Street On Torts 15Th Edition Full Chapter

(eBook PDF) Street on Torts 15th
Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-street-on-torts-15th-edition/
Contents
Table of Cases xiii

Table of Legislation lvi
Par t I Intro d uc tio n
1 Overview of tort law 3

Section 1 What is a tort? 3
Section 2 Brief history of tort law 6
Section 3 Protected rights and interests 8
Section 4 Theoretical perspectives on tort law 13
Par t II Ne g lige n t in va sio n s o f pe r s o n a l , pro pe r t y,

and fin an cia l inte re s t s
2 Duty of care I: foundational principles 25

Section 1 Introduction 26
Section 2 The emergence of a duty framework 27
Section 3 The rise and fall of Anns28
Section 4 Modern approaches to the duty of care 35
3 Duty of care II: bodily injury and psychiatric illness 53
Section 2 Harm to persons 55
Section 3 Pregnancy and birth 58
Section 4 Liability for psychiatric illness 62
4 Duty of care III: property damage and purely
financial loss 77
Section 2 Damage to property 78
Section 3 Purely financial loss 80
Section 4 Tort and contract 96
5 Duty of care IV: public authorities 101
Section 2 Background 102
Section 3 Justiciability 108
viii Contents
Section 4 Application of Caparo 112

Section 5 Vicarious liability 116
Section 6 Proposed reform 116
6 Breach of duty 119
Section 1 The standard of care 119
Section 2 Factors relevant to establishing the required standard 122
Section 3 Professional negligence 136
Section 4 The standard of care and precedent 140
Section 5 Proving breach 141
7 Causation and remoteness 151
Section 2 Causation in fact 152
Section 3 New intervening causes: causation in law 168
Section 4 Remoteness of damage 174
8 Defences to negligence 185
Section 2 Contributory negligence 186
Section 3 Voluntary assumption of risk 196
Section 4 Express exclusion or limitation of liability 201
Section 5 Illegality 202
9 Liability for defective premises and structures 209
Section 2 Occupiers’ liability 210
Section 3 Liability of non-occupiers 234
Par t III In te ntio n a l in va sio n s o f inte re s t s in the

pe r so n and pro pe r t y
10 Trespass to the person and related torts 245

Section 2 Battery 246
Section 3 Assault 252
Section 4 Intentional infliction of harm 254
Section 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 257
Section 6 False imprisonment 259
11 Wrongful interference with goods 269
Section 2 Trespass to goods 270
Section 3 Conversion 273
Section 4 Residuum 290
Contents ix
12 Trespass to land 293

Section 1 Trespass 293
Section 2 Defences 300
Section 3 Remedies 302
13 Defences to intentional torts against the person
or property 307
Section 2 Absent element defences 309
Section 3 Justification defences 315
Section 4 Public policy defences 325
Section 5 Non-defences 328
Par t IV Misre pre se ntatio n -ba se d and

‘ e co n omic ’ to r t s
14 False representations 335

Section 1 Background to misrepresentation-based and ‘economic’ torts 335
Section 2 Deceit 337
Section 3 Passing off 345
Section 4 Malicious falsehood 354
15 The general ‘economic’ torts 363
Section 2 Inducing breach of an existing contract 364
Section 3 Causing loss by unlawful means 370
Section 4 Lawful means conspiracy 373
Section 5 Unlawful means conspiracy 376
Section 6 Intimidation 379
Par t V To r t s in vo lv in g s tric t o r

s tric te r lia bilit y
16 Product liability 387

Section 2 Consumer protection and the changing common law 388
Section 3 The strict liability regime 396
17 Nuisance 409
Section 1 Introductory observations 409
Section 2 Title to sue 414
Section 3 Who can be sued? 418
Section 4 The bases of nuisance liability 424
x Contents
Section 5 Must the interference emanate from the defendant’s land? 437
Section 8 Public nuisance 442
18 The rule in Rylands v Fletcher 451
Section 2 ‘Things’ within the rule 454
Section 3 Parties 455
Section 4 The non-natural use of land 459
Section 5 Escape 461
Section 6 Foreseeability of harm 462
Section 8 Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher 468
19 Breach of statutory duty 471
Section 2 Statute imposes an obligation 473
Section 3 Parliamentary intention to permit actions 474
Section 4 Proper claimant 481
Section 5 Breach of the statutory duty 481
Section 6 Causation of the type of harm contemplated 483
Section 8 Relationship to other actions 486
Section 9 The ‘Eurotort’ action 487
Par t V I In te re s t s in re pu tatio n : de fa m atio n
20 Defamation: foundational principles 493

