Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
Tort Law - Case Bank: All the cases every mentioned and principles deduced
General:
- R v White: ‘But for’ test established
Duty of Care
1. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503
Facts: Pender was a painter working on a ship. The shipowner, Heaven, failed to provide
proper scaffolding. Pender got injured because the scaffolding was unsafe.
Held: the dock owner technically invited the painters to the dock and thus the plaintiff wins
the case
Key Principle:
- Hinted towards development of The Neighbour Principle
- General Duty of Care: a duty to take care did arise when the person or property of
one was in such proximity to the person or property of another that if due care was
not taken damage might be done by one of the other
2. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Facts: D (claimant) at bar with friend, friend bought him a beer, bottom of bottle was a
decomposing snail, as a result he became very unwell, she sued the cafe in the tort of
negligence.
Held: that D owed C a duty to take reasonable care that the ginger beer bottle was safe for
consumption.
Key Principle:
The neighbour principle - if you can reasonably see that someone will be affected by ur
actions then they are ur neighbour
3. Home office v Dorset Yacht
Facts: Seven Borstal boys [youth offenders] damaged C’s boat after casting it adrift from the
island at which it was moored. The Borstal boys had been working on the island under the
supervision of Borstal officers as part of their criminal sentence. C, the owner of the boat,
sued D, the Home Office, in the tort of negligence for failing to exercise adequate
supervision and control over the boys. You would be more likely to get more compensation -
the government has more money than the boys
- You would argue that the home office neglected boys (duty of care)
Held: that D owed C a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the boys from damaging C’s
property
Lord Reid: ‘I think that the time has come when we can and should say that [Lord Atkin’s
neighbour principle] ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for
its exclusion’.
4. Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728
Facts: D, the local authority, approved the plans for the building of a block of flats. A few
years after being built, cracks in the walls and floors of the flats appeared after structural
movements in the building. C, lessees of the flats, sued D (council) in the tort of negligence
,Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
for failing to take reasonable care by approving the building of flats with insufficiently deep
foundations.
Held: that D owed a duty of care to C
Key Principle:
Two-stage test:
1) Is there sufficient proximity between the parties?
2) Are there good reasons for not imposing a duty?
5. Murphy v Brentwood DC
Facts: D, the local authority, approved plans for the building of a flat. C bought the house
from the builders and subsequently discovered that the house was built defectively. C sued
D for negligently approving the plans, seeking the difference in value between what they
paid for the house and what the defective house was actually worth
Held: that D did not owe a duty of care to C, overruling Anns v Merton
6. Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Facts: D, an auditor, provided a report of a company. C, an investor, invested in the
company. C sued D for the losses they suffered as a result of that investment
Held: that D did not owe C a duty of care
Key Principles:
The ‘Caparo test’;
1) Reasonable foreseeability
2) Proximity
3) Is it ‘fair, just, and reasonable’ to impose liability? - open enough to allow courts full
reign
7. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] AC 736
Facts: C, an elderly pedestrian, was knocked over by D, police officers, when they
attempted to arrest a third party. C sued D in negligence
Held: that D did owe C a duty of care
Key Principles: Rejected the Caparo test and reaffirmed the importance of precedent and
pre-established categories of duties of care
8. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015]
Facts: C rang D, the police, to alert them to the fact that their former partner was going to
attack them. The police wrongly classified the call as non-urgent and C was killed by their
partner. C, the victim’s estate, sued D for negligence
Held: that D did not owe C a duty of care
Key Principles:
Lord Toulson: Caparo has been misunderstood; it was never intended as a general test. The
law should be developed incrementally by reference to past cases
Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd as an example:
,Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
● The claimant wanted compensation for financial loss caused by damage to someone
else’s property.
● The House of Lords (Lord Brandon) refused, saying that a duty of care only exists for
those with a proprietary or possessory interest in the property.
● Even if the loss was foreseeable, well-established law said no duty existed in such a
case.
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
● Facts: Doctor performed a vasectomy on a man; years later, the man’s partner (C)
became pregnant after the vasectomy spontaneously reversed. C claimed
negligence against the doctor.
● Outcome: Claim struck out.
● Reasoning:
○ C had no direct relationship with the doctor.
○ She was part of an indeterminate class of possible partners, so
insufficient proximity existed for a duty.
○ Obiter: if she had been the patient’s partner/husband and the doctor knew the
vasectomy also concerned her, a duty might have arisen.
Case 1: White v Jones
● Facts: Solicitor (D) negligently failed to draft a new will for a testator; daughters (C)
would have benefited under the new will.
● Foreseeability & proximity:
○ Loss to daughters foreseeable.
○ Relationship between solicitor and daughters was sufficiently proximate
(assumption of responsibility).
● Challenge: Generally courts are reluctant to impose liability for omissions
(nonfeasance).
● Fair, just, and reasonable reasoning (Lord Goff):
○ Importance of legacies in law.
○ Solicitors’ role in fulfilling testamentary intentions.
○ Ensuring remedies go to the most appropriate parties.
Outcome: Duty of care recognized, creating a new duty-situation.
