Lanbuk on the Law of Torts: cases
222 cases, each with its facts, the issue, what the court held, the principle and why it matters.
Posted By lanbuk.com
222 cases
- A G Spalding & Bros v A W Gamage Ltd (1915)Passing off protects the property in the business or goodwill likely to be injured by misrepresentation (Lord Parker).Passing off
- Adams v Coleridge (1884)A near relative or close friend may warn a woman about the character of a man she plans to marry.Defences to defamation
- Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co (1865)Justification succeeded where the statement was true in substance, though inaccurate in a detail (the length of a prison term).Defences to defamation
- Allan v HeywardAn independent contractor decides for himself how the work is done.Vicarious liability
- Allsop v Church of England Newspaper Ltd (1972)Where words can carry meanings beyond the dictionary sense, the claimant must set them out in the pleadings.Defamation
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (1975)The court asks: is there a serious question to be tried? Would damages be an adequate remedy? Where does the balance of convenience lie?Remedies in tort
- Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)Lord Wilberforce's two-stage test: (1) sufficient proximity/foreseeability; (2) any policy reasons to negate or limit the duty.Negligence: the duty of care
- Armory v Delamirie (1722)A finder has a right to the thing against everyone except the true owner.Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Astaire v Campling (1966)Words are read in their natural and ordinary meaning, as reasonable people would understand them (Diplock LJ).Defamation
- Attia v British Gas plc (1988)Psychiatric harm caused by witnessing damage to property may be actionable.Negligence: nervous shock
- Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957)A public nuisance materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public. The class need not be every member of …Public nuisance
- Bakare v Ibrahim (1973)Express malice is any wrong or corrupt motive, or using the occasion for an indirect purpose.Defences to defamation
- Bakare v Ishola (1959)Words like 'thief, ex-convict' shouted during a fight were mere vulgar abuse.Defamation
- Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd (1950)The maxim does not apply where the cause of the accident is known.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)The 'but for' test: the claimant must show that but for the breach the damage would not have occurred.Damage: causation and remoteness
- Basely v Clarkson (1681)Trespass to land does not need an intention to trespass. It is enough that the entry was voluntary; a mistake about ownership is no defence.Trespass to land
- Beard v London General Omnibus Co (1900)Acts outside the class of acts the servant is employed to do are not in the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd (1957)An animal of a dangerous species (ferae naturae) is treated as dangerous whatever the individual animal is like. The keeper is strictly liab…Liability for animals
- Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd (1978)An owner's rights in airspace extend only to the height needed for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land.Trespass to land
- Bird v Jones (1845)The restraint must be total; blocking one route while leaving another reasonable exit is not imprisonment.Trespass to the person
- Blake v Barnard (1840)On this view an assault needs an apparent present ability to carry out the threat.Trespass to the person
- Bloodworth v Gray (1844)Imputing a venereal disease was slander actionable per se.Defamation
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)Negligence is the omission to do something a reasonable man would do, or doing something a prudent and reasonable man would not do (Alderson…Negligence: the duty of care · Negligence: breach of duty
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)A professional is judged by the standard of the ordinary skilled person professing that skill (McNair J).Negligence: breach of dutyRead the full judgment
- Bolton v Stone (1951)The likelihood of harm is weighed in deciding breach; a reasonable person need not guard against very small risks.Negligence: breach of duty
- Boston v W S Bagshaw & Sons (1966)A common interest between auctioneers can found qualified privilege.Defences to defamation
- Bourke v Warren (1826)It is enough that people who know the claimant would understand the words refer to him.Defamation
- Box v Jubb (1879)A defendant is not liable under Rylands where the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control.The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Bradford Corporation v Pickles (1895)Motive is generally irrelevant in tort: a lawful act does not become a tort because it is done maliciously.What is a tort? · Private nuisance
- Brice v Brown (1984)The eggshell rule applies to psychiatric harm.Negligence: nervous shock
