Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (21ed) 1st Supplement

Clerk and Lindsell on Torts
Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (21ed) 1st Supplement
Jones, M
Sweet & Maxwell

The First Supplement brings the Main Work fully up to date with the latest developments, including decisions of the Supreme Court in:

  • Coventry v Lawrence (No.2) on the liability of landlords for a noise nuisance caused by their tenants
  • Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK on the requirements for liability as a joint tortfeasor as an accessory to the commission of a tort
  • Hounga v Allen, Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd, and Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc where the Supreme Court reviewed, without finally resolving, the criteria to be applied to the defence of ex turpi causa
  • International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc UK where it was held that the common law rule established in Barker v Corus (that when causation is established by applying the Fairchild principle the defendant’s liability is proportional to the risk created by the defendant) is still good law
  • Jackson v Murray where the principles to be applied to an assessment of apportionment in cases of contributory negligence, and the circumstances in which an appellate court can overturn such an assessment, were reviewed
  • Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc holding that the Water Industry Act 1991 carries an implied right on the part of a sewerage undertaker to discharge surface water and certain treated effluents into private watercourses where the duties imposed under the Act could not be performed without continuing to discharge from existing outfalls
  • Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales on whether the police owe a duty of care to victims of violence when they are aware of immediate and credible threats to the victim but fail to act on that knowledge (and the difference in this context between a duty of care in tort and claim under art.2 ECHR)
  • Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board on the duty owed by a doctor to a patient to disclose information about the risks of proposed medical treatment and the alternatives to that treatment
  • R (on the application of Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice on the ancillary duty under art.5 ECHR to facilitate the rehabilitation and release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences when in the post-tariff stage (though the prisoner’s detention remains lawful under art.5)
  • Rhodes v OPO on the necessary mental element for the tort of intentional infringement of the right to personal safety, as established in Wilkinson v Downton (holding that intention cannot be imputed as a matter of law, though it can be inferred as a question of fact)
  • Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc on the question of what level of goodwill a foreign company must have in the UK in order to bring a claim in passing off

A number of important decisions have also been handed down by the Court of Appeal, including:

  • Best v Chief Land Registrar holding that, although a squatter who enters a residential property commits an offence under s.144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, this illegality does not prevent his conduct from qualifying as adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002
  • Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust holding that a mentally disordered patient who had been detained unlawfully because the NHS Trust had failed to comply with statutory requirements was entitled to nominal damages only because his mental state was such that he could have been lawfully detained throughout the period concerned
  • Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v Copeland on who can be regarded as the prosecutor for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution
  • Coope v Ward on the “measured duty of care” owed by adjoining landowners in relation to the collapse of a wall between the properties where the wall had provided support for the claimants’ land
  • Coventry University v Mian and Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the correct approach to a claim for psychiatric harm induced by stress at work arising out of disciplinary procedures instituted by the employer
  • Crawford v Jenkins on the fundamental distinction between actions where a complainant is said to have procured an abuse of the process of a court and those where no such abuse of process occurs and which may be appropriately argued in false imprisonment
  • Cruddas v Calvert on the test for showing malice in an action for malicious falsehood
  • Haxton v Philips Electronics UK Ltd where a widow whose life expectancy had been curtailed by the defendant’s negligence was entitled to recover the diminution in the value of her claim for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 arising out of the death of her husband
  • Levi v Bates holding that the ability to bring a harassment claim was not restricted to the individual targeted by the course of conduct complained of, but extended to other persons who were foreseeably and directly harmed by the course of conduct
  • Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne on the test for what qualifies as a “horrifying” event for the purposes of a claim in respect of psychiatric harm when witnessing the consequences of clinical negligence in a hospital
  • Northumbrian Water Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd holding that a claim in nuisance for an unforeseeable isolated escape causing physical damage could not succeed unless it fell within the rule in Rylands v Fletcher
  • Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where it was held that confining an individual in a doorway for a short a time without lawful authority amounts to a false imprisonment
  • Zenati v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the important distinction between a claimant's action in respect of art.5 ECHR and a claim in false imprisonment
Enter the Student Discount code here