Section 2 Elements of defamation 496
Section 3 Distinguishing libel from slander 514
Section 4 Further matters 517
21 Defences and remedies in defamation 521
Section 1 Consent and assumption of risk 522
Section 2 Truth 522
Section 3 Innocent dissemination 526
Section 4 Offer of amends 528
Section 5 Absolute privilege 529
Section 6 Qualified privilege 534
Section 7 Public interest 542
Section 8 Honest opinion 546
Contents xi
Section 9 Apology 550

PART VII Privac y
22 Privacy actions in tort 559

Section 2 Elements of the actions 562
Section 3 Defences and remedies 568
Par t VIII Mi suse o f pro ce ss and pub l ic p owe r s
23 Misuse of process and public powers 573

Section 2 Malicious prosecution 574
Section 3 Abuse of process 580
Section 4 Misfeasance in a public office 581
Section 5 Immunities 583
Par t IX Par tie s and re me die s
24 Vicarious liability 587

Section 2 Employees and independent contractors 589
Section 3 Relationships akin to employment 594
Section 4 Liability in respect of employees 595
Section 5 Statutory duty and vicarious liability 604
Section 6 Agency 604
Section 7 Liability in respect of an independent contractor 606
Section 8 Justifications for vicarious and heightened standards of liability 611
25 Capacity and parties 615
Section 1 The Crown 615
Section 2 Companies 617
Section 3 Mentally disordered persons 619
Section 4 Children 620
Section 5 Joint torts 622
26 Remedies 633
Section 1 Limitation of actions 634
Section 2 Mitigation of loss 643
xii Contents
Section 3 Introduction to damages 644

Section 4 Death 657
Section 5 Injunctions 664
Appendix 1 Additional Chapter 669
Index 671
TABLE OF CASES
References to ‘W’ relate to the additional chapter ‘Animals’, which can be found in the online resources.
A v B [2003] QB 195 . . . 565 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 . . . 535, 536, 537
A v B plc (a company) [2002] EMLR 371 . . . 561 Adams v Bracknell Forest BC [2005] 1 AC
A v Bottrill [2002] UKPC 44; [2002] 3 WLR 76 . . . 638
1406 . . . 648 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch
A v Essex CC [2004] 1 WLR 1881; [20004] 1 FLR 433 . . . 619
749 . . . 67, 110, 111, 112, 113 Adams v Kelly (1824) Ry & M 157 . . . 512
A v Hoare [2008] 1 AC 844 . . . 635, 638 Adams v Rhymney Valley DC [2000] Lloyd’s
A v National Blood Authority [2001] 3 All ER Rep PN 777 . . . 131, 132
289 . . . 395, 397, 399, 400, 401, 403, 404 Adams v Ursell [1913] 1 Ch 269 . . . 427
A Prosser & Sons Ltd v Levy [1955] 3 All ER Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66 . . . 629
577 . . . 465 Addis v Crocker [1961] 1 QB 11 . . . 531
AAA v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2013] Admiralty Commissioners v Owners of the SS
EWCA Civ 554 . . . 564 Amerika [1917] AC 38 . . . 658
AB v British Coal Corp [2004] EWHC Adorian v MPC [2009] EWCA Civ 18; [2009] 1
1372 . . . 627 WLR 1859 . . . 245, 327
AB v Leeds Teaching Hospital (2004) 77 BMLR AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (1915)
145 . . . 278 84 LJ Ch 449 . . . 351, 353
AB v Ministry of Defence [2013] 1 AC AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (1918)
78 . . . 634, 637, 638 35 RPC 101 . . . 354
AB v Nugent Care Society [2010] PIQR A-G v Copeland [1902] 1 KB 690 . . . 438
P3 . . . 638 A-G v Corke [1933] Ch 89 . . . 455
AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB A-G v Gastonia Coaches Ltd [1977] RTR
507; [1993] 1 All ER 609 . . . 646, 647 219 . . . 445
ABC v CC of West Yorkshire [2017] EWHC A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990]
1650 (QB) . . . 536 AC 109 . . . 13
AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240 A-G v Hartwell [2004] UKPC 12; [2004] PIQR
(HL) . . . 235, 391 P27 . . . 177
AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd A-G v Hastings Corpn (1950) 94 Sol Jo
[2014] SCC 12 . . . 371 225 . . . 434
AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd [2005] A-G (on the relation of Glamorgan CC and
EWHC 2122 . . . 343 Pontardawe RDC) v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957]
AMF International Ltd v Magnet Bowling Ltd 2 QB 169 . . . 444, 446
[1968] 2 All ER 789 . . . 211, 220, 222, 223 A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 1983) [1984] QB 456
AT v Gavril Dulghieru [2009] EWHC (CA) . . . 319
225 . . . 647 Ahmed v Shafique [2009] EWHC 618 . . . 266
AVX Ltd v EGM Solders Ltd (1982) Times, 7 Aitken v Bedwell (1827) Mood & M 68 . . . 266
July . . . 284 Ajello v Worsley [1898] 1 Ch 274 . . . 357
Abbahall v Smee [2003] 1 All ER 465 . . . 420, Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda
437 Stores Ltd [2011] QB 497 . . . 355, 359
Abbott v Refuge Assurance Co Ltd [1962] 1 QB Akenzua v Secretary of State for the Home
432 . . . 578 Department [2003] 1 WLR 741 . . . 581–2
Abouzaid v Mothercare UK 2000 WL Al Saudi Banque v Clarke Pixley [1990] Ch
1918530 . . . 402 313 . . . 84, 87
Abrath v NE Rly Co (1883) 11 QBD 440 . . . 578 Alanov v CC of Sussex Police [2012] EWCA Civ
Achilleas, The [2009] AC 61 . . . 178 234 . . . 323
xiv TABLE OF CASES
Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546 (HL) . . . 324 Ames v Spamhouse Project Ltd [2015] 1 WLR
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire (Hillsborough 3409 . . . 494, 506
Case) [1992] 1 AC 310; [1991] 4 All ER An Informer v A Chief Constable [2013] QB
907 . . . 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 255 579 . . . 54
Alcock v Wraith (1991) 58 BLR 20 . . . 606, 609 Anchor Brewhouse Developments v Berkley
Alcott v Millar’s Karri and Jarrah Forests Ltd House Docklands Developments Ltd (1987)