- British Railways Board v Herrington (1972)An occupier owes trespassers a 'duty of common humanity': where he knows of a serious danger and the likely presence of trespassers, he must…Occupiers' liability
- British Transport Commission v Gourley (1956)Damages for lost earnings are based on what the claimant would actually have received, after tax.Remedies in tort
- British Vacuum Cleaner Co Ltd v New Vacuum Cleaner Co Ltd (1907)The words 'vacuum cleaner' were descriptive and not protected.Passing off
- Brockley v Maxwell (1949)Calling a man 'a bastard, a liar and a cheat' was not actionable per se.Defamation
- Byrne v Boadle (1863)Barrels do not fall from windows without negligence; the thing speaks for itself.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Byrne v Deane (1937)The standard is right-thinking members of society generally, not a particular group.Defamation
- Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is needed under Rylands v Fletcher, as in nuisance.The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)The three-stage test: foreseeability of harm, proximity, and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.Negligence: the duty of careRead the full judgment
- Capital and Counties Bank v Henty (1882)A defamatory statement is one calculated to injure reputation by exposing a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule.Defamation
- Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government (1952)An independent natural event can break the chain of causation.Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd (1963)Under the old law, time ran from when the damage occurred, even if the claimant could not know of it.Limitation of actions
- Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome (1972)Confirmed Rookes v Barnard's categories. Publishing a libel to make a profit can justify exemplary damages.Defamation: other defences and remedies · Remedies in tort
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1929)Innocent intention is no defence; what matters is how readers understand the words.Defamation
- Castle v St Augustine's Links Ltd (1922)Creating a danger to users of the highway is a public nuisance, and a person who suffers special damage can sue.Public nuisance
- Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)A negligent way of doing what one is employed to do is within the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Christie v Davey (1893)Acts done only to annoy a neighbour can be unreasonable and so a nuisance.Private nuisance
- Clayton v Woodman & Son (Builders) Ltd (1962)Careless instructions that cause physical injury can give rise to liability.Negligence: economic loss
- Cockcroft v Smith (1705)A person may use only reasonable force in self-defence.Defences to trespass to the person
- Cole v Turner (1704)The slightest contact can be a battery if done with hostility; ordinary social contact is not.Trespass to the person
- Collins v Hertfordshire County Council (1947)Control test: under a contract of service the master directs both what is done and how it is done.Vicarious liability
- Cook v Beal (1697)Force used in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate.Defences to trespass to the person
- Cope v Sharpe (No 2) (1912)Necessity is a defence where there was a real threat and the defendant acted reasonably, even if it turned out his act was not needed.Trespass to land
- Coventry v Lawrence (2014)Planning permission is not a defence in itself. Coming to the nuisance is not a defence. Courts have a wide discretion to award damages inst…Private nuisance · Remedies in tort
- Curtis v Curtis (1834)Saying 'you have committed an act for which I can put you in prison' was actionable per se.Defamation
- De Crespigny v Wellesley (1829)Repeating someone else's defamatory words is a fresh publication; wrong is not justified by wrong (Best CJ).Defamation
- De Freville v Dill (1927)Negligent statements that cause harm to the person are actionable.Negligence: economic loss
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)Lord Atkin's neighbour principle: take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your …Negligence: the duty of care · Occupiers' liabilityRead the full judgment
- Dulieu v White & Sons (1901)Nervous shock is recoverable where it arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury; Kennedy J also stated the thin skull rule.Damage: causation and remoteness · Negligence: nervous shock
- Dwyer v Esmonde (1878)Privilege in self-defence covers repelling charges, not making fresh accusations.Defences to defamation
- E Hulton & Co v Jones (1910)Intention is irrelevant to identification.Defamation
- Easson v London and North Eastern Railway Co (1944)Res ipsa loquitur requires the defendant's control of the thing causing harm.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Eastwood v Holmes (1858)If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue (Willes J).Defamation
