Tort Cases for PQ Flashcards
Must be intentional touching
Letang v Cooper
Psychological harm considered ‘direct’
Wilkinson v Downton
Ordinary conduct of everyday life
Collins v Wilcock
Touching must be hostile
Wilson v Pringle
Sports give consent
Blake v Galloway
Consent when in best interest of patient (but apply to courts first)
In re F
Contributory negligence not a defence
Coop v Pritchard
Self-defence: belief must be reasonable (not honest)
Ashley v CC of Sussex Police
Overt act required, anticipation must be reasonable (not paranoia)
Mbasogo v Logo
Assault even if impossible to carry out battery, as long as reasonable belief
Logdon v DPP
If clearly impossible, not reasonable
Thomas v NUM
Made to stay even if possible exit route/enforced compliance satisfies
Jalloh
Not false imprisonment if alt exit possible
Bird v Jones
Not false imprisonment if reasonable condition on exit
Robinson v Balmain
FI need positive act, unless no legal right to detain
Iqbal
Imprisonment can be justified by necessity if reasonable
Austin v Comm. of Met. Police
Lower in the estimation of right thinking members of society
Sim v Stretch
Serious Harm to reputation
DA13, s1
Serious harm = gravity, scale, attention, etc.
Lachaux v Independent Print
If statement to group, must establish C included specifically
Knuppfer
Enough for statement to be substantially true
DA13, s2
1) Statement of Opinion 2) Factual basis indicated 3) Based on true facts
DA13, s3/ Joseph v Spiller
1) Statement on Public Interest 2) D reasonably believed in PI
DA13, s4/ Serafin v Malkiewicz
Reasonable care + no reason to believe
Innocent Dissemination
DA96, s1
If accepted, C barred from continuing action; if rejected can be defence
Offer to make amends
DA96, s2-4
Only ‘right to exclusive possession’ (freeholders, leaseholders if contract)
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Law more strict towards physical than sensible intereference
Halsey v Esso Petroleum
Ordinariness of activity
Bamford v Turnley
Locality Principle
Sturges v Bridgman
C’s hypersensitivity irrelevant (tort to land)
Robinson v Kilvert
Deliberately drilling to prevent water flow - no nuisance
Possible rationale per Taggart: water no come from land (cf: noise)
Mayor of Bradford v Pickles
Deliberately make noise to kill fox - nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
Planning permission irrelevant
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
Coming to the nuisance no defence, unless
C changes use; D no nuisance b4, no increase, sensible, reasonable/lawful
If bring/keep anth likely to cause mischief when escape, then liable for damage
Rylands v Fletcher
Incremental approach in non-novel, in novel find analogy if not caparo
Robinson v West Yorkshire Pol
1) Foreseeability 2) Proximity 3) Fair, just and reasonable
Caparo v Dickman
No duty to act unless special relationship/assumed responsibility
Stovin v Wise
Generally no duty to act bc public resource
Hill v South Yorks Police
No duty unless: in control, foreseen, no reasonable care; assumed responsibility
Michael v South Wales Police
Part in creating danger = assumed resp
Reeves v Met Police
Primary: foresee physical harm
Page v Smith
Primary: caused by immediate shock
Rothwell v Chem Insulating Co
Secondary test
Alcock v CC of South Yorks
Alcock criteria
1) Close ties of love and affection; 2) Proximity in time & space; 3) Means; 4) Customary phlegm; 5) Suddenness
Exposed to personal danger (primary), or satisfy Alcock
White v CC of South Yorks
PEL not consequential of physical damage not recoverable
Spartan Steel v Martin
Undervaluation (bc of physical defect) = PEL
Murphy v Brentwood
Test for AR
Hedley Byrne v Heller
Hedley Byrne Test
1) Fiduciary relationship of trust & confidence; 2) Voluntary assumption of risk by D; 3) Relied by C; 4) Reasonable reliance