(1904) 91 LT 722 . . . 357 284 EG 625 . . . 297
Aldworth v Stewart (1866) 4 F & F 957; 176 ER Anderson v Newham College of Further
865 . . . 325 Education [2003] ICR 212 . . . 195
Alexander v Freshwater Properties Ltd [2012] Anderson v Oppenheimer (1880) 5 QBD
EWCA Civ 1048 . . . 216 602 . . . 465
Alexander v Jenkins [1892] 1 QB 797 . . . 499 Andreae v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938] Ch
Alexander v North Eastern Rly Co (1865) 6 B & 1 . . . 425, 436, 440
S 340 . . . 524 Andrews v Freeborough [1967] 1 QB 1 . . . 657
Alexander v Southey (1821) 5 B & Ald Andrews v Hopkinson [1957] 1 QB 229 . . . 391
247 . . . 284 Andrews v Mockford [1896] 1 QB 372 . . . 340
Alexis v Newham LBC [2009] ICR 1517 . . . 176 Andrews v Schooling [1991] 3 All ER 723 . . . 235
Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research & Marketing Anglian Water Services Ltd v Crawshaw
(UK) Ltd [2002] EMLR 215; [2001] EWCA Robbins 2002 WL 31523191; [2001] BLR
Civ 1634 . . . 546 273 . . . 79, 410, 418
Alford v National Coal Board [1952] 1 All ER Anglo-Newfoundland Development Ltd v
754 . . . 484, 599 Pacific Steam Navigation Co [1924] AC
Alfred Dunhill Ltd v Sunoptic SA [1979] FSR 406 . . . 127
337 . . . 354 Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corpn Ltd v
Ali v Bradford City MDC [2011] RTR 20 . . . 446 Spalding UDC [1937] 2 KB 607 . . . 344
Al-Kandari v JR Brown & Co [1988] QB Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 . . . 29, 30, 31,
665 . . . 88 33, 39, 93, 239
Alker v Collingwood Housing Association Ansell v Thomas [1974] Crim LR 31 . . . 266
[2007] 1 WLR 2230 . . . 240 Antec International Ltd v South Western Chicks
Allan v New Mount Sinai Hospital (1980) 109 (Warren) Ltd [1998] 18 LS Gaz R 32 . . . 346
DLR (3d) 634 . . . 247 Anthony v Haney and Harding (1832) 8 Bing
Allason v Campbell (1996) Times, 8 May . . . 357 186 . . . 320
Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1 . . . 312, 336, 374 Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2004] QB
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 1124 . . . 9, 10
1001 . . . 106, 437 Apollinaris Co Ltd v Norrish (1875) 33 LT
Allen v LB of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 242 . . . 346
1478 . . . 258 Appleton v Garrett [1996] PIQR P 1
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and (QBD) . . . 314
Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602 . . . 156, Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 8) (1993)
157, 369 Times, 17 June . . . 627
Allsop v Allsop (1860) 5 H & N 534 . . . 517 Arab News Network v Al Khazen [2001] EWCA
Allsop v Church of England Newspapers [1972] Civ 118 . . . 497
2 QB 161 . . . 503 Archer v Brown [1985] QB 401 . . . 343,
Al-Nakib Investments v Longcroft [1990] 3 All 646, 648
ER 321 . . . 84 Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost)
Al-Sam v Atkins [2005] EWCA 1452 . . . 120 [1986] AC 717 . . . 344, 605
Almeroth v Chivers & Sons Ltd [1948] 1 All ER Armes v Nottinghamshire CC [2017] UKSC
53 . . . 439 60 . . . 588, 595, 603, 608, 611
Alsaifi v Amunwa [2017] EWHC 1443 Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505 . . . 277
(QB) . . . 533 Arneil v Paterson [1931] AC 560 . . . 625
Amaca Pty Ltd v Booth (2011) 283 ALR Arpad, The [1934] P189 . . . 283
461 . . . 163 Arscott v Coal Authority [2005] Env LR
Amann v Damm (1860) 8 CBNS 597 . . . 540 6 . . . 461
American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2001] RPC
396 . . . 666 922 . . . 349
TABLE OF CASES xv
Arthur v Anker [1997] QB 564 (CA); [1996] 3 B (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation), Re [1988]
All ER 783 . . . 310, 311 AC 199 (HL) . . . 315
Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC B (Children), Re [2009] 1 AC 11 . . . 337
615 . . . 42–3 B v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC
AS v Murray [2013] NSWSC 733 . . . 380 409 . . . 400
Ash v Lady Ash (1696) Comb 357 . . . 621 B v Ministry of Defence [2010] 117 BMLR
Ashby v Tolhurst [1937] 2 KB 242 . . . 280 101 . . . 638
Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938 . . . 476, B (a child) v Camden LBC [2001] PIQR
483, 581, 644 P143 . . . 240
Ashcroft v Mersey Regional Health Authority BBC v Harper Collins Publishers Ltd [2011]
[1983] 2 All ER 245; aff’d [1985] 2 All ER EMLR 6 . . . 563
96n . . . 141 BBC v Talksport Ltd [2001] FSR 53 . . . 349
Ashdown v Samuel Williams and Son Ltd [1957] BBC Worldwide Ltd v Pally Screen Printing Ltd
1 QB 409 . . . 22, 226 [1998] FSR 665 . . . 349
Ashley v CC Sussex [2008] UKHL 25; [2008] 1 BBMB Finance (Hong Kong) v Eda Holdings
AC 962; [2007] 1 WLR 398; [2006] EWCA Civ [1991] 2 All ER 129 . . . 287
1085 . . . 245, 251, 252, 313, 317, 646 BMW Financial Services (GB) Ltd v Bhagawani
Ashton v Turner [1981] QB 137 (QBD) . . . 29, [2007] EWCA Civ 1230 . . . 282
197, 200, 202, 204 Bacardi-Martini Beveridges Ltd v Thomas-
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd [2002] Hardy Packaging Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep
UKHL 29; [2001] FSR 559 . . . 565 62 . . . 394
Aspro Travel Ltd v Owners Abroad Group plc Bagot v Stevens, Scanlan & Co Ltd [1966] 1 QB
[1995] 4 All ER 728 . . . 508, 540 197 . . . 96
Associated British Ports v Transport and Bailey v MOD [2009] 1 WLR 1052 . . . 160, 166
General Workers Union [1989] 3 All ER 796; Bain v Altoft [1967] Qd R 32 (FC) . . . 312
[1989] ICR 557 . . . 371, 373 Baird v Williamson (1863) 15 CBNS 376 . . . 456
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC Baker v Barclays Bank Ltd [1955] 2 All ER
371 . . . 553 571 . . . 285
Associated Newspapers plc v Insert Media Ltd Baker v Bolton (1880) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER
[1991] 3 All ER 535 . . . 349 1033 . . . 658
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd Baker v Carrick [1894] 1 QB 838 . . . 536, 540
v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB Baker v E Longhurst & Sons Ltd [1933] 2 KB
223 . . . 108, 111, 112 461 . . . 140
Astaire v Campling [1965] 3 All ER Baker v Market Harborough Industrial
666 . . . 499 Co-Operative Society Ltd [1953] 1 WLR
Aston Cantlow and Wilmote with Billesley 1472 . . . 145
Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2004] Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd [2011] 1
1 AC 546 . . . 104 WLR 1003 . . . 120, 121, 126,
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v 127, 130, 482
Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 135 . . . 393 Baker v T E Hopkins & Sons Ltd [1959] 1WLR
Atkinson v Newcastle and Gateshead 966 (CA); [1959] 3 All ER 225 . . . 58, 169, 189,
Waterworks Co (1877) 2 Ex D 441 . . . 472, 190, 199
475, 477 Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 . . . 167, 168
Attersoll v Stevens (1808) 1 Taunt 183 . . . 271 Baker & Davies plc v Leslie Wilks [2005] 3 All
Attia v British Gas [1988] QB 304; [1987] 3 All ER 603 . . . 627
ER 455 . . . 30, 74 Baldacchino v West Wittering Estate plc [2008]
Attwood v Chapman [1914] 3 KB 275 . . . 532 EWHC 3386 . . . 216
Atwood v Ernest (1853) 13 CB 881 . . . 285 Balden v Shorter [1933] Ch 427 . . . 357
Austin v Comr of Police [2009] 1 AC 564; [2008] Balfon Trustees Ltd v Peterson [2001] IRLR
QB 660 . . . 10, 260, 322 758 . . . 602
Austin v Dowling (1870) LR 5 CP 534 . . . 266 Balfour v Barty-King [1956] 2 All ER 555; aff’d
Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby [2010] 1 [1957] 1 QB 496 . . . 454, 461, 609
WLR 1662 . . . 640 Ball v Ray (1873) 8 C App 467 . . . 435
Axel Springer AG v Germany [2012] EMLR Ballard v North British Rly Co 1923 SC (HL)
15 . . . 561 43 . . . 143, 146, 147
xvi TABLE OF CASES
Ballett v Mingay [1943] KB 281 . . . 621 Baron Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews and
Baltimore & PR Co v Cumberland 176 US 232 General Ltd [1978] QB 479 . . . 297, 298
(1990) . . . 189 Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2003] QB
Bamford v Turnley (1860) 3 B & S 62 . . . 410 455 . . . 428
Bank of Scotland v Fuller Peiser 2002 SCLR 255 Barrett v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1907) 23