- Electrochrome Ltd v Welsh Plastics Ltd (1968)Economic loss from damage to another's property is not recoverable.Negligence: economic loss
- Ellis v Sheffield Gas Consumers Co (1853)An employer who authorises a tort is liable along with the contractor.Vicarious liability
- Ellor v Selfridge & Co Ltd (1930)A vehicle under the driver's control that mounts the pavement raises an inference of negligence.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Emmens v Pottle (1885)A distributor who did not know of the libel, had no reason to suspect it, and was not negligent in not knowing, has the defence of innocent …Defamation: other defences and remedies
- Entick v Carrington (1765)Every unauthorised entry on another's land is a trespass, even by state officials, unless the law clearly allows it.Trespass to land
- Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (1979)Lord Diplock's five elements: misrepresentation, by a trader in the course of trade, to customers, calculated to injure goodwill, causing or…Passing off
- Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington (1932)Lord Dunedin: people must guard against reasonable probabilities, but not fantastic possibilities.Defences to trespass to the person
- Fitzgerald v E D and A D Cooke Bourne (Farms) Ltd (1964)For a domestic animal, scienter liability needs knowledge of a vicious or abnormal tendency. Playfulness normal to the species is not enough…Liability for animals
- Ford v Skinner (1830)The act comprising a battery must be done without the claimant's consent.Trespass to the person
- Fouldes v Willoughby (1841)Conversion requires a dealing that denies the owner's title or seriously interferes with his rights. A minor interference is only trespass.Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co (1873)Where the train had only just left the station, the door was still under the company's control.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd (1963)In detinue, the court may order (a) the value of the goods and damages, (b) return of the goods or their value, or (c) return of the goods a…Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)A tempting danger can be an 'allurement' to children. An occupier must take more care for children than for adults.Occupiers' liability
- Granada Group Ltd v Ford Motor Co Ltd (1973)The claimants could not stop a car being called 'Granada' as there was no connection or proved confusion.Passing off
- Gregory v Duke of Brunswick (1843)Hissing an actor off the stage by arrangement was treated as slander, a transient form of defamation.Defamation
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard (1964)Damages for loss of amenity are awarded for the objective loss, even if the claimant cannot appreciate it.Remedies in tort
- Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd (1961)Smells and noise can be private nuisance. Damage to a car parked on the public road was public nuisance causing special damage.Private nuisance · Public nuisance
- Hambrook v Stokes Bros (1925)Shock from fear for close family, perceived with one's own senses, can be recoverable.Negligence: nervous shock
- Harrods Ltd v R Harrod Ltd (1923)A misrepresentation to the claimant's customers can be passing off.Passing off
- Haseldine v C A Daw & Son Ltd (1941)An occupier who reasonably entrusts technical work to a competent contractor is not liable for the contractor's negligent work.Occupiers' liability
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964)A duty of care in making statements arises where there is a special relationship, reliance and an assumption of responsibility.Negligence: economic lossRead the full judgment
- Hendriks v Montagu (1881)Using a name confusingly similar to the claimant's ('Universal' and 'Universe') can be passing off (James LJ).Passing off
- Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co (1915)Where a person consents to confinement on certain terms, there is no false imprisonment.Trespass to the person
- Herring v Boyle (1834)Under the older view, the claimant had to know of the restraint.Trespass to the person
- Hollins v Fowler (1875)Conversion is strict. Honestly dealing with goods in a way that denies the true owner's title is still conversion.Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett (1936)Noise made deliberately to harm a neighbour is a nuisance.Private nuisance
- Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd (1970)Lord Reid: the neighbour principle should apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for its exclusion.Negligence: the duty of care
- Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd (1953)A captain may use reasonable force or restraint only when he reasonably believes it necessary for safety.Defences to trespass to the person
- Horrocks v Lowe (1975)Malice means using the privileged occasion for an improper purpose, such as spite or personal advantage. Honest belief in the truth of the s…Defamation: other defences and remedies
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd (1997)Only a person with an interest in the land, such as an owner or tenant, can sue in private nuisance. Simply building on your land so as to b…Private nuisance
- Huth v Huth (1915)Publication requires communication to a third party that the defendant intended or could foresee.Defamation
- Ibeanu v Uba (1972)An accusation of stealing goats, made calmly before witnesses, was slander, not vulgar abuse.Defamation
- Indermaur v Dames (1866)An occupier must use reasonable care to prevent damage to an invitee from unusual dangers that he knows or ought to know of.Occupiers' liability
- Itambong v AkonyeStatutory duties of this kind are non-delegable.Vicarious liability
- Joel v Morison (1834)A master is not liable for a servant on a frolic of his own (Parke B).Vicarious liability
- Johnston v Orr-Ewing (1882)The court considers the experience and literacy of likely buyers when deciding whether confusion is likely.Passing off
- Jones v Jones (1916)An accusation that a schoolmaster committed adultery with a cleaner did not touch him in his profession, so was not actionable per se.Defamation
- Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd (1983)Pure economic loss may be recoverable where proximity is very close and there is reliance.Negligence: economic loss
- Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co (1957)The owner of land owns the airspace above it to a reasonable height, so a sign over the land is a trespass.Trespass to land
- Kemsley v Foot (1952)Fair comment was available where the facts commented on were sufficiently indicated.Defences to defamation
- Keppel Bus Co Ltd v Sa'ad bin Ahmad (1974)No implied authority to keep order covered the conductor's attack.Vicarious liability
- Kerr v Kennedy (1942)Imputing lesbianism was held to be an imputation of unchastity under the Slander of Women Act 1891.Defamation
- Kirk v Gregory (1876)Any direct and unjustified interference with goods in another's possession is trespass, even moving them a short distance with good motives.Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Knightley v Johns (1982)Negligent intervention by a third party is more likely to break the chain than reasonable conduct.Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd (1944)Words must be understood to refer to the claimant; a statement about a large group does not refer to each member.Defamation
- Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) (2002)Conversion is a deliberate dealing with goods that is inconsistent with the owner's rights, so as to deprive him of the use or possession of…Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Kwekumensa v The KingConduct that puts a person in reasonable fear of immediate force is an assault.Trespass to the person
- Lane v Holloway (1968)Excessive force is not justified by a minor attack.Defences to trespass to the person
- Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)The cost and practicability of precautions are weighed against the risk.Negligence: breach of duty
- League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott (1986)Causing animals or things to enter another's land, intentionally or negligently, can be trespass.Trespass to land
- Leakey v National Trust (1980)An occupier must take reasonable steps, judged by his own resources, to prevent a known natural hazard harming neighbours.Private nuisance
- Leather Cloth Co v American Leather Cloth Co (1863)One man has no right to put off his goods for sale as the goods of a rival trader (Lord Kingsdown).Passing off
- Leigh v Gladstone (1909)Necessity can justify a trespass done to prevent greater harm.Defences to trespass to the person
- Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1964)Words are read as the ordinary reasonable reader, neither unusually suspicious nor naive, would understand them (Lord Reid).Defamation
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862)A prohibition on the method of doing the job does not limit the scope of employment.Vicarious liability
- Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984)Intention to apply force to one person can be 'transferred' to the person who is actually hit.Trespass to the person
- Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880)Damages aim to put the claimant, so far as money can, in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed (restitutio i…Remedies in tort
- Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co (1912)An employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's fraud within his apparent authority.Vicarious liability
- London Artists Ltd v Littler (1969)Public interest covers matters affecting people at large (Lord Denning).Defences to defamation
- Lord Byron v Johnston (1816)Selling goods with a false statement that they were made by the claimant is passing off.Passing off
- Love v Port of London Authority (1959)The eggshell rule covers pre-existing mental vulnerability.Damage: causation and remoteness
