PastPaperHero | Free UK Tort Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free UK Tort Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in UK tort law. Whether you’re studying for exams or simply want to learn more, these notes will help you navigate concepts such as negligence, defamation, nuisance, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. Negligence

Duty of Care

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) - Established the “neighbor principle” and manufacturer’s duty of care to the ultimate consumer.
Neighbour Principle - Principle arising from Donoghue v Stevenson, requiring persons to take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions likely to injure their “neighbors.”
Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503 - Early test for when a duty of care could arise.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL) - Liability for acts of third parties under the defendant’s supervision.
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970] AC 1004 (HL) - Discussion of how Dorset Yacht shaped liability for omissions and supervision.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL) - Introduced the three-stage test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 - Clarification on omissions by police in emergency calls.
Definition of Legal Negligence - Outlines the basic elements of negligence in law.
Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50 - Defined the scope of duty for non-medical staff in a hospital setting.
CN v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25 - Clarified the limited circumstances in which a local authority has a duty of care.
HXA and YXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52 - Recent Supreme Court ruling on the duty of care owed by social services.

Creation of Danger

Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692 - Liability where the defendant’s conduct creates a hazardous situation.
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 - Differentiated trespass from negligence in personal injury claims.
Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 (CA) - Liability for leaving a dangerous situation unguarded, attracting rescue attempts.
Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 Eng Rep 525 (KB) - The “squib case,” illustrating intervening acts in tort.
Ogwo v Taylor [1988] AC 431 - Duty owed to rescuers who face danger created by the defendant’s negligence.
Harrison v British Railways Board [1981] 3 All ER 679 - Addresses causation issues when a plaintiff acts as a rescuer.

Contractual Relationship

Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 - Gratuitous advice can still give rise to a duty of care.
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 - Liability arising from a special or contractual relationship where a defendant’s omission facilitates loss.
Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1427 - Examined potential duties owed by bookmakers to problem gamblers.

Relationship of Control / Harm to Third Parties

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955] AC 549 - Liability for not controlling persons (like children) who cause harm.
Walker v Northumberland County Council [1995] 1 All ER 737 - Employer’s duty to guard against psychiatric injury to employees.
Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912 - Recognized a duty to rescuers who suffer psychiatric harm.

Natural Hazards

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781 - Early definition of the standard of negligence (“doing or omitting to do what a reasonable man would”).
Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 - Duty to address natural hazards originating on one’s land.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241 (HL) - Generally no duty to prevent pure omissions unless a special relationship or responsibility is established.

Standard of Care

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 - Standard of care must account for foreseeable vulnerabilities (e.g., disabled pedestrians).
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 - Learner driver held to the standard of the reasonably competent driver.
Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 QB 66 - Standard judged by the knowledge available at the time of the act/omission.

Bolam Test

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 - Standard of care for professionals; conduct to be judged by a responsible body of professional opinion.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771 (HL) - Court may reject professional opinion if not capable of withstanding logical analysis.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 - Landmark case on informed consent, shifting focus to patient autonomy.

Age

Gough v Thorne [1966] 1 WLR 1387 - Children are judged by the standard of a reasonable child of the same age.
Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920 - Children’s conduct assessed with regard to their age and developmental level.

Mental Illness

Dunnage v Randall & UK Insurance Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 673 - A defendant’s mental illness does not negate liability if physical acts are voluntary.
Mansfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1263 - Involuntary impairment (e.g., hypoglycemia) may absolve a defendant if they were unaware of it.

Features of the Victim

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 (HL) - Defendants must take extra precautions when a plaintiff is known to be at particular risk.

Cost of Prevention

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL) - Likelihood of harm balanced against the cost of prevention.
Baker v Quantum Clothing Group [2011] UKSC 17 - Standard may evolve with increasing knowledge about workplace risks.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd (Wagon Mound (No 2)) [1967] 1 AC 617 (PC) - Liability for damage if the risk was foreseeable and preventable at moderate cost.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] UKHL 47 [2004] 1 AC 46 (HL) - Balancing the social utility of the defendant’s activity against the risk of harm.
Barnes v Scout Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1476 - Courts may consider the social value of an activity in determining the standard of care.
Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643 - Defendant must only take reasonable (not absolute) precautions.

