|
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Tort
''Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort'' (2010) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English tort law. Content The cases discussed are, * '' R v Pease'' (1832): Mark Wilde and Charlotte Smith * '' Buron v Denman'' (1848) Charles Mitchell and Leslie Urano * ''George v Skivington'' (1869) David Ibbetson * '' Daniel v Metropolitan Railway Company'' (1871) Michael Lobban * '' Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway Company'' (1877) Steve Banks * '' Cavalier v Pope'' (1906) Richard Baker and Jonathan Garton * ''Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd'' (1963) Paul Mitchell * '' Goldman v Hargrave'' (1967) Mark Lunney * '' Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council'' (1983) J. W. Neyers * '' Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd'' (1985) Elspeth Reid * ''Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police'' (1991) Donal Nolan * ''Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd'' (1997) Maria Lee * ''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Servi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Tort
''Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort'' (2010) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English tort law. Content The cases discussed are, * '' R v Pease'' (1832): Mark Wilde and Charlotte Smith * '' Buron v Denman'' (1848) Charles Mitchell and Leslie Urano * ''George v Skivington'' (1869) David Ibbetson * '' Daniel v Metropolitan Railway Company'' (1871) Michael Lobban * '' Woodley v Metropolitan District Railway Company'' (1877) Steve Banks * '' Cavalier v Pope'' (1906) Richard Baker and Jonathan Garton * ''Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd'' (1963) Paul Mitchell * '' Goldman v Hargrave'' (1967) Mark Lunney * '' Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council'' (1983) J. W. Neyers * '' Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd'' (1985) Elspeth Reid * ''Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police'' (1991) Donal Nolan * ''Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd'' (1997) Maria Lee * ''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Servi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Smith V Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
''Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd'' House of Lords decision on duty of care in the tort of negligence. It was specifically concerning the potential liability for the wrongdoing of third parties. Facts Littlewoods Organisation Ltd purchased a cinema in 1976, intending to demolish it and turning it into a supermarket. After some initial work in June it was left unattended. Sometimes vandals and children broke in, and on one occasion vandals set fire to some old film, and the cinema itself. On 5 July 1976, vandals started a larger fire and the cinema burnt down, damaging a few adjacent buildings including a neighbouring cafe, billiard saloon and church. The neighbours claimed damages and brought an action against Littlewoods for negligence on the basis that they failed to take reasonable care of the cinema by having it regularly inspected or locking and guarding the premises. The instant court held the fire was reasonably foreseeable. Littlewoods appealed, arguing they had no ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In Equity
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Equity'' (2012) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English trusts law and equity. Content The cases discussed are, *'' The Earl of Oxford's Case'' (1615) David Ibbetson *'' Coke v Fountaine'' (1676) Mike Macnair *'' Grey v Grey'' (1677) Jamie Glister *''Penn v Lord Baltimore'' (1750) Paul Mitchell *'' Burgess v Wheate'' (1759) Paul Matthews *'' Morice v Bishop of Durham'' (1805) Joshua Getzler *''Tulk v Moxhay'' (1848) Ben McFarlane *''Prince Albert v Strange'' (1849) Lionel Bently *''Ramsden v Dyson'' (1866) Nick Piska *'' Bishop of Natal v Gladstone'' (1866) Charlotte Smith *'' Earl of Aylesford v Morris'' (1873) Catharine MacMillan *''Re Hallett's Estate'' (1879–80) Graham Virgo *'' North-West Transportation Co Ltd v Beatty'' (1887) Lionel Smith *''Rochefoucauld v Boustead'' (1897) Ying Khai Liew *'' Re Earl of Sefton'' (1898) Chantal Stebbings *''Nocton v Lord Ashburton'' (19 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In Family Law
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Family Law'' (2011) is a book of chapters contributed by various authors, which outlines the key cases in English family law. Content The cases discussed are, *'' The Roos case'' (1670): Rebecca Probert, Associate Professor, University of Warwick. *'' J v C and Another'' 970AC 668L: Nigel Lowe, Professor of Law, Cardiff University. *''Corbett v Corbett'' (Orse. Ashley)971P 83: Stephen Gilmore, Senior Lecturer in Law, King's College London. *'' Burns v Burns'' 984Ch 317.: John Mee, University College Cork. *'' Szechter (Orse. Karsov) v Szechter'' 971P 286: Mary Hayes, Emeritus Professor, University of Sheffield. *'' S v S''; '' W v Official Solicitor'' 972AC 24: Andrew Bainham, Fellow of Christ's College, University of Cambridge. *'' Poel v Poel'' 9701 WLR 1469: Rachel Taylor, University of Oxford. *'' Wachtel v Wachtel'' 973Fam 72: Gillian Douglas, Professor of Law, Cardiff University. *'' Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA'' 986AC 112 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Contract
''Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract'' (2008) is a book by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English contract law. Content The cases discussed are, *'' Coggs v Barnard'' (1703) on bailment *''Pillans v Van Mierop'' (1765) on the doctrine of consideration *'' Carter v Boehm'' (1766) on good faith *'' Da Costa v Jones'' (1778) *'' Hochster v De La Tour'' (1853) on anticipatory breach *''Smith v Hughes'' (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts *''Foakes v Beer'' (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) *'' The Hong Kong Fir'' (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility *''Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale'' (1966) *'' Rearden Smith Lines Ltd v Yngvar Hansen Tangan'' or ''The Diana Prosperity'' (1976) 1 WLR 989 on a contextual approach to contractual interpretation *'' Johnson v Agnew'' (19 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Cases In The Law Of Restitution
