Home > Search Results > Clerk & Lindsell on Torts
EMAIL THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND
Email Page to a Colleague
(* Denotes required field)
* Colleague’s email address
 
 
* Your email address
 
 
* Subject
 
Message
The selected product information will be included in the email.
The email addresses you provide will not be used for any other purpose. You can view a detailed privacy statement here.
Your email has been sent.

Clerk & Lindsell on Torts
Clerk & Lindsell on Torts
21st Edition, 2nd Supplement
Series:  Common Law Library
Practice Area:  Tort
ISBN:  9780414059221
Published by:  Sweet & Maxwell
Publication Date:  22 Sep 2016
Format:  Paperback
PRODUCT INCLUDES:
Paperback
BUY NOW
£105.00
TOTAL:
Enter a promotion code if you have one. Note: discount applied at Checkout Review Section
Promotion code:
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

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

• Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Ltd on the “close connection” test for vicarious liability where the employee has committed an assault

• Cox v Ministry of Justice on the vicarious liability of prison authorities for the negligence of prisoners who perform remunerated tasks

• Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP on the duty of employers to conduct risk assessments as part of the duty of care owed to employees

• R (on the application of O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department on the consequences of a procedurally flawed process of detaining a failed asylum seeker pending deportation

• Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd on the scope of protection afforded by registered designs

• Re JR38’s Application for Judicial Review on the requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy when considering whether a minor’s art.8 ECHR rights had been breached by publishing a photograph

• PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd on applications for interim privacy injunctions brought to prevent details of alleged extra-marital activities of a celebrity being published

• Knauer v Ministry of Justice where it was held that in assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act the multiplier should run from the date of assessment, not the date of death

• In Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board (Bermuda) the judicial committee of the Privy Council considered the material contribution to damage test of causation in a clinical negligence action


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

• Greenway v Johnson Matthey plc where it was held that sensitisation to platinum salts does not constitute a personal injury where it does not produce symptoms; the claimants’ inability to work in their previous job was pure economic loss

• Dunnage v Randall on the objective nature of the standard of care in negligence where the defendant’s conduct is the product of a mental disorder

• Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Ltd holding that the Fairchild causation test of material contribution to the risk of damage applies to cases of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos where there are multiple tortfeasors

• Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP holding that in the case of concurrent liability in contract and tort the contractual test for remoteness of damage should be applied

• Mohammed v Secretary of State for Defence and Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence where the government’s liability for the actions of UK armed forces detaining foreign nationals was addressed

• NA v Nottinghamshire County Council whether a local authority owes a non-delegable duty in respect of intentional harm inflicted by a foster parent on a foster child

• EnergySolutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority holding that where statutory regulations implement an EU Directive the claimant can rely on English law in an action for breach of statutory duty, even if it is more favourable than EU law
• CLG v Chief Constable of Merseyside on the duty of care of the police owed to witnesses and police immunity to claims in negligence

• Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA where it was held that a bank did not owe a Hedley Byrne duty of care to a casino in respect of a credit reference provided through the casino’s agent

• Cruz v Chief Constable of Lancashire Police holding that a foreseeable risk of injury to prisoners detained in police cells did not necessarily constitute a foreseeable risk to police officers working there

• R (on the application of Long) v Secretary of State for Defence on the duty to protect the lives of soldiers under art.2 ECHR against negligent failure in the chain of command to ensure compliance with an order

• Webster v Lord Chancellor on whether a claimant whose conviction had been quashed on appeal had a claim for breach of art.5 or art.6 ECHR

• Raymond v Young on the principles applicable in a case of nuisance and harassment involving interference with amenity and enjoyment of property

• Cocking v Eacott where the principle that an occupier can be liable in nuisance as the licensor of the activities of his licensees was considered 

• Weller v Associated Newspapers on the reasonable expectation of privacy of children when taking part in a family trip in a public place 

• Gulati v MGN Ltd on the assessment of damages for invasion of privacy

• Billett v Ministry of Defence on the assessment of damages for a handicap in the labour market

• Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd on the court’s discretionary power to disapply the limitation period under s.32A of the Limitation Act 1980 in libel actions

back to top