2. Negligence of Public Authorities

Relationship of Duty of Care with Statutory Powers

Connor v Surrey County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 286 - Duty to employees within the statutory framework.
Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057 - No general duty to act unless statute imposes it or private law duty arises separately.
Stovin v Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801 (HL) - Distinguishes policy and operational decisions in public authority liability.
CN v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25 - Social services liability clarified where there is assumption of responsibility.
HXA and YXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52 - Modern Supreme Court analysis on council liability for failing to prevent harm.

Prisons

Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 - Examines privacy rights and treatment of visitors/prisoners.

Military

Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER 87 - Duty owed by military superiors to service members under certain circumstances.

Care Services

X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 (HL) - Policy immunity for certain social services decisions.
Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550 - Liability for decisions regarding child care and fostering.
D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1151 - Health authority liability for misdiagnosing child abuse.
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619 - Duty of care in educational psychology and special needs assessment.

Highway Authorities

Yetkin v London Borough of Newham [2010] EWCA Civ 776 - Visibility hazards created or unaddressed by the authority may give rise to liability.

Police

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 (HL) - Public policy immunity in detecting crime, subject to later refinements.
Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344 - Liability claims for failure to prevent a foreseeable attack.
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997] QB 464 - Duty to protect informants in certain circumstances.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] 1 WLE 1495 (HL) - Limitations on duty of care during investigations.
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] UKHL 50 - Positive duty to protect a threatened witness is limited.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2 - Confirmed no general duty owed by police in emergency call handling unless assumptions of responsibility arise.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 - Police liable for positive negligent acts causing foreseeable harm.

River Authority

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent [1940] 4 All ER 527 - No liability merely for a poor attempt at addressing flooding unless it worsens the situation.

Emergency Services

Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] 3 WLR 331 (CA) - Fire brigade may be liable if it aggravates the danger.
Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 - Ambulance service owes a duty to respond properly once it accepts a call.

Housing Authority

Targett v Torfaen BC [1992] 3 All ER 27 - Authority’s duty regarding obvious structural hazards.

Nursing Home

Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] UKHL 4 [2009] 1 AC 853 - Regulator’s liability when issuing closure orders.

Sporting Bodies

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 134 - Duty to ensure adequate medical treatment at sporting events.

3. Causation

‘But For’ Causation

Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] QB 33 - Defendant not liable for damage existing before their negligent act.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 - Classic ‘but for’ test in medical negligence; hospital not liable if death was inevitable.
Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 (HL) - Original tortfeasor remains liable for damages even if a later event also contributes.
Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794 - “Vicissitudes of life” can reduce damages if a non-tortious event later disables the claimant.
Re The Empire Jamaica [1955] 1 Lloyds Rep 50 - Illustrates application of factual causation in collision cases.

Material Contribution

Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 - Liability arises if the defendant’s breach materially contributed to injury.
Holtby v Brigham Cowan (Hull) Ltd [2000] 3 All ER 421 - Apportionment of damages according to the extent of contribution.
Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2009] 1 WLR 1052 - When multiple causes operate, material contribution by the defendant can be enough.
Williams v Bermuda Hospital [2016] UKPC 4 - Medical negligence case applying material contribution approach.

Fairchild Exception

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 - Single-agency approach to industrial disease.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074 - Multiple possible causes must be proven on the balance of probabilities.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 - Important mesothelioma exception allowing liability for exposing claimants to asbestos.
Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572 - Liability can be apportioned among employers in mesothelioma claims.
Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd [2011] UKSC 10 - Low-level asbestos exposure still potentially sufficient for liability.
Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 86 - Fairchild principle extended to lung cancer caused by asbestos.
Compensation Act 2006, s 3 - Statutory guidance on mesothelioma liability and apportionment.

Loss of a Chance

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 (HL) - Adopted an all-or-nothing approach in medical negligence claims.
Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176 - Important case rejecting recovery for lost chances of a better medical outcome.
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907 - Loss of a chance recognized in solicitor’s negligence claims for prospective opportunities.
Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 - Burden on claimant to prove the chance lost was real and substantial.

Failure to Warn of Medical Risks

Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 - Failure to warn can break the chain of causation, entitling the claimant to damages.