{{italic title ''Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution'' (2006) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English unjust enrichment law and restitution. Content The cases discussed are, *'' Lampleigh v Brathwait'' (1615) *''Moses v Macferlan'' (1760) *''Taylor v Plumer'' (1815) *'' Planche v Colburn'' (1831) *'' Marsh v Keating'' (1834) *''Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co'' (1878) *''Phillips v Homfray'' (1883) *''Allcard v Skinner'' (1887) *''Sinclair v Brougham'' (1914) *'' Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Coombe Barbour Ltd'' (1942) *''Re Diplock'' (1948) *''Solle v Butcher'' (1950) See also *Landmark case *Restitution in English law *''Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract'' (2008) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell *'' Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort'' (2010) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell *''Landmark Cases in Family Law {{italic title ''Landmark Cases in Family Law'' (2011) is a book of chapters con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution In English Law
The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a ''gain'' acquired by another, rather than compensation for a ''loss''. Framework Many academic commentators have sought to impose structure upon the law of restitution by searching for a common rationale and constructing taxonomies of the various types of claim. Whether such frameworks can account for the diverse range of restitutionary claims remains a controversial question. The implications of such frameworks for the relationship between law and Equity has often been a significant flashpoint in academic and judicial debate. As the law currently stands, the law of restitution can be usefully divided into (at least) three broad categories: * Restitution for unjust enrichment * Restitution for ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Landmark Case
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a ''leading decision'' when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy said "a 'leading case' sone that settles the law upon some important point". A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by: * Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of '' stare decisis''; * Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in futur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
''Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd'' [2002UKHL 22is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant, malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard. Facts Mr Fairchild had worked for a number of different employers, as a subcontractor for Leeds City Council, all of whom had negligently exposed him to asbestos. Mr Fairchild contracted pleural mesothelioma. He died, and his wife was suing the employers on his behalf for negligence. A number of other claimants were in similar situations, and joined in on the appeal. The problem was, a single asbestos fibre, inhaled at any time, can trigger mesothelioma. The risk of contracting an asbestos related disease increases depending on the amount of exposure to it. However, because of lo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hunter V Canary Wharf Ltd
''Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd'' 997UKHL 14is an English tort law case on the subject of Nuisance in English law">private nuisance. Several hundred claimants alleged that Canary Wharf Ltd, in constructing One Canada Square, had caused nuisance to them by impairing their television signal.997AC 655, p. 663 The House of Lords held unanimously that such interference could not amount to an actionable nuisance; the nuisance was equivalent to loss of a view, or of a prospect, which had never previously been actionable. Facts Canary Wharf Ltd undertook to construct a large tower (now known as the One Canada Square), for commercial and residential purposes. The tower was completed in November 1990, reaching 250 metres in height, and 50 metres squared in area. However, the tower, being situated less than 10 kilometres from the BBC's primary television transmitter, in Crystal Palace, interfered with the reception of several hundred home owners. It was submitted that before the construction o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Alcock V Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police
is a leading English tort law case on liability for nervous shock (psychiatric injury). The case centred upon the liability of the police for the nervous shock suffered in consequence of the events of the Hillsborough disaster. Facts ''Alcock'' concerned psychiatric harm caused by the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. This occurred at the Hillsborough Stadium, Hillsborough Football Stadium, Sheffield during the FA Cup Semi-Final in which 96 spectators were killed and 450 injured in a human crush. The disaster was broadcast live on television and radio. Despite considerable public controversy, South Yorkshire Police had admitted liability in negligence for the deaths, having allowed too many supporters into the stadium. In the ''Alcock'' case, 10 relatives of the deceased brought negligence claims in tort for psychiatric harm or nervous shock. Of the claimants, most had not been present in the stadium at the time of the disaster and none had been in physical risk. Most had sustaine ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd V Greater London Council
Tate is an institution that houses, in a network of four art galleries, the United Kingdom's national collection of British art, and international modern and contemporary art. It is not a government institution, but its main sponsor is the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The name "Tate" is used also as the operating name for the corporate body, which was established by the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 as "The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery". The gallery was founded in 1897 as the National Gallery of British Art. When its role was changed to include the national collection of modern art as well as the national collection of British art, in 1932, it was renamed the Tate Gallery after sugar magnate Henry Tate of Tate & Lyle, who had laid the foundations for the collection. The Tate Gallery was housed in the current building occupied by Tate Britain, which is situated in Millbank, London. In 2000, the Tate Gallery transformed itself into the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
_(2).jpg "Click for more on -> Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd V Greater London Council")