School CA 30-Jul-2004
The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a . .
CitedHolman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
CitedHall v Hebert 29-Apr-1993
(Canadian Supreme Court) After they had been drinking heavily together, Mr Hebert, who owned a muscle car, allowed Mr Hall to drive it, including initially to give it a rolling start down a road on one side of which there was a steep slope. The car . .
CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedRelaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
CitedSiliadin v France ECHR 26-Jul-2005
(French Text) A 15-year-old girl, had been brought from Togo to France and made to work for a family without pay for 15 hours a day. She had been held in servitude and required to perform forced labour
Held: France had violated article 4 by . .
CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
CitedRantsev v Cyprus And Russia ECHR 7-Jan-2010
A Russian woman, aged 20, had gone to work as an artiste in a cabaret in Cyprus. Three weeks later she was found dead in a street.
Held: The Court upheld her father’s complaint that Cyprus was in breach of article 4 in that its regime for the . .
CitedLM and Others v Regina; Regina v M(L), B(M) and G(D) CACD 21-Oct-2010
Each defendant appealed saying that being themselves the victims of people trafficking, the prosecutions had failed to take into account its obligations under the Convention.
Held: Prosecutors had ‘a three-stage exercise of judgment. The first . .
CitedCN v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
The claimant said that having been raped repeatedly in Uganda, she had fled to England, where her passport was taken and she was forced to work and her earnings taken, and she was held captive. On escaping, her application for asylum was refused. . .
CitedL and Others v The Children’s Commissioner for England and Another CACD 21-Jun-2013
Even where it has been clearly established that a defendant had been trafficked that should not provide him with immunity from prosecution for a criminal offence. Lord Judge CJ explained that: ‘it has not, however, and could not have been argued . .

Cited by:

CitedReyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
CitedTaiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
CitedHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.535439

Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank: CA 2 Feb 2017

Judges:

Gloster DBE, Beatson, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 40, [2017] WLR(D) 71

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromJSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.573867

Marfani and Co Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd: CA 1968

A rogue opened a new bank account under a false name with the help of an incorrect reference from a valued customer.
Held: When an account is fraudulently opened with the bank in the name of another person by someone pretending to be that person, the person opening the account is the customer.
The court explained the tort of conversion, with special reference to bills of exchange. Liability is strict for misappropriation of goods.
Diplock LJ: ‘It is, however, in my view, clear that the intention of the subsection and its statutory predecessors is to substitute for the absolute duty owed at common law by a banker to the true owner of a cheque not to take any steps in the ordinary course of business leading up to an including the receipt of payment of the cheque, and the crediting of the amount of the cheque to the account of his customer, in usurpation of the true owner’s title thereto a qualified duty to take reasonable care to refrain from taking any such step which he foresees is, or ought reasonably to have foreseen was, likely to cause loss or damage to the true owner.
The only respect in which this substituted statutory duty differs from a common law cause of action in negligence is that, since it takes the form of a qualified immunity from a strict liability at common law, the onus of showing that he did take such reasonable care lies upon the defendant banker. Granted good faith in the banker (the other condition of the immunity), the usual matter with respect to which the banker must take reasonable care is to satisfy himself that his own customer’s title to the cheque delivered to him for collection is not defective, i.e., that no other person is the true owner of it. Where the customer is in possession of the cheque at the time of delivery for collection and appears upon the face of it to be the ‘holder’, i.e., the payee or indorsee or the bearer, the banker is, in my view, entitled to assume that the customer is the owner of the cheque unless there are facts which are, or ought to be, known to him which would cause a reasonable banker to suspect that the customer was not the true owner.
What facts ought to be known to the banker, i.e., what inquiries he should make, and what facts are sufficient to cause him reasonably to suspect that the customer is not the true owner, must depend upon current banking practice, and change as that practice changes. Cases decided 30 years ago, when the use by the general public of banking facilities was much less widespread, may not be a reliable guide to what the duty of a careful banker in relation to inquiries, and as to facts which should give rise to suspicion, is today.
What the court has to do is to look at all the circumstances at the time of the acts complained of and to ask itself: were those circumstances such as would cause a reasonable banker possessed of such information about his customer as a reasonable banker would possess, to suspect that his customer was not the true owner of the cheque?
In all actions of the kind with which we are here concerned, the banker’s customer has in fact turned out to be a fraudulent rogue, and attention is naturally concentrated upon the duty of care which was owed by the banker to the person who has in fact turned out to be the true owner of the cheque. We are always able to be wise after the event, but the banker’s duty fell to be performed before it, and the duty which he owed to the true owner ought not to be considered in isolation. At the relevant time, the true owner was entitled to take into consideration the interests of his customer, who, be it remembered, would in all probability turn out to be honest, as most men are, and his own business interests, and to weigh those against the risk of loss or damage to the true owner of the cheque in the unlikely event that he should turn out not to be the customer himself.’

As to the practice of bankers: ‘The only evidence of the practice of bankers was given by the manager and the securities clerk of the branch in question of the defendant bank. No evidence that the general practice of other bankers differed from that adopted by the defendant bank was called by the plaintiff company, although they knew well in advance of the trial, as a result of searching interrogatories, exactly what steps the defendant bank had taken, and what inquiries they had made. It seems a reasonable inference that what the defendants did in the present case was in accordance with current banking practice. Nield J accepted that it was, and Mr Lloyd has not sought to argue the contrary. What he contends is that this court is entitled to examine that practice and to form its own opinion as to whether it does comply with the standard of care which a prudent banker should adopt. That is quite right, but I venture to think that this court should be hesitant before condemning as negligent a practice generally adopted by those engaged in banking business.’