4. Remoteness

General Rules

Re Polemis [1921] 3 KB 560 - Original “direct consequences” test (now largely replaced).
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) (No 1) [1961] AC 388 - Important shift to reasonable foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405 - “Eggshell skull” principle; must take the victim as found.
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 - Only the type of injury need be foreseeable, not the exact manner in which it occurs.
Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 - Foreseeability of physical harm can include psychiatric harm.
Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082 - Broader approach to the scope of foreseeable injuries to children.

Third Party Acts

Re The Oropesa [1943] P 32 (CA) - Necessity or rescue attempts generally do not break the chain of causation.
Stansbie v Troman [1948] 2 KB 48 - Liability when a defendant creates the opportunity for third-party wrongdoing.
Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] 2 All ER 408 - Squatters as intervening acts; whether the act is truly unforeseeable.
Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349 - A negligent act of a third party can break the chain of causation if it is a new and independent cause.

Claimant’s Own Act

McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 - Unreasonable conduct by the claimant can break the chain.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360 - Suicide in custody did not break the chain where police had a duty to protect.
Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1427 - Claimant’s own gambling actions considered in causation.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] 2 WLR 499 (HL) - Suicide following a work accident remained within the chain of causation if linked to psychiatric harm.
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings [2009] EWCA Civ 1404 - Court examines reasonableness of claimant’s post-injury conduct.
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd [1949] AC 386 - Children’s acts are assessed differently, given their age and understanding.

SAAMCO Principle

South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1996] 3 All ER 365 (HL) - Important limitation on recoverable losses in professional negligence based on the scope of the duty.
BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21 - Reiterated that liability extends only to losses arising from the risk the defendant was employed to guard against.
Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP [2021] UKSC 20 - Clarified how the SAAMCO principle applies to accountants’ advice.
Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21 - Applied SAAMCO in the context of negligent medical advice.

5. Kinds of Damage

Negligent Misstatements and Professional Services

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL) - Important: recognized liability for pure economic loss arising from negligent misstatements if there is an assumption of responsibility.
Smith v Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514 - Surveyors may owe a duty of care to buyers relying on their valuations.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL) - Established the threefold test (foreseeability, proximity, fair/reasonable) in the context of negligent auditing.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1994] UKHL 7 - Employers can be liable for negligent references causing pure economic loss.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1994] 3 All ER 506 (HL) - Broadened the Hedley Byrne principle to include direct contractual relationships.
White v Jones [1995] 1 All ER 691 - Solicitor liable for failing to amend a will as instructed, despite no direct contract with beneficiaries.
Robinson v PE Jones Ltd [2011] 3 WLR 815 - Examines the boundary between contract claims and tort claims in pure economic loss.

Defective Property

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] QB 27 - Economic loss from interruption to power supply was not fully recoverable in negligence.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 (HL) - Earlier approach to defective property, later overruled by Murphy.
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520 - Extended liability for pure economic loss but now read narrowly.
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialties Ltd [1986] QB 507 - Loss due to defective machinery may be partially recoverable if physical damage is involved.
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 145 (HL) - Must have a proprietary interest at the time of damage to recover in tort.
D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England [1989] AC 177 - No liability in tort for pure economic loss due to defective construction.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398 - Important: overruled Anns, limiting recovery for pure economic loss in building defects.
Defective Premises Act 1972 - Statutory duties relating to property construction and repairs.
Latent Damage Act 1986 - Addresses time limitations and accrual of causes of action for latent defects.

Physical Damage

D Pride & Partners v Institute for Animal Health [2009] EWHC 685 (QB) - Issues in recovering losses for contamination or disease testing.
Dryden v Johnson Matthey plc [2018] UKSC 18 - “Sensitization” or asymptomatic physiological changes can be actionable damage.
Re The Aliakmon [1986] AC 785 (HL) - Confirms the requirement of proprietary interest for physical damage claims.

Psychiatric Injury

Hambrook v Stokes Bros [1925] 1 KB 141 - First recognition of liability for psychiatric harm to a mother witnessing danger to her child.
Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40 - Must be a recognized psychiatric illness rather than mere grief.
McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983] 1 AC 410 (HL) - Proximity in time and space for secondary victims.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 (HL) - Important control mechanisms for secondary victims (close tie of love and affection, proximity, and direct perception).
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 - Primary victims need only show foreseeable physical injury.
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455 (HL) - Rescuers not automatically primary victims.
Paul v Royal Wolverhampton [2024] UKSC 1 - Recent Supreme Court ruling clarifying scope of liability for secondary victims.

