Law of Wrongdoing in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • M'Alister or Donoghue (Pauper) v Stevenson
    • House of Lords
    • 26 May 1932

    You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

  • Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd; Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 05 Feb 1987

    But it also expresses a general perception that we ought not to be held responsible in law for the deliberate wrongdoing of others. Of course, if a duty of care is imposed to guard against deliberate wrongdoing by others, it can hardly be said that the harmful effects of such wrongdoing are not caused by such breach of duty.

    I wish to emphasise that I do not think that the problem in these cases can be solved simply through the mechanism of foreseeability. When a duty is cast upon a person to take precautions against the wrongdoing of third parties, the ordinary standard of foreseeability applies; and so the possibility of such wrongdoing does not have to be very great before liability is imposed.

  • Lonrho Plc (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants) v Fayed and Others (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) (First Appeal); Lonrho Plc (Original Respondents and Cross-Appellants) v Fayed and Others (Original Appellants and Cross-Respondents) (Second Appeal)
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Oct 1991

    But when conspirators intentionally injure the plaintiff and use unlawful means to do so, it is no defence for them to show that their primary purpose was to further or protect their own interests; it is sufficient to make their action tortious that the means used were unlawful.

  • Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 03 May 2001

    He said (Salmond on Torts, 1st ed, pp 83-84) that "a master … is liable even for acts which he has not authorised, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorised, that they may rightly be regarded as modes - although improper modes - of doing them" (my emphasis): see the citation of Salmond with approval in Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Lockhart [1942] AC 591, 599 (Salmond on Torts, 9th ed, p 95) and in Racz v Home Office [1994] 2 AC 45, 53 (Salmond and Heuston, Laws of Tort, 19th ed (1987), pp 521-522; 20th ed (1992), p 457).

    It remains, however, to consider how vicarious liability for intentional wrongdoing fits in with Salmond's formulation. The answer is that it does not cope ideally with such cases. It must, however, be remembered that the great tort writer did not attempt to enunciate precise propositions of law on vicarious liability. In reality it is simply a practical test serving as a dividing line between cases where it is or is not just to impose vicarious liability.

  • Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company v Veitch
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Dic 1941

    It is enough to say that if there is more than one purpose actuating a combination, liability must depend on ascertaining the predominant purpose. If that predominant purpose is to damage another person and damage results, that is tortious conspiracy. If the predominant purpose is the lawful protection or promotion of any lawful interest of the combiners (no illegal means being employed), it is not a tortious conspiracy, even though it causes damage to another person.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
  • The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council formally adopts new Whistleblowing Directive
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Dentons
    • 3 de Diciembre de 2019
    The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council has formally adopted a Directive of the EU Parliament, which aims to harmonise the protections available for EU whistleblowers who report breaches of EU law.
    ...... which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making it, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the types of wrongdoing or failure listed in section 43B(1)(a) to (f) which are:. that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be ......
  • Corporate Compliance Takes a New Turn
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • Baker McKenzie
    • 18 de Mayo de 2018
    Discovering corporate criminal wrongdoing by employees or agents is a situation that employers hope to never encounter. However, if that time comes it is critical to be prepared. The Federal Govern...
    ...Discovering corporate criminal wrongdoing by employees or agents is a situation that employers hope to never encounter. However, if that time comes it is critical to be prepared. The Federal ......
  • Protecting Whistleblowers in the UK – Is the Law Sufficient?
    • LexBlog United Kingdom
    • Reed Smith LLP
    • 12 de Julio de 2016
    With instances of whistleblowing hitting the press on an ever-increasing basis, does UK law do enough to protect employees who blow the whistle on their employer’s wrongdoing? According to a new re...
    ...... hitting the press on an ever-increasing basis, does UK law do enough to protect employees who blow the whistle on their employer’s wrongdoing? According to a new report published by the international NGO, Blueprint for Free Speech, and the Thomson Reuters Foundation (the “Report”), the ......
  • UK Supreme Court Adopts New “Range of Factors” Approach to Defence of Illegality
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • Latham & Watkins LLP
    • 7 de Septiembre de 2016
    The UK Supreme Court has rejected a formal “reliance” test to determine whether a defendant to a civil claim can rely on the claimant’s wrongdoing to defeat the claim, replacing it with a more fact...
    ...... UK Supreme Court has rejected a formal “reliance” test to determine whether a defendant to a civil claim can rely on the claimant’s wrongdoing" to defeat the claim, replacing it with a more fact-sensitive “range of factors” approach, which may expand cases in which the defence operates. \t\xE2"......
See all results