Case 2: Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons
● Facts: Advocates had civil immunity for negligence in litigation; court considered
whether to remove it.
● Fair, just, and reasonable reasoning (Lord Hobhouse):
○ Client’s legitimate interest.
○ Appropriateness of tort remedy.
○ No sufficient justification for retaining immunity.
● Outcome: Duty of care imposed on advocates, removing prior immunity.
1. Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
, Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
○ Landlord owes duty to tenant to provide habitable, safe premises.
○ Duty does not extend to preventing acts of violent third parties if no
undertaking exists.
○ Policy considerations further limit the scope.
2. Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors
○ Solicitors retained for drafting a facility agreement had no duty to
provide additional advice about the commercial merits.
○ Duty is limited to the specific services agreed upon.
3. Swain Mason v Mills & Reeve
○ Solicitors advising on share sale had no duty to advise on inheritance tax,
especially when retainer specified limited advice.
Breach of Duty
9. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
Facts: D was playing cricket and struck the ball in such a way that it left the cricket grounds.
C was struck by the cricket ball on a neighbouring street. C sues D in negligence for the
injury sustained
Held: that the chance of injury was so remote that it was not unreasonable to have failed to
erect a fence (ie- chance of someone hitting the ball that far was so low let alone hitting
someone so not unreasonable)
10.Paris v Stepney BC [1951]
Facts: C, who only had one eye, worked for his employer, D, in conditions that exposed
workers’ eyes to the risk of injury. D did not consider the risk of eye injuries to be sufficient to
give workers eye protection.C’s remaining eye was injured and sued D for negligently failing
to provide eye protection
Held: that whilst the magnitude of harm to someone with two eyes might not be sufficient to
warrant eye protection, the increased severity of losing your only remaining eye was such
that it was unreasonable for D not to have provided eye protection
- Risk = chance of something happening + it’s severity.
11.Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1951]
Facts: D, the fire service, was transporting a heavy car jack needed to urgently save
someone trapped under a car. Given the urgency, the jack was transported in the incorrect
vehicle and C, a fireman, was subsequently injured. C sued D in negligence for failing to
take reasonable care when transporting the jack
Held: that given the urgency of the situation, and the public service that the defendant was
undertaking, it was not unreasonable for the defendant to transport the jack in the way that
they did
12.Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691
Facts: C gave driving lessons to D, a learner driver. D crashed into a lamppost, injuring C. C
sued D in negligence
Tort Law - Case Bank: All the cases every mentioned and principles deduced
General:
- R v White: ‘But for’ test established
Duty of Care
1. Heaven v Pender (1883) 11 QBD 503
Facts: Pender was a painter working on a ship. The shipowner, Heaven, failed to provide
proper scaffolding. Pender got injured because the scaffolding was unsafe.
Held: the dock owner technically invited the painters to the dock and thus the plaintiff wins
the case
Key Principle:
- Hinted towards development of The Neighbour Principle
- General Duty of Care: a duty to take care did arise when the person or property of
one was in such proximity to the person or property of another that if due care was
not taken damage might be done by one of the other
2. Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Facts: D (claimant) at bar with friend, friend bought him a beer, bottom of bottle was a
decomposing snail, as a result he became very unwell, she sued the cafe in the tort of
negligence.
Held: that D owed C a duty to take reasonable care that the ginger beer bottle was safe for
consumption.
Key Principle:
The neighbour principle - if you can reasonably see that someone will be affected by ur
actions then they are ur neighbour
3. Home office v Dorset Yacht
Facts: Seven Borstal boys [youth offenders] damaged C’s boat after casting it adrift from the
island at which it was moored. The Borstal boys had been working on the island under the
supervision of Borstal officers as part of their criminal sentence. C, the owner of the boat,
sued D, the Home Office, in the tort of negligence for failing to exercise adequate
supervision and control over the boys. You would be more likely to get more compensation -
the government has more money than the boys
- You would argue that the home office neglected boys (duty of care)
Held: that D owed C a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the boys from damaging C’s
property
Lord Reid: ‘I think that the time has come when we can and should say that [Lord Atkin’s
neighbour principle] ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for
its exclusion’.
4. Anns v Merton [1978] AC 728
Facts: D, the local authority, approved the plans for the building of a block of flats. A few
years after being built, cracks in the walls and floors of the flats appeared after structural
movements in the building. C, lessees of the flats, sued D (council) in the tort of negligence
,Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
for failing to take reasonable care by approving the building of flats with insufficiently deep
foundations.
Held: that D owed a duty of care to C
Key Principle:
Two-stage test:
1) Is there sufficient proximity between the parties?
2) Are there good reasons for not imposing a duty?
5. Murphy v Brentwood DC
Facts: D, the local authority, approved plans for the building of a flat. C bought the house
from the builders and subsequently discovered that the house was built defectively. C sued
D for negligently approving the plans, seeking the difference in value between what they
paid for the house and what the defective house was actually worth
Held: that D did not owe a duty of care to C, overruling Anns v Merton
6. Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
Facts: D, an auditor, provided a report of a company. C, an investor, invested in the
company. C sued D for the losses they suffered as a result of that investment
Held: that D did not owe C a duty of care
Key Principles:
The ‘Caparo test’;
1) Reasonable foreseeability
2) Proximity
3) Is it ‘fair, just, and reasonable’ to impose liability? - open enough to allow courts full
reign
7. Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] AC 736
Facts: C, an elderly pedestrian, was knocked over by D, police officers, when they
attempted to arrest a third party. C sued D in negligence
Held: that D did owe C a duty of care
Key Principles: Rejected the Caparo test and reaffirmed the importance of precedent and
pre-established categories of duties of care
8. Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015]
Facts: C rang D, the police, to alert them to the fact that their former partner was going to
attack them. The police wrongly classified the call as non-urgent and C was killed by their
partner. C, the victim’s estate, sued D for negligence
Held: that D did not owe C a duty of care
Key Principles:
Lord Toulson: Caparo has been misunderstood; it was never intended as a general test. The
law should be developed incrementally by reference to past cases
Leigh & Sillivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd as an example:
,Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
● The claimant wanted compensation for financial loss caused by damage to someone
else’s property.
● The House of Lords (Lord Brandon) refused, saying that a duty of care only exists for
those with a proprietary or possessory interest in the property.
● Even if the loss was foreseeable, well-established law said no duty existed in such a
case.
Goodwill v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
● Facts: Doctor performed a vasectomy on a man; years later, the man’s partner (C)
became pregnant after the vasectomy spontaneously reversed. C claimed
negligence against the doctor.
● Outcome: Claim struck out.
● Reasoning:
○ C had no direct relationship with the doctor.
○ She was part of an indeterminate class of possible partners, so
insufficient proximity existed for a duty.
○ Obiter: if she had been the patient’s partner/husband and the doctor knew the
vasectomy also concerned her, a duty might have arisen.
Case 1: White v Jones
● Facts: Solicitor (D) negligently failed to draft a new will for a testator; daughters (C)
would have benefited under the new will.
● Foreseeability & proximity:
○ Loss to daughters foreseeable.
○ Relationship between solicitor and daughters was sufficiently proximate
(assumption of responsibility).
● Challenge: Generally courts are reluctant to impose liability for omissions
(nonfeasance).
● Fair, just, and reasonable reasoning (Lord Goff):
○ Importance of legacies in law.
○ Solicitors’ role in fulfilling testamentary intentions.
○ Ensuring remedies go to the most appropriate parties.
Outcome: Duty of care recognized, creating a new duty-situation.
Case 2: Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons
● Facts: Advocates had civil immunity for negligence in litigation; court considered
whether to remove it.
● Fair, just, and reasonable reasoning (Lord Hobhouse):
○ Client’s legitimate interest.
○ Appropriateness of tort remedy.
○ No sufficient justification for retaining immunity.
● Outcome: Duty of care imposed on advocates, removing prior immunity.
1. Mitchell v Glasgow City Council
, Key: From Textbook/Not from Leccy
○ Landlord owes duty to tenant to provide habitable, safe premises.
○ Duty does not extend to preventing acts of violent third parties if no
undertaking exists.
○ Policy considerations further limit the scope.
2. Hughes-Holland v BPE Solicitors
○ Solicitors retained for drafting a facility agreement had no duty to
provide additional advice about the commercial merits.
○ Duty is limited to the specific services agreed upon.
3. Swain Mason v Mills & Reeve
○ Solicitors advising on share sale had no duty to advise on inheritance tax,
especially when retainer specified limited advice.
Breach of Duty
9. Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
Facts: D was playing cricket and struck the ball in such a way that it left the cricket grounds.
C was struck by the cricket ball on a neighbouring street. C sues D in negligence for the
injury sustained
Held: that the chance of injury was so remote that it was not unreasonable to have failed to
erect a fence (ie- chance of someone hitting the ball that far was so low let alone hitting
someone so not unreasonable)
10.Paris v Stepney BC [1951]
Facts: C, who only had one eye, worked for his employer, D, in conditions that exposed
workers’ eyes to the risk of injury. D did not consider the risk of eye injuries to be sufficient to
give workers eye protection.C’s remaining eye was injured and sued D for negligently failing
to provide eye protection
Held: that whilst the magnitude of harm to someone with two eyes might not be sufficient to
warrant eye protection, the increased severity of losing your only remaining eye was such
that it was unreasonable for D not to have provided eye protection
- Risk = chance of something happening + it’s severity.
11.Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1951]
Facts: D, the fire service, was transporting a heavy car jack needed to urgently save
someone trapped under a car. Given the urgency, the jack was transported in the incorrect
vehicle and C, a fireman, was subsequently injured. C sued D in negligence for failing to
take reasonable care when transporting the jack
Held: that given the urgency of the situation, and the public service that the defendant was
undertaking, it was not unreasonable for the defendant to transport the jack in the way that
they did
12.Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691
Facts: C gave driving lessons to D, a learner driver. D crashed into a lamppost, injuring C. C
sued D in negligence