Wrongful Birth

Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52 - Recognized a conventional award for loss of autonomy in failed sterilization cases.
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 - Damages for additional costs of rearing a disabled child.
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 - No damages for the cost of raising a healthy child born following negligence.
McKay v Essex Area Health Authority [1982] QB 1166 - No claim for wrongful life by a disabled child.

6. Occupier’s Liability

Duty to Visitors

Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - Governs the occupier’s common duty of care to lawful visitors.
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955] 1 QB 450 - Parental responsibility for very young children.
Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 - Skilled visitors (e.g., chimney sweeps) expected to guard against risks they know about.
Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 (HL) - Who is an “occupier” under the Act.
Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 923 - Implied consent to inherent risks in contact sports.
White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 - Effect of exclusion notices in sporting events.
Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 1 WLR 1553 - Liability of multiple occupiers and subcontractors.
Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 182 - No duty to warn against obvious risk of drowning.
Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2004] 1 AC 46 - Council’s liability for hazards in a public park; highlights social utility balancing.
Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee v Poppleton [2008] EWCA Civ 646 - Recognizes risk-taking in recreational activities.
Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671 - Children near open water; the limits of the occupier’s duty.
Harvey v Plymouth CC [2010] EWCA Civ 860 - Liability for misadventure on public land is limited when danger is obvious.
Geary v JD Wetherspoon plc [2011] EWHC 1506 (QB) - Voluntary assumption of an obvious risk defeats a claim.

Duty to Trespassers

Occupiers Liability Act 1984 - Imposes a limited duty of care towards non-visitors (trespassers).
Herrington v British Rail Board [1972] AC 877 - Introduced the “common duty of humanity.”
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] 2 WLR 1138 (CA) - Time of day and circumstances affect the duty.
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust [2006] 1 WLR 953 - Child trespasser climbing a fire escape created his own danger.

Exclusion of Liability

Ashdown v Samuel Williams [1957] 1 All ER 35 (CA) - Validity of contractual notices excluding liability under certain conditions.

Acts of Third Parties

Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 13 - Nightclub liability for assaults depends on foreseeability and prior conduct.

7. Nuisance

Private Nuisance

St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642 - Distinction between physical damage and amenity damage.
Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852 - “What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey.”
Robinson v Kilvert [1889] 41 Ch D 88 - Abnormal sensitivity of the claimant is generally disregarded.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468 - Malicious motive can transform otherwise lawful acts into a nuisance.
Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 2 All ER 145 - Noise and smell can amount to nuisance if they exceed normal neighborhood levels.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL) - Foreseeability is required; introduced the principle that remoteness of damage applies in nuisance.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 (HL) - Loss of TV signal not an actionable nuisance; reaffirmed the need for proprietary interest.
Coventry v Lawrence (No 1) [2014] UKSC 13 - Planning permission does not legalize a nuisance and introduced modern guidance on injunctions vs. damages.

Standing

Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 (HL) - Only those with a proprietary interest can sue; repeated principle from the main Hunter reference.

Acts of Nature and Trespassers

Cocking v Eacott [2016] EWCA Civ 140 - Occupier can be liable for nuisance arising from someone else’s acts on their property if they permit or fail to stop it.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan [1940] AC 880 - Important: liability where a defendant “adopts” or “continues” a nuisance.
Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485 - Liability for naturally occurring hazards if reasonable steps are not taken.
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC [2001] QB 836 - Limits on liability where natural events are not reasonably foreseeable.

Landlord’s Liability

Hussain v Lancaster CC [1999] 2 WLR 1142 (CA) - Landlord generally not liable for nuisance by tenants unless they authorize it.
Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire CC [1999] 3 WLR 137 - Liability arises if a landlord allows repeated trespass or nuisance on their land.
Southwark LBC v Mills [1999] 4 All ER 449 - Normal household noise not usually a nuisance.
Coventry v Lawrence (No 2) [2014] UKSC 46 - Courts may grant damages in lieu of injunction in appropriate nuisance cases.

Statutory and Planning Permission

Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1001 (HL) - Statutory authority can be a defense to nuisance if it is the inevitable result of authorized activity.
Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 - Planning permission does not automatically override private nuisance rights.

Remedies

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287 - Traditional test for when damages may be granted instead of an injunction.
Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966 - Public interest balancing approach to whether an injunction or damages should be awarded.
Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 - Modern guidance on discretionary remedies in nuisance.

8. Rylands v Fletcher Tort

Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265 - Established strict liability for the escape of dangerous things.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 - Affirmed by the House of Lords, requiring non-natural use of land.
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156 (HL) - “Escape” must leave the defendant’s land.
Perry v Kendricks [1956] 1 WLR 85 - Act of a stranger is a defense.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL) - Foreseeability of the type of damage is required.
Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1 (HL) - Modern limits on Rylands, reaffirming it as a sub-species of nuisance requiring exceptional use of land.

9. Product Liability

Common Law Negligence

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85 - Extended Donoghue to defective clothing causing dermatitis.
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialties Ltd [1986] QB 507 - Economic loss vs. physical damage in defective products.
Hobbs (Farms) Ltd v Baxenden Chemical Co [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep 54 - Contamination scenarios and recoverable losses.
Hamble Fisheries Ltd v Gardner ('The Rebecca Elaine') [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1 - Liability for defective commercial products.
Howmet Ltd v Economy Devices Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 847 - Knowledge of defect can limit liability if the user proceeds regardless.

Strict Liability in Statute

Consumer Protection Act 1987 - Implements EU strict liability regime for defective products.
European Commission v United Kingdom (C-300/95) [1997] CMLR 923 - Addressed UK compliance with EU product safety requirements.
Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd [2000] All ER (D) 246 - Safety expectations of child products.
Richardson v LRC Products Ltd [2000] PIQR P164 - Liability for contraceptive failure if product defective.
Worsley v Tambrands Ltd [2000] PIQR P95 - Tampon cases establishing the need for adequate warnings.
A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER 289 - Important early application of strict liability to contaminated blood.
Bogle v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490 - Hot drinks risk and consumer expectations.
Pollard v Tesco Stores Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 393 - Child-resistant packaging defects.
Wilkes v Depuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 3096 (QB) - Important case clarifying “defect” in medical implants.

10. Tort Defences

Contributory Negligence

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 - Statutory framework allowing apportionment of liability.
Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd [1949] AC 386 - Child’s contributory negligence assessed with regard to age.
Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379 - Fighting context and contributory negligence.
Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608 - Important authority defining foreseeability and the scope of contributory negligence.
Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 - Seatbelt cases; deductions in damages if seatbelt not worn.
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2000] 1 AC 360 - Suicide in police custody can be contributory negligence if there’s partial responsibility by the deceased.
Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328 - Apportioning liability among multiple negligent defendants.
St George v Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 1068 - Impact of claimant’s drug or alcohol dependency.
Co-operative Group Ltd v Pritchard [2011] EWCA Civ 329 - No contributory negligence available for intentional torts.
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5 - Supreme Court revisiting apportionment for pedestrian accidents.
Baker v T E Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 225 (CA) - Rescue attempts usually do not constitute contributory negligence.

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 - Consent in dangerous workplaces.
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 - Volenti not applicable to a learner driver’s passenger.
Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6 - Drunken pilot case; passenger’s awareness of extreme risk supports volenti.
Reeves v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2000] AC 360 - Volenti defense fails if the defendant has a protective duty (e.g., preventing suicide).
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] 2 WLR 499 (HL) - Mental health issues may negate true consent.
Road Traffic Act 1988, section 149 - Statutory limitation on volenti in motor accidents.

Illegality

Pitts v Hunt [1991] 1 QB 24 - Joint illegal enterprise bars recovery in negligence.
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1339 - Important: no claim if it depends on the claimant’s own criminal act.
Delaney v Pickett [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 - Drug possession context; if injury arises from an illegal act, the claim may be barred.
Joyce v O’Brien [2013] EWCA Civ 546 - Theft “getaway” scenario where claim was denied.
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 - Modern, flexible approach to illegality in civil claims.
Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust [2020] UKSC 43 - Claimant’s manslaughter prevented recovery due to illegality.
Stoffel & Co v Grondona [2020] UKSC 42 - Explored the public interest factors approach under Patel v Mirza.