(OH) . . . 201 TLR 666 . . . 358
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd v Baskan Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550 . . . 111,
Gida Sanayi Ve Pazarlama AS [2009] EWHC 114, 115, 617
1276 (Ch) . . . 378 Barrett v Ministry of Defence [1995] 3 All ER
Bank View Mills Ltd v Nelson Corpn [1942] 2 87 . . . 47
All ER 477 . . . 624 Barrow v Consignia plc [2003] EWCA Civ
Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v 249 . . . 639
Administrator of Hungarian Property [1954] Bartlett v Tottenham [1932] 1 Ch 114 . . . 455
AC 584 . . . 616 Bartonshill Coal Co v McGuire (1853) 3 Macq
Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV v Slatford 300 . . . 589
[1953] 1 QB 248 . . . 590 Basébé v Matthews (1867) LR 2 CP 684 . . . 576
Banks v Ablex Ltd [2005] ICR 819 . . . 259 Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37 . . . 300
Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co (1901) 84
Insurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 191 . . . 343 LT 765 . . . 454
Banque Financiere de la Cite SA (formerly Bates v Stone Parish Council [1954] 3 All ER
Banque Keyser Ullmann SA) v Westgate 38 . . . 214
Insurance Co [1991] 2 AC 249; [1990] 2 All Batty v Danaher [2005] EWHC 2763 . . . 157
ER 947 . . . 175, 338 Batty v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd
Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) [1978] QB 554 . . . 93, 96
Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 1 Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR
QB 665 . . . 338 1526 . . . 504, 509
Barber v Somerset CC [2004] 1 WLR Baume & Co Ltd v AH Moore Ltd [1958] Ch
1089 . . . 66, 73, 120, 123 907 . . . 351
Barclays Bank v Fairclough Building [1995] Bavins Jnr and Sims v London and Western
QB 214 . . . 629, 630 Bank [1900] 1 QB 270 . . . 279
Barfoot v Reynolds (1734) 2 Stra 953; 93 ER Baxall Securities Ltd v Sheard Walshaw
963 . . . 318 Partnership [2001] PNLR 257 . . . 237, 239
Barings plc v Coopers and Lybrand (No 5) Baxter v Taylor (1832) 5 B & Ad 72 . . . 296
[2002] PNLR 823 . . . 339 Bayoumi v Protim Services Ltd [1996] EGCS
Barker v Braham (1773) 3 Wils 368 . . . 606 187 . . . 235
Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] 2 AC 572; [2006] Bazley v Curry [1999] 2 SCR 534; (1999) 174
2 WLR 1027 . . . 153, 163, DLR (4th) 45 . . . 597, 603, 612
164, 624, 625 Beach v Freeson [1972] 1 QB 14 . . . 539
Barker v Furlong [1891] 2 Ch 172 . . . 271 Beaman v ARTS [1949] 1 KB 550 . . . 642
Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1948] Beary v Pall Mall Investments [2005] PNLR
2 All ER 460 . . . 143 35 . . . 159
Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] Beasley v Marshall (1977) 17 SASR 456
1 All ER 392 . . . 143, 146 (SC) . . . 188
Barnes v Hampshire County Council [1969] 3 Beatson v Skene (1860) 5 H & N 838 . . . 531
All ER 746 . . . 29 Beaumont v Humberts [1990] 49 EG 46 . . . 86
Barnes v Irwell Valley Water Board [1939] 1 Beckwith v Shordike (1767) 4 Burr 2092 . . . 298
KB 21 . . . 391 Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus [1957] 2 QB
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1 . . . 660, W2
Management Committee [1969] 1 QB Belka v Prosperini [2011] EWCA Civ 623 . . . 194
428 . . . 154, 609 Bell v Stone (1798) 1 Bos & P 331 . . . 499
Barnett v Cohen [1921] 2 KB 461 . . . 660 Bellefield Computer Services Ltd v E Turner
Barnett v Earl of Guildford (1855) 11 Exch & Sons Ltd (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1823;
19 . . . 296 [2002] All ER (D) 272 (Dec) . . . 137, 237, 239
Barnett v H & J Packer & Co [1940] 3 All ER Belmont Finance Corpn Ltd v Williams
575 . . . 391 Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250 . . . 374
TABLE OF CASES xvii
Belsize Motor Supply Co v Cox [1914] 1 KB Bliss v Hall (1838) 4 Bing NC 183 . . . 439
244 . . . 275 Bloxam v Sanders (1825) 4 B & C 941 . . . 276
Benjamin v Storr (1873–4) LR 9 CP 400 . . . 444, Blundy Clark & Co Ltd v London and NE Rly