- Madame Tussaud & Sons Ltd v Louis Tussaud Ltd (1890)Even one's own name cannot be used in a way that passes off one's business as another's.Passing off
- Mahon v Osborne (1939)Leaving a swab inside a patient may raise an inference of negligence.Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Marsh v Moores (1949)Unauthorised acts are within the course of employment if they are improper modes of doing authorised acts.Vicarious liability
- May v Burdett (1846)A keeper who knows (scienter) of an animal's dangerous tendency is liable for harm it causes without proof of negligence.Liability for animals
- McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd (1969)If an injured person acts unreasonably, the defendant is not liable for injury caused by that conduct (Lord Reid).Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- McLoughlin v O'Brian (1983)Lord Wilberforce: consider the class of claimant (close ties), proximity in time and space, and the means by which the shock was caused.Negligence: nervous shock
- Meade's and Belt's Case (1823)Threatening words alone were traditionally not an assault without some act.Trespass to the person
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919)Knowledge of the restraint is not required; it goes only to damages (Atkin LJ).Trespass to the person
- Miller v Jackson (1977)Where harm is likely and recurring, failing to prevent it is a breach.Negligence: breach of duty · Private nuisance
- Monson v Tussauds Ltd (1894)Libel can be in any permanent form, such as a statue or effigy (Lopes LJ).Defamation
- Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd (1971)Identification depends on what reasonable readers with knowledge of the circumstances would understand.Defamation
- Morgans v Launchbury (1973)Vicarious liability means one person takes the place of another so far as liability is concerned (Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal).Vicarious liability
- Morris v C W Martin & Sons Ltd (1966)An employer entrusted with goods is liable for theft by the employee put in charge of them.Vicarious liability
- Murray v Ministry of Defence (1988)A person may be falsely imprisoned while unaware, e.g. while asleep, though damages may then be nominal.Trespass to the person
- Nash v Sheen (1953)Consent covers only the act actually agreed to; going beyond it is trespass to the person.Trespass to the person
- Nettleship v Weston (1971)The standard of care is objective; inexperience is no excuse (Lord Denning MR).Negligence: breach of duty
- Neville v Fine Art and General Insurance Co (1897)A common (business) interest can found qualified privilege.Defences to defamation
- Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd (1940)A statement true of one person can defame another reasonably taken to be meant.Defamation
- Nichols v Marsland (1876)An act of God, a natural event no human foresight could provide against, is a defence to Rylands v Fletcher.The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Niger Chemists Ltd v Nigeria Chemists (1961)Similar names in the same trade and place create a grave risk of confusion.Passing off
- Nthenda v Alade (1974)In libel, damage is presumed; the claimant need not prove actual loss.Defamation
- Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)The seriousness of the possible injury, including the claimant's known vulnerability, affects the precautions required.Negligence: breach of duty
- Parker v British Airways Board (1982)An occupier only has a better right than a finder of goods lying loose on the premises if he clearly showed an intention to control the prem…Trespass to goods, conversion and detinue
- Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd (1943)Where the claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the source of danger, especially where it is for common benefit, the rule does no…The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)An occupier may expect that parents will not let very young children go about without supervision. The main responsibility for small childre…Occupiers' liability
- Pickard v Smith (1861)Generally no one is liable for an independent contractor (Williams J), subject to exceptions.Vicarious liability
- Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners (1983)A cause of action in negligence accrues when physical damage occurs, not when it is discovered.Limitation of actions
- Powell v Birmingham Vinegar Brewery Co (1896)A trade name that the public links to one maker's goods is protected.Passing off
- Quarman v Burnett (1840)An employer is generally not liable for an independent contractor.Vicarious liability
- R v Billinghurst (1978)Players consent only to contact within the normal course of the game, not to deliberate foul play beyond what is expected.Defences to trespass to the person
- R v St George (1840)Assault turns on the reasonable apprehension of immediate force.Trespass to the person
- Raggett v Findlater (1873)Purely descriptive words like 'stout' are not protected.Passing off