11. Vicarious Liability

Relationship of Employment

Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 - Examines vicarious liability for fraudulent acts committed by an employee during the course of employment.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins [1947] AC 1 - “Lending” employees; who is the employer for vicarious liability.
Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 - Hospitals can be liable for doctors and surgeons.
Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2006] 2 WLR 428 (CA) - Possibility of dual vicarious liability.
Hawley v Luminar Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 18 - Bouncers and control test.
Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst GmbH [2009] 3 WLR 324 - Distinguishing employees from independent contractors.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 - Important for “relationship akin to employment.”
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 - Prisoners working in kitchens can make the prison service vicariously liable.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60 - Foster parents and local authority relationship.
Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13 - Liability for independent medical examiners if the relationship is akin to employment.

Course of Employment

Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Transport Board [1942] AC 509 - Employee lighting a cigarette near fuel tank was within the scope of employment.
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 - Unauthorized acts may still fall within the course of employment if done for the employer’s business.
Smith v Stages [1989] AC 928 - Traveling to work may be within course of employment in some cases.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 (HL) - “Close connection” test for intentional torts by employees.
Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 - Bouncer’s violent act closely connected to employment.
Gravil v Carroll [2008] EWCA Civ 689 - Rugby punch inflicted during a game could be within course of employment if closely connected.
Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25 - Assault after a work-related call considered within the scope if triggered by employment.
Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] AC 677 - Affirmed the close connection test.
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2214 - Employer held liable for assault at a work-related social event.
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12 - Data breach case; clarifies the limit of close connection when an employee acts with personal vendetta.

Non-delegable Duty of Care

Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 - Hospitals hold non-delegable duties to patients.
Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst GmbH [2009] 3 WLR 324 - Non-delegable duties in certain hazardous activities.
Farraj v King's Healthcare NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 1203 - Liability for independent contractors performing integral duties.
Woodland v Essex CC [2013] UKSC 66 - Schools owe non-delegable duties to pupils in certain circumstances.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] AC 355 - Extended concept of non-delegable duty to foster care context.

12. Trespass to the Person

False Imprisonment; Intention

Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 - Established liability for intentional infliction of mental shock.
Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742 - Partial obstruction not false imprisonment if a reasonable route exists.
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732 (CA) - Omissions by officers could not ground liability unless a positive duty existed.

Assault

Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C& P 349 - Immediate threat needed, even without actual contact.
Tuberville v Savage (1669) 2 Keb 545 - Words can negate an assault if they show no immediate intent to harm.
R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 - Silent telephone calls can constitute assault if they cause fear of immediate violence.

Battery

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 - Implied consent to everyday touching; any unconsented contact beyond this can be battery.
Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237 - There must be hostility or at least a lack of consent.
Innes v Wylie (1844) 1 Car & Kir 257 - Positive act required; a mere standing still is not battery.

Defences

Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432 (CA) - Consent in medical treatment requires informed understanding of the procedure.
R v Dica [2004] QB 1257 (CA) - Consent to the risk of transmission of serious disease must be real and informed.
Blake v Galloway [2004] 1 WLR 2844 - “Horseplay” between consenting participants may negate battery claims.
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25, [2008] 1 AC 962 - Honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defence is no defence in tort.
F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL) - Necessity may justify treatment of persons incapable of consent.

13. Defamation

Defamatory Meaning

Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 (CA) - Insults can be defamatory if they lower the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking people.
Byrne v Dean [1937] 1 KB 818 - Statements implying disloyalty can be defamatory even if some might approve the conduct.

Interpretation

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 - Natural and ordinary meaning in defamation.
Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 - Entire context must be read.
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331 - True innuendo: extrinsic facts can make a statement defamatory to certain people.

Serious Harm (s.1 Defamation Act)

Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612 - Claimant must prove “serious harm” to reputation.
Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 (QB) [2016] EMLR 12 - Republisher’s liability; repeated statements can cause fresh harm.
Cooke v MGN Ltd [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) - Lower threshold for private individuals but still must show serious harm.
Thorley v Lord Kerry (1812) 4 Taunt 355 - Early principle that mere insults might not always be actionable unless they cause real harm.

