Tort 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.

  • Anns v Merton London Borough Council
    • House of Lords
    • 12 May 1977

    First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter—in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

  • Rookes v Barnard
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Ene 1964

    Cases in the second category are those in which the Defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Exemplary damages can properly be awarded whenever it is necessary to teach a wrongdoer that tort does not pay.

  • Hedley Byrne & Company Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 28 May 1963

    Furthermore, if in a sphere in which a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgment or his skill or upon his ability to make careful inquiry, a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be passed on to, another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then a duty of care will arise.

  • Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3)
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Mar 2001

    The rationale of the tort is that in a legal system based on the rule of law executive or administrative power "may be exercised only for the public good" and not for ulterior and improper purposes: Jones v. Swansea City Council [1990] 1 W.L.R. 54, 85F, per Nourse L.J.; a decision reversed on the facts but not on the law by the House of Lords: [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1453, at 1458.

  • English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 30 Abr 2002

    It follows that, if the appellate process is to work satisfactorily, the judgment must enable the appellate court to understand why the Judge reached his decision. This does not mean that every factor which weighed with the Judge in his appraisal of the evidence has to be identified and explained. But the issues the resolution of which were vital to the Judge's conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them explained.

  • Arbuthnott v Fagan and Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Jul 1994

    Furthermore, especially in a context concerned with a liability which may arise under a contract or in a situation "equivalent to contract", it must be expected that an objective test will be applied when asking the question whether, in a particular case, responsibility should be held to have been assumed by the defendant to the plaintiff: see Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605, 637, per Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results