- Ratcliffe v Evans (1892)Libel and slander actionable per se imply general damages (Bowen LJ).Defamation
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921)The direct consequences test for remoteness.Damage: causation and remoteness
- Re Woodward's Trade Mark (1915)'Gripe water' was held descriptive.Passing off
- Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd (1947)Rylands v Fletcher needs an escape of the thing from land the defendant occupies or controls to a place outside it.The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968)A contract of service exists where (1) work is done for pay, (2) under sufficient control, and (3) the other terms are consistent with emplo…Vicarious liability
- Reddaway v Banham (1896)A descriptive name that has come to mean the claimant's goods is protected, but the burden is heavy.Passing off
- Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris (1970)A mandatory injunction is granted only where there is a very strong probability of grave future damage. The order must be clear about what t…Remedies in tort
- Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (1999)Responsible journalism on a matter of public interest can be privileged. Lord Nicholls listed ten factors, such as the seriousness of the al…Defamation: other defences and remedies
- Rickards v Lothian (1913)Non-natural use means some special use that brings increased danger to others, not the ordinary use of land. The malicious act of a stranger…The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck (1929)At common law an occupier owed a trespasser no duty of care, only a duty not to injure him deliberately or recklessly.Occupiers' liability
- Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd (1910)Where a person's liberty is subject to a reasonable condition he has accepted, restraining him until it is met is not false imprisonment.Trespass to the person
- Robinson v Kilvert (1889)A claimant cannot complain of harm that happens only because his property or use is abnormally sensitive.Private nuisance
- Robinson v Post Office (1974)A defendant takes the victim as he finds him, and a non-causative breach by another does not break the chain.Damage: causation and remoteness
- Rookes v Barnard (1964)Exemplary damages can be given only in (1) oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by government servants; (2) conduct calculated t…Remedies in tort
- Ruddiman & Co v Smith (1889)Acts reasonably incidental to work, shortly after hours, can be within the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Rylands v Fletcher (1868)A person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his p…What is a tort? · Vicarious liability · The rule in Rylands v FletcherRead the full judgment
- Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co (1865)Erle CJ's statement of res ipsa loquitur: where the thing is under the defendant's management and the accident would not ordinarily happen w…Proving negligence: res ipsa loquitur
- Scott v Sampson (1882)Everyone has a right to have their standing in others' opinion unaffected by false statements.Defamation
- Scott v Shepherd (1773)Involuntary or instinctive acts of third parties do not break the chain of causation.Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- Searle v Wallbank (1947)At common law there was no duty to fence land to keep ordinary domestic animals off the highway.Liability for animals
- Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan (1940)An occupier who knows of a nuisance created by another and 'continues' or 'adopts' it, by failing to take reasonable steps to end it, is lia…Private nuisance
- Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co (1895)Damages in lieu of an injunction may be given where the harm is small, can be valued in money, can be adequately compensated by a small paym…Remedies in tort
- Siaka v Sierra Leone DiamondA patient cannot sue for force within the scope of the express or implied consent.Defences to trespass to the person
- Sim v Stretch (1936)Words are defamatory if they tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Lord Atkin).Defamation
- Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (No 2) (1988)Pure economic loss is generally not recoverable without close reliance.Negligence: economic loss
- Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd (1968)A comment may be exaggerated or wrong but is fair if honestly held (Lord Denning MR).Defences to defamation
- Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)Eggshell skull rule: once the kind of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for its full extent.Damage: causation and remoteness
- Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987)There is generally no duty to prevent third parties from causing harm; precautions need not be intolerably burdensome.Negligence: breach of duty
- Smith v Selwyn (1914)Under the old felony rule, a victim had to see the felon prosecuted (or show a reasonable excuse) before suing in tort.What is a tort?
- Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1973)Economic loss consequential on physical damage is recoverable; pure economic loss is not.Negligence: economic loss
- Speight v Gosnay (1891)The original publisher is liable for repetition only where he authorised it, it was the natural and probable result, or the hearer had a dut…Defamation
- St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping (1865)Where nuisance causes physical damage to property, the character of the neighbourhood is no defence. Locality matters only for nuisance that…Private nuisance
- Stanley v Powell (1891)Inevitable accident is a defence where the harm could not have been avoided by reasonable care.Defences to trespass to the person
- Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans (1952)Under a contract of service, work is an integral part of the business; under a contract for services it is only accessory to it.Vicarious liability
- Storey v Ashton (1869)A substantial deviation for the servant's own purposes takes him outside the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Stuart v Bell (1891)A moral duty exists where the great mass of right-thinking people in the defendant's position would think it their duty to speak.Defences to defamation
- Sturges v Bridgman (1879)It is no defence that the claimant came to the nuisance. No prescriptive right arose because the noise was not an actionable nuisance until …Private nuisance
- Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council (1983)An individual can sue in public nuisance where he suffers special damage, beyond that suffered by the public in general.Public nuisance
- Telnikoff v Matusevitch (1992)A letter responding to an article had to be judged on its own as comment or fact.Defences to defamation
- The Oropesa (1943)To break the chain, an intervening act must be something unwarrantable, a new cause, extraneous or extrinsic (Lord Wright).Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- The Six Carpenters' Case (1610)A person who enters under authority given by law and then abuses it by a positive act becomes a trespasser from the start (trespass ab initi…Trespass to land
- The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961)The test for remoteness is whether the kind of damage was reasonably foreseeable.Damage: causation and remoteness · Remedies in tort
- The Wagon Mound (No 2) (1967)A reasonable person does not ignore a real risk that could easily be avoided, and is expected to have the knowledge of his position.Negligence: breach of duty
- Thomas v Bradbury, Agnew & Co Ltd (1906)Malice in a reviewer defeated the defence of fair comment.Defences to defamation
- Thompson v Barnard (1807)Calling a man a 'damn thief' was slander actionable per se.Defamation
- Tillett v Ward (1882)Where animals stray from the highway onto adjoining land while being driven with care, the owner is not liable without negligence.Liability for animals
- Tolley v J S Fry & Sons Ltd (1931)Innuendo: words or images not defamatory on their face can be defamatory because of the inference readers draw.Defamation
- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)An occupier does not have to protect adults from obvious dangers of activities they freely choose to do.Occupiers' liability
- Toogood v Spyring (1834)Qualified privilege protects statements made in the discharge of a duty or the protection of an interest, where the common convenience of so…Defences to defamation
- Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003)The rule applies only to something that is an exceptionally high risk if it escapes, and to an extraordinary and unusual use of land.The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Tuberville v Savage (1669)Words can negate what would otherwise be an assault, since they remove the fear of immediate violence.Trespass to the person
- United Kingdom Tobacco Co Ltd v Carreras Ltd (1931)Imitating the get-up of goods can be passing off if it is likely to confuse.Passing off
- Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library Ltd (1900)A library was liable because it had no system for checking for libels and missed the publisher's recall notice.Defamation · Defamation: other defences and remedies
- W B Anderson & Sons Ltd v Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd (1967)A non-professional giving advice in business, with knowledge of reliance, can owe a duty.Negligence: economic loss
- Warren v Henlys Ltd (1948)A deliberate assault for personal reasons is usually outside the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)The social utility of the defendant's activity is weighed against the risk (Denning LJ).Negligence: breach of duty
- Watt v Longsdon (1930)Qualified privilege needs a duty to communicate and a matching interest in receiving.Defences to defamation
- Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd (1997)The categories of qualified privilege are never closed (Hirst LJ).Defences to defamation
- Weller & Co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966)Pure economic loss caused by negligent acts is generally not recoverable.Negligence: economic loss
- Whatman v Pearson (1868)Doing an authorised job in an unauthorised way stays within the course of employment.Vicarious liability
- Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd (1966)An occupier is anyone with a sufficient degree of control over premises. There can be more than one occupier at a time.Occupiers' liability
- Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets Ltd (1969)Reasonable conduct by an injured claimant does not break the chain of causation.Intervening acts (novus actus interveniens)
- Williams v West African PilotOnce a publication is found to be a libel, the law presumes damage.Defamation
- Wilson v Pringle (1987)Unless it is obvious from the act itself, the claimant must show that the touching was hostile.Trespass to the person
- Wright v McClelland (1956)Volenti non fit injuria: consent to the normal risks of a sport is a defence.Defences to trespass to the person
- Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934)Defamation in a permanent form, including film, is libel; imputing unchastity is defamatory.Defamation
- Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1988)The Privy Council held that the Anns two-stage test is not in all circumstances a suitable guide to a duty of care.Negligence: the duty of care