Standing

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2007] 1 AC 359 - Corporate entities must show actual or likely financial loss.
Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116 (HL) - Group defamation not actionable unless specifically identified.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 (HL) - Public authorities cannot sue in defamation.
Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1998] QB 459 - Political parties generally cannot sue in defamation.

Strict Liability

E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20 - Unintentional reference to a real person is still defamatory.
O’Shea v MGN [2001] EMLR 943 - “Look-alike” case; no strict liability if identification is purely coincidental and not foreseeable.
Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1526 - Innocent publication can still incur liability if it is defamatory and identifies the claimant.
Newstead v London Express Newspapers [1940] 1 KB 377 - Same name confusion still creates liability if a reasonable reader would identify the claimant.

Defences

Truth (s.2 Defamation Act)

Stern v Piper [1996] 3 All ER 385 - Defendant must prove the statement is substantially true.
Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 All ER 1169 - Partial truth can defeat the defence if the untrue parts are significant.
Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491 - Evidence of general bad reputation can be introduced to mitigate damages.

Honest Opinion (s.3 Defamation Act)

Cheng v Tse (2003) 3 HKCFA 339 - Fair comment/honest opinion requires that the comment be recognizable as opinion.
Spiller v Joseph [2011] 1 AC 852 - Must indicate in general terms the basis of the opinion.

Qualified Privilege (s.4 Defamation Act)

Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM & R 181 - Common law qualified privilege where a statement is made without malice in discharge of a duty.
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135 - Malice defeats qualified privilege.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 - “Reynolds privilege” for responsible journalism in matters of public interest.
Economou v de Freitas [2018] EWCA Civ 2591, [2019] EMLR 7 - Public interest defence under the modern statutory regime (s.4 Defamation Act 2013).

Remedies

John v MGN Ltd [1996] 2 All ER 35 - Guidance on general damages for defamation.
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1972] AC 1027 (HL) - Exemplary or punitive damages in defamation.
Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 - Courts are cautious in granting interlocutory injunctions for defamation.
Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2005] QB 972 - Procedure for statements in open court.
Rahman v Arearose Ltd [2001] QB 351 - Apportionment can arise if other causes contribute to reputational harm.

14. Conversion

Requirements

Type of Interest

Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Str 505 (KB) - Finder has a possessory title good against all but the true owner.
MCC Proceeds v Shearson Lehman [1998] 4 All ER 675 - Title to sue in conversion depends on immediate right to possession.
OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1 - Conversion requires intentional interference with the claimant’s right to possession.

Three Part Test

Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883 - Leading test: (1) claimant’s right to possession, (2) defendant’s dealing inconsistent with that right, (3) denial of claimant’s title.

Strict Liability

Hollins v Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757 - Defendant can be liable even if they did not know they were interfering with someone else’s property.
Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2004] QB 286 - Auctioneers can be liable if they exercise dominion over goods.

Dominion over Goods

Club Cruise Entertainment v Department for Transport [2008] EWHC 2794 (Comm) - Acts amounting to control or dominion can constitute conversion.
Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031 (CA) - Wrongful refusal to return goods.
Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd [2008] EWHC 521 (QB) - Retaining property without lawful justification.
White v Withers LLP [2009] EWCA Civ 1122 - Professional firms can commit conversion if holding clients’ property without consent.
Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540 - Mere removal vs. assumption of dominion.

Remedies

Specific Remedies

Somerset v Cookson (1735) 3 P Wms 390 - Recovery of unique or special property.
Wood v Rowcliffe (1847) 2 Ph 383 - Specific restitution may be ordered instead of damages.
Perry v British Railways Board [1980] 1 WLR 1375 - Court orders for return of property.

Damages

Wickham Holdings Ltd v Brooke House Motors [1967] 1 WLR 295 - Generally assessed at the date of conversion.
BBMB Finance (Hong Kong) Ltd v Eda Holdings Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 409 - Market fluctuation can affect assessment.
IBL Ltd v Coussens [1991] 2 All ER 133 - Consequential losses may be recoverable if flowing directly from the conversion.
Smith v Lloyds TSB [2001] QB 541 - Approach to calculating damages in complex commercial settings.

Self-Help

Patrick v Colerick (1838) 3 M & W 483 - Lawful recaption permits an owner to retake property if it can be done peaceably.