447, 473 Co [1931] 2 KB 334 . . . 444
Bennett v Chemical Construction (GB) Ltd Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11
[1971] 3 All ER 822 . . . 142 Ex 781 . . . 128
Bennett v Tugwell [1971] QB 267 (QBD) . . . 197, Boaler v Holder (1887) 51 JP 277 . . . 576
200, 311 Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd
Benson v Biggs Wall & Co Ltd [1982] 3 All ER v [2010] UKSC 35; [2011] 1 AC 380 . . . 297
300 . . . 663 Bodley v Reynolds (1846) 8 QB 779 . . . 287
Bents Brewery Co Ltd v Hogan [1945] 2 All ER Boehringer Ingleheim KG v Swingward Ltd
570 . . . 368 [2004] EWCA Civ 129 . . . 345
Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 . . . 496, Bognor Regis Urban DC v Campion [1972]
497 2 QB 169 . . . 501
Bernard v A-G of Jamaica [2004] UKPC Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
47 . . . 588 Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 . . . 131, 132,
Berry v Humm & Co [1915] 1KB 627 . . . 660 138
Berryland Books Ltd v BK Books Ltd [2010] Boldack v East Lindsey DC (1999) 31 HLR 41
EWCA Civ 1440 . . . 377 (CA) . . . 240
Best v Wellcome Foundation Ltd [1994] 5 Med Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
LR 81 . . . 395 [1998] AC 232 . . . 138
Bewry v Reed Elsevier UK Ltd [2015] 1 WLR Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 . . . 120, 121, 126,
2565 . . . 494, 511 255, 413
Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex (2000) 164 JP Bone v Seale [1975] 1 All ER 787 . . . 429
297 (CA) . . . 324 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 . . . 554
Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300 . . . 543
786 . . . 248 Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC
Bidwell v Briant (1956) Times, 9 May . . . 179 613 . . . 160, 161, 484
Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liq) v Nazir (No 2) [2014] Ch Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 WLR 640; [1989] 1
52; [2015] 2 WLR 1168 . . . 203, 374, 618 All ER 1169 . . . 501, 503, 523
Bird v Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing 628; 130 ER Booth v White [2003] EWCA Civ 1708 . . . 187,
911 . . . 255, 319 188
Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 . . . 261, 262 Booth & Co International Ltd v National
Bird v O’Neal [1960] AC 907 . . . 375 Enterprise Board [1978] 3 All ER 624 . . . 476
Bishop v Cunard White Star Co Ltd [1950] P Boothman v British Northrop Ltd (1972)
240 . . . 663 13 KIR 112 (CA) . . . 193
Bisney v Swanston (1972) 225 Estates Gazette Borders (UK) Ltd v Commissioner of the
2299 . . . 303 Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWCA Civ
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 . . . 342 197 . . . 288, 647
Black v Christchurch Finance Co Ltd [1894] AC Boswell-Wilkie Circus Pty Ltd v Brian
48 . . . 466, 609 Boswell Circus (Pty) Ltd [1985] FSR
Black v Fife Coal Co. Ltd [1912] AC 149 . . . 479 434 . . . 345
Blackman v Pugh (1846) 2 CB 611 . . . 540 Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club [2003]
Blackshaw v Lord [1984] QB 1 . . . 539 EWCA Civ 1575 . . . 221
Blades v Higgs (1865) 11 HL Cas 621; 11 ER Boumedien v Delta Display Ltd [2008] EWCA
1474 . . . 320 Civ 368 . . . 74
Blake v Barnard (1840) 9 C & P 626 . . . 253 Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 (HL) . . . 27, 65,
Blake v Galloway [2004] 1 WLR 2844 . . . 132, 67, 120, 133
310, 311 Bourne Leisure Ltd v Marsden [2009] EWCA
Blake v Lanyon (1795) 6 Term Rep 221 . . . 366 Civ 671; [2009] 29 EG 99 . . . 217
Blamires v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476
Co (1872–73) LR 8 Ex. 283 . . . 127 (CA) . . . 198, 199–200
Blankley v Godley [1952] 1 All ER 436 . . . 398 Bowen v Anderson [1894] 1 QB 164 . . . 423
Blennerhasset v Novelty Sales Services Ltd Bowen v Hall (1881) 6 QBD 333 . . . 364
(1933) 175 LT Jo 393 . . . 497 Bower v Peate (1876) 1 QBD 321 . . . 422
xviii TABLE OF CASES
Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76 . . . 466 British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2011]