Judges:

Diplock LJ

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 956, [1968] 2 All ER 573

Statutes:

Cheques Act 1957 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedCommissioners of State Savings Bank v Permewan, Wright and Co 18-Dec-1914
(High Court of Australia) The court considered the nature of negligence in a banker: ‘the test of negligence is whether the transaction of paying in any given cheque [coupled with the circumstances antecedent and present] was so out of the ordinary . .

Cited by:

CitedDextra Bank and Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica PC 26-Nov-2001
(Jamaica) A cheque was drawn which was used as part a complex financial arrangement intended to purchase foreign currency to work around Jamaica’s foreign exchange control regulations. It was asserted that by presenting the cheque used in the . .
CitedArchitects of Wine Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc CA 20-Mar-2007
The bank appealed summary judgement against it for conversion of cheques. The cheques had been obtained by a fraud.
Held: The court considered the question of neglience under section 4: ‘The section 4 qualified duty does not require an . .
CitedWhite v Withers Llp and Dearle CA 27-Oct-2009
The claimant was involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. His wife was advised by the defendants, her solicitors, to remove his private papers. The claimant now sought permission to appeal against a strike out of his claim against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181845

Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Sandstone Properties Ltd and Others: QBD 12 Mar 1998

A stock-broker who innocently requested the registration of a transfer supported by a duplicate share certificate was obliged to indemnify the company registrar for his loss even though the fraud had been made possible by duplicate share issue.
Tuckey J: ‘The certificate named the true owner of the shares, Mr AF Moore. The fact that Mr Moore did not live at 4 Furness Road did not alter the truth of this statement. The certificate did represent that Mr Moore lived at that address, but there is no evidence that the brokers relied on the address as such. The certificate did not represent that the person in possession of it was Mr Moore. The brokers relied on the fact that the fraudster said that he was Mr Moore. For these reasons I do not think that [Counsel for the stockbroker] can point to any representation in the certificate upon which the brokers relied which might found an estoppel. But even if he could, all the cases in which the company was held to be estopped involved a bona fide purchaser for value of the shares in question. Here [Counsel’s] submission involves saying that the estoppel arises in favour of the fraudster who transferred the shares. That is not the law. If the estoppel cannot avail the fraudster, it cannot avail his agents, the brokers, either.’

Judges:

Tuckey J

Citations:

Times 12-Mar-1998, [1998] 2 BCLC 429

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88886

United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd: HL 1940

A person whose goods were wrongfully converted by another had a choice of two remedies against the wrongdoer. He could recover damages, in respect of the loss he had sustained by the conversion, or he could recover the proceeds of the conversion obtained by the defendant. It is necessary to distinguish election between remedies from election between rights. The House could hear ‘ghosts clanking their mediaeval chains.’

Judges:

Lord Romer, Lord Atkin

Citations:

[1940] 4 All ER 20, [1941] AC 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedOliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
CitedRegina (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Regina (M) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Admn 25-Mar-2004
The applicants sought judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of leave to appeal. The court had to decide whether such a right survived section 101 of the 2001 Act.
Held: The right to have a judicial review could only be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Damages

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180889

Sweeney v Coote: HL 16 Apr 1907

Opinions that a combination of Protestant parents to withdraw their children from a National school with the object and result of securing the dismissal of a Roman Catholic teacher, not because of any spite or ill-will entertained by them against her personally, but because of her religious opinions, would not be a ‘conspiracy’ against her such as would furnish her with a ground for an action of damages against the parents.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, Robertson, Atkinson, and Collins

Citations:

[1907] UKHL 1004, 44 SLR 1004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622286

Motasim v Crown Prosecution Service and Others: QBD 15 Aug 2017

The claimant had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, from his innocent association with people later convicted of terrorism. The defendant discovered evidence which would undermine the case against him, but refuse to disclose it. Eventually, after the prosecutor was refused a PII claim, he was ordered to be released and the case was dropped. The defendant now applied for the claim to be struck out, saying that it was and had to be speculative.
Held: The claimant having established the detention, it was for the defendant to justify it. The claim was not to be struck out. If necessary, material could be adduced under closed procedure.
In a developing area of law, it would be wrong to strike out a claim on the basis of assumed or hypothetical facts.

Judges:

Davison M

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2071 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Human Rights Act 1998 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedZenati v Police of The Metropolis and Another CA 11-Feb-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages for false imprisonment and infringement of his human rights. On his arrest for a different offence his passport was suspected to be counterfeit, and he was then held for an offence . .
CitedGlinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
CitedElguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another CA 16-Nov-1994
The Court upheld decisions striking out actions for negligence brought by claimants who had been arrested and held in custody during criminal investigations which were later discontinued. The Crown Prosecution Service owes no general duty of care to . .
CitedMoulton v Chief Constable of The West Midlands CA 13-May-2010
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. He had been arrested and held on allegations of serious sexual assaults, but then released when the matter came to the Crown . .
CitedHicks v Faulkner 1878
Before charging a prisoner, a police officer must have ‘an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based upon a full conviction, founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which, assuming them to be true, would . .
CitedClooth v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-1991
Hudoc Violation of Art. 5-3; Just satisfaction reserved . .
CitedBarrett v London Borough of Enfield HL 17-Jun-1999
The claimant had spent his childhood in foster care, and now claimed damages against a local authority for decisions made and not made during that period. The judge’s decision to strike out the claim had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Torts – Other

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621127