Smith v Leech Brain & Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1961
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
134 cases
  • Ellis v The Environment Agency
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 October 2008
    ...be a cause of damage. On the contrary, it was a condition akin to that which underlies the so called eggshell skull principle – see Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 AB 405 at 414 and Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 at 182, 189 – which Mr Alliott does not seek to challenge. Further, in so far as exce......
  • Robinson v Post Office
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 October 1973
    ...of the injury. In answer to this argument the respondents relied on the judgment of Lord Parker, Lord Chief Justice, in Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. (1962 2 Queen's Bench 405). In that case an employee already suffering from pre-malignant changes had, as a result of his employers' neglig......
  • Dixon-Hall (Cherry) v Jamaica Grande Ltd
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 21 November 2008
    ...learned trial judge having not treated Dr. Williams as an expert, the appellant was denied the opportunity of having the case of Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. [1962] 2 Q.B. 405, 1961 3 All E.R. 1159 considered by her. 41 Smith v. Leech Brain & Co (supra) supports the principle that a tor......
  • Hevican v Ruane
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Torts. Sixth Edition
    • 25 June 2020
    ...401, 426 Smith v Jones, [1999] 1 SCR 455, 169 DLR (4th) 385 ........................ 240, 252, 289 Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1961), [1962] 2 QB 405, [1962] 2 WLR 148 (CA) ....................................................................... 105, 106 Snell v Farrell, [1990] 2 SCR 311, ......
  • Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 12-1, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...that would have occurred 97 Champix PM, above note 3 at 50 [emphasis added]. 98 Mustapha, above note 15. 99 Smith v Leech Brain & Co, [1962] 2 QB 405. Foreseeable injury was defined as a burn on the lip rather than specifically cancer (which eventually resulted); once the initial injury is ......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Remedies: The Law of Damages. Third Edition Limiting Principles
    • 21 June 2014
    ...76, [2004] BCJ No 2509 (CA) ...............................................................149, 156 Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1961), [1962] 2 QB 405, [1961] 3 All ER 1159, [1962] 2 WLR 148 ..................................... 412, 414, 416 Smith v Shade (1996), 18 BCLR (3d) 141, 28 CCL......
  • Class Actions as a Bridge Between Cultures of Dignity and Victimhood
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 12-1, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...that would have occurred 97 Champix PM, above note 3 at 50 [emphasis added]. 98 Mustapha, above note 15. 99 Smith v Leech Brain & Co, [1962] 2 QB 405. Foreseeable injury was defined as a burn on the lip rather than specifically cancer (which eventually resulted); once the initial injury is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT