Clerk & Lindsell on Torts

Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, one of our flagship titles and part of the Common Law Library series, is an essential reference tool which is widely referred to by practitioners and cited by the judiciary. It offers the most comprehensive coverage of the subject, providing the end user with indispensable access to current, frequent and unrivalled authoritative information on all aspects of tort law. Provides unrivalled breadth and depth of coverage on all areas of tort law Sets out the general principles of liability and causation Explains the general defences, such as claimant’s wrongdoing, contributory negligence, consent and assumption of risk, exclusion of liability and miscellaneous defences Covers all areas of tort, from joint liability and vicarious liability to capacity and parties, from negligence to breach of statutory duty and professional liability, and from product liability and occupiers’ liability to employers’ liability and public service liability Deals with important areas from malicious prosecution to wrongful interference with goods, from deceit to trespass of land and dispossession, from animals’ liability to nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher, and from malicious falsehood to economic torts Discusses statutory IP rights, passing off and breach of confidence and privacy Includes a fully updated chapter on Defamation Deals extensively with damages Covers injunctions and limitation periods Includes discussion of self-help and discharge of torts Considers relevant human rights issues New to this edition from the Supreme Court: Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire on the duty of care owed by the police to members of the public when effecting an arrest of a suspected offender; and, together with Poole BC v GN, on the role of the “Caparo tripartite test” for the existence of a duty of care, stressing the importance of taking an incremental approach to novel negligence claims Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD holding that policy arguments about the risk of defensive policing or the diversion of resources from police work to compensation claims were not relevant to whether the police owe an operational duty under ECHR art.3 when investigating criminal offences and that serious defects in the investigation of crimes of violence could amount to a breach of that duty Dryden v Johnson Matthey Plc on the meaning of “damage” in personal injury claims Steel v NRAM Ltd (formerly NRAM Plc) on the duty of care owed by a solicitor to a third party in claims for negligent misrepresentation JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov on what constitutes “unlawful means” for the purposes of the tort of conspiracy R. (on the application of Haralambous) v St Albans Crown Court holding that there is no obligation to disclose to the party affected by a search warrant the material upon which the magistrates relied when deciding to grant the warrant Perry v Raleys Solicitors on the correct approach to a “lost chance” claim against solicitors, approving Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons; and Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey on the use of evidence which had become available after the date of the lost claim in assessing the strength of that claim WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants on the interpretation of “the close connection test” for the purpose of vicarious liability; and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants on the limits of that test Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe on the potential liability of a parent company in relation to the activities of its subsidiaries Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust on the duty of care owed by an Accident and Emergency department receptionist to a patient Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd on the requirement introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 that a claimant have suffered “serious harm” to reputation Stocker v Stocker on the correct approach to determining the meaning of words posted to a social media site (Facebook) for the purposes of the tort of defamation James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis holding that an employer does not owe a duty of care to employees to defend a civil action against the employer in a manner that protects the employees from economic or reputational harm Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA on the Hedley Byrne duty of care owed by a bank when giving a credit reference to an agent of a casino, where the bank had no knowledge of the casino Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd on the assessment of damages in lieu of an injunction under Lord Cairns’ Act, and holding that “negotiating damages” (previously referred to as “Wrotham Park damages”) are compensatory and not intended to remove gains from the defendant R. (on the application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department on the relationship between the tort of false imprisonment the concept of deprivation of liberty within art.5 of the European Convention on Human Rights R (on the application of Hemmati) v Secretary of State for the Home Department on a claimant’s entitlement to substantial, as opposed to nominal, damages for false imprisonment where the policy under which the claimant was detained was unlawful Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd holding that there is no rule that, where a company is suing a third party in tort, the fraudulent conduct of a sole director will be automatically attributed to the company Tiuta International Ltd (In Liquidation) v De Villiers Chartered Surveyors Ltd on the liability of a valuer where a lender advances monies against over-valued security and part of those monies goes to pay off old indebtedness to the same lender R. (Mott) v Environment Agency on a fisherman’s rights under art.1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR XX v Whittington Hospital NHS Trust where the claimant was entitled to recover the reasonable costs of entering commercial surrogacy arrangements abroad, although such arrangements would be contrary to the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 Re D (a child) (residence order: deprivation of liberty) holding that a parent could not authorise the detention of a 16- or 17-year old minor who lacked capacity that would amount to a deprivation of liberty Welsh Ministers v PJ imposing conditions in a community treatment order which would amount to a deprivation of the patient’s liberty would breach art.5 ECHR Secretary of State for Justice v MM neither the tribunal nor the Secretary of State are permitted to impose conditions amounting to detention or a deprivation of liberty, in relation to a conditionally discharged restricted patient, even if the patient consented An NHS Trust v Y on the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from a patient with a prolonged disorder of consciousness Cartier International v British Telecommunications Plc which held that trade mark owners must indemnify ISPs against the cost of complying with a blocking injunction