THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3001 ZB

(266 0001) ZB

DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW

LLB

ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES

BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

Law of Tort

Friday 11 May 2012: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper
and make rough notes ONLY in their answer books. They then have the
remaining THREE HOURS in which to answer the questions.

Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

© University of London 2012

UL12/0238ZB
Page 1 of 5
1. Frumps Ltd (a fashion house) contracted with Gormless Ltd, a security
firm, to provide security guards for its factory. One of the security
guards, Hiram, had been working at Frumps’ factory for six months
when, in February, he was told by the factory manager that designs for
next season’s fashions were in the premises and he must ensure “at all
costs” that no unauthorised persons had access to them. A few days
later Hiram spotted Jake, who had got into the factory and had broken
into the safe containing the designs. When Jake saw Hiram, he fled
carrying some papers. Hiram picked up a heavy weight and flung it at
Jake. It hit him in the face, breaking his jaw.

Jake managed to get out of the factory and rushed straight across the
road. He was hit by a car driven by Kelly. She was driving at ten miles
per hour above the speed limit and one of her front headlights was not
working. Jake was knocked down and sustained serious head injuries.

Jake has now had wires inserted in his jaw and will continue to have
difficulty eating for the rest of his life. He also experiences frequent
headaches because of the head injuries.

Advise Jake.

2. Ricky, aged 9, is a pupil at Slumville Academy, a state school. After

the sudden death of his mother, teachers noticed that his behaviour
had changed and he was subject to sudden mood swings and would
shout at teachers and other pupils. He was referred by his head
teacher to the education department of Slumsville City Council and was
assessed by Prakash, an educational psychologist employed by the
council. Prakash reported that he would benefit from specialist
support, but he was not in the most vulnerable (category 1) class.
Prakash rated him as category 2. Because of financial constraints the
council has reduced its specialist support services and at present only
pupils rated as category 1 are referred to a unit where specialist
support is provided.

Three weeks later Ricky became very angry in class. He rushed to the
front and hit his teacher, Miss Stewart, knocking her to the ground and
pulling her hair. Another pupil, Tom, ran to assist Miss Stewart and
tried to pull Ricky away. A third pupil, Vera, ran from the classroom to
fetch help. In the scuffle, Ricky, Tom and Miss Stewart were injured.
Vera tripped running along the corridor and broke her arm.

Advise the injured parties.

UL12/0238ZB
Page 2 of 5
3. Bernard owns a country estate, Hideous Hall, where he has an
aquarium containing a number of rare fish. He announced in the press
and on the internet that the estate would be open to the public over a
holiday weekend and that half the proceeds would go to his favourite
charity, the League for Decency. Two days before the holiday
weekend, a workman employed by Roadworks Ltd carelessly severed
an electric cable outside Hideous Hall. Power was cut off for some
time. Bernard announced on his website that Hideous Hall would not
be open on the Saturday but would open on Sunday and Monday; he
also announced that a large number of fish had died and the aquarium
would not be open to visitors.

Visitor numbers were much lower than expected and a number of

people posted comments on his website that they had especially
wanted to see the fish and would therefore not be coming.

Advise Bernard and the League for Decency.

4. A few years ago Canadian courts considered a claim by a Mr

Mustapha who saw a dead fly in an unopened and sealed bottle of
water delivered to his home and manufactured by a company which
had supplied him with bottled water for many years. He was obsessive
about cleanliness and, as a result of the experience and the worry that
he and his family had been exposed to dead flies, he developed an
extreme fear of using water for any purposes amounting to a
recognised psychiatric illness. In rejecting the claim, a judge in the
Ontario Court of Appeal asked, “Is he (Mustapha) neither a primary nor
a secondary victim, then? Or is he both?” For that and other reasons
he ruled that the distinction was unworkable and undesirable and that
the English approach to psychiatric damage should not be adopted in
Ontario.

How do you think an English court would deal with such a claim for
psychiatric injury? In the light of your answer, comment on the English
law on the recovery of damages for such injuries.

UL12/0238ZB
Page 3 of 5
5. Frank owns and operates a funfair. It is in need of substantial
renovation and is at present closed. There is a notice at the entrance
reading: “Warning. The site is at present closed and parts of it are in a
dangerous condition.” Gremlins Ltd wishes to tender for the electrical
work at the site. With the permission of Frank, Harry, who is employed
by Gremlins Ltd as a senior estimator, visits the site. He takes with him
Irene, who has recently started work at the firm as an apprentice
electrician. While Harry is discussing costs with Frank, Irene takes a
look round the funfair and decides to start up the dodgem cars. The
dodgems have not been used or inspected for some time, and some of
the wiring has deteriorated. When Irene starts the dodgems, there is a
vivid flash: Irene is electrocuted and suffers serious injuries.

Advise Irene as to any possible claims against (i) Frank and (ii)
Gremlins Ltd.

6. ‘The law tampers with the "but for" test of causation at its peril.’
(Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011) per Lord Brown).

Why, and in what circumstances, has the law departed from the ‘but
for’ test? Has this been a good or a bad thing?

7. Grinders Ltd has a plastics factory at the edge of a village. It has

recently seen a considerable increase in demand for its products and it
has had to work late into the evening to meet demand. It has also
installed state of the art equipment.

In 2010 Basil inherited a pub near to the factory. He was not interested
in running it, but he allowed his nephew Craig (who had trained as a
chef) to open a small restaurant in the pub. He does not charge Craig
any rent. The restaurant initially attracted an increasing number of
customers, but they find the noise from Grinders’ factory very irritating
and business at the restaurant has dwindled. Basil says that he cannot
be bothered taking any action about it.

Grinders’ new equipment often emits clouds of microscopic particles.

These are invisible to the naked eye and are no danger to human
health. Adjoining the factory however there is a private airstrip owned
by Daphne and used by the local flying club. The aviation authorities
have told Daphne that aircraft must not take off or land while the wind
is blowing from the direction of the factory. No such problems have
been encountered elsewhere with the kind of equipment that Grinders
has installed. The flying club has now found an alternative airstrip and
has terminated its arrangement with Daphne.

Advise Craig and Daphne.

UL12/0238ZB
Page 4 of 5
8. If you were given the opportunity to make three legislative amendments
to the English law of libel, what three would you choose, and why?

END OF PAPER

UL12/0238ZB
Page 5 of 5