Boxfoldia v National Graphical Association 1 WLR 133 . . . 547–8
(1982) (NGA) [1988] ICR 752; [1988] IRLR British Data Management plc v Boxer
383 . . . 366, 369 Commercial Removals plc [1996] 3 All ER
Boxsius v Goblet Freres [1894] 1 QB 842 . . . 509, 707 . . . 554
537 British Economical Lamp Co Ltd v Empire Mile
Boyd v Great Northern Rly Co [1895] 2 IR End Lane Ltd (1913) 29 TLR 386 . . . 285
555 . . . 444 British Gas plc v Stockport MBC [2001] Env LR
Boyle v Kodak Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 439 . . . 485 44 . . . 461
Bradburn v GWR (1874) LR10 Ex 1 . . . 654 British Railway Traffic and Electric Co v CRC
Bradburn v Lindsay [1983] 2 All ER 408 . . . 233 Co and LCC [1922] 2 KB 260 . . . 357
Braddock v Bevins [1948] 1 KB 580 . . . 499, 541 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC
Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 877 . . . 227, 228
267 . . . 175 British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956]
Bradford Corpn v Pickles [1895] AC 587 . . . 5, AC185 . . . 649
430, 433 British Vacuum Cleaner Co Ltd v New Vacuum
Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Cleaner Co Ltd [1907] 2 Ch 312 . . . 346
Society v Borders [1941] 2 All ER 205 . . . 338, British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water
340 Ltd [2002] Ch 25 . . . 298, 301, 321
Bradshaw v Waterlow & Sons Ltd [1915] 3 KB Broder v Saillard (1876) 2 Ch D 692 . . . 428, 456
527 . . . 578 Bromley v Mercer [1922] 2 KB 126 . . . 240
Braham v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1962] 3 All ER Brooks v J & P Coates (UK) Ltd [1984] 1 All ER
281 . . . 474 702 . . . 638
Braithwaite v Durham Steel Co Ltd [1958] 3 All Brooks v Lind 1997 Rep LR 83 . . . 499
ER 161 . . . 212 Brooks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Brandeis Goldschmidt & Co v Western [2005] 1 WLR 1495 . . . 64, 103, 117
Transport Ltd [1981] QB 864 . . . 287, 289 Broom v Morgan [1953] 1 QB 597 . . . 596
Brandon v Osborne, Garrett & Co [1924] 1 KB Brown v Brash and Ambrose [1948] 2 KB
548 (KBD) . . . 190 247 . . . 294
Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Federal Republic Brown v Chapman (1848) 6 CB 365 . . . 266
of Germany (C-46/93) [1996] ECR Brown v Hawkes [1891] 2 QB 725 . . . 578
1–1029 . . . 487 Brown v Smith (1853) 13 CB 596 . . . 552
Bray v Palmer [1953] 2 All ER 1449 . . . 145 Brown v Thompson [1968] 2 All ER 708 . . . 628
Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown [2016] 4 Brown v United States 256 US 335 (1921) . . . 317
WLR 69 . . . 507 Brown, Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton
Brew Brothers Ltd v Snax (Ross) Ltd [1970] 1 QB (London) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 621 . . . 340
612 . . . 424 Browne v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] QB
Brewer v Dew (1843) 11 M & W 625 . . . 271 103 . . . 564, 568, 665
Brian Warwicker Partnership plc v HOK Browne v Dawson (1840) 12 Ad & El 624 . . . 295
International Ltd [2006] PNLR . . . 628 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 . . . 533, 534
Brice v Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997 . . . 72, 175, Browne v Thomson & Co 1912 SC 359 . . . 508
179 Browning v War Office [1963] 1 QB 750 . . . 654
Bridgmont v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1951] Brownlie v Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas
2 KB 578 . . . 508 925 . . . 339
Bridlington Relay Ltd v Yorkshire Electricity Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc [2016] 1
Board [1965] Ch 436 . . . 426 WLR 1814 . . . 658
Briess v Woolley [1954] AC 333 . . . 339, 596 Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB
Brimelow v Casson [1924] 1 Ch 302 . . . 369 697 . . . 508
Brink’s Global Services v Igrox Ltd [2010] Brunner v Williams (1975) 73 LGR 266 . . . 299
EWCA Civ 1207 . . . 602 Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 . . . 94
Bristol and West of England Bank v Midland Bryanston Finance Ltd v De Vries (No 1) [1975]
Rly Co [1891] 2 QB 653 . . . 284 QB 703 . . . 537, 541, 626
British Celanese Ltd v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Bryanston Leasings Ltd v Principality Finance
Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 1252 . . . 94, 417, 431, 458, Ltd [1977] RTR 45 . . . 285, 289
461 Bryant v Macklin [2005] EWCA Civ 762 . . . 302
TABLE OF CASES xix
Bryant v Wardell (1848) 2 Exch 479 . . . 275 Caldwell v Maguire and Fitzgerald [2002] PIQR
Bryce v Rusden (1886) 2 TLR 435 . . . 552 P45; [2001] EWCA Civ 1054 . . . 132
Buckland v Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co Caledonian Rly Co v Walker’s Trustees (1882) 7
[1949] 1 KB 410 . . . 29 App Cas 259 . . . 444
Buckley and Toronto Transportation Calix v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago [2013] 1
Commission v Smith Transport Ltd [1946] 4 WLR 3283 . . . 494, 579
DLR 721 . . . 619 Callis v Gunn [1964] 1 QB 495 . . . 251
Buckpitt v Oates [1968] 1 All ER 1145 Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty v Dredge Willemstad,
(Assizes) . . . 200 The (1976) 136 CLR 529 . . . 88
Budden v BP Oil Ltd 124 Sol Jo 376 . . . 127 Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd [2009] Ch
Bull v Bull [1955] 1 All ER 253 . . . 294 330 . . . 186, 189
Bull v Devon Area Health Authority [1993] 4 Calvet v Tomkies [1963] 3 All ER 610 . . . 358
Med LR 117 . . . 589 Cambridge Nutrition Ltd v BBC [1990] 3 All ER
Bunker v Charles Brand & Son Ltd [1969] 2 QB 523 . . . 566
480 . . . 220 Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties
Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243 . . . 512 Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264; [1994] 1 All ER
Burge v Haycock [2002] RPC 553 . . . 351 53 . . . 412, 413, 433, 435, 436, 452, 453, 458,
Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord 460, 462–3, 466, 468
Advocate [1965] AC 75 (HL (Sc) . . . 322 Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties
Burnie Port Authority v General Jones PTY Ltd Leather plc [1997] 2 All ER 426 . . . 418, 426,
(1994) 120 ALR 42 . . . 466 468
Burns v Edman [1970] 2 QB 541 (QBD) . . . 661 Camden Nominees v Forcey [1940] Ch
Burris v Azadani [1995] 1 WLR 1372 . . . 256 352 . . . 369
Burroughes v Bayne (1860) 5 HY & N Caminer v Northern and London Investment
296 . . . 272 Trust [1951] AC 88 . . . 129, 140
Burstein v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 WLR Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWCA Civ 1655;
579 . . . 552 [2013] EMLR 13 . . . 496, 497
Burton v Davies [1953] QSR 26 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 . . . 11, 13,
(Queensland) . . . 262 41, 253, 495, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564–5, 566,
Burton v Hughes (1824) 2 Bing 173 . . . 281 567, 568
Burton v Islington HA [1993] QB 204 . . . 59 Campbell v Northern Ireland Housing
Bush v Smith (1953) 162 EG 430 . . . 293 Executive [1996] 1 BNIL 99 . . . 212, 213
Bushel v Miller (1718) 1 Stra 128 . . . 274, 282 Campbell v Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd [2016] AC
Butler v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd 1513 . . . 474
[1940] 1 KB 399 . . . 418 Canadian Pacific Rly Co v Lockhart [1942] AC
Bux v Slough Metals [1974] 1 All ER 262 . . . 127 591 . . . 598
Buyukardicli v Hammerson UK Properties plc Canadian Shredded Wheat Co Ltd v Kellogg Co
[2002] EWCA Civ 683 . . . 195 of Canada Ltd [1938] 1 All ER 618 . . . 346
Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd v Kent CC Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB
[2001] BLR 55; [2001] Env LR 30 . . . 423 164 . . . 29, 81
Byrne v Boadle (1863) 2 H & C 722 . . . 143 Cannon v Tahche [2002] VR 317 . . . 582
Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 . . . 498, 512 Canterbury City Council v Howletts & Port
Byrne v Motor Insurers Bureau [2009] QB Lympne Estates Ltd [1997] ICR 925 . . . W5
66 . . . 488 Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC
CBS Songs v Amstrad Consumer Electronics plc 605; [1990] 1 All ER 568 . . . 26, 28, 32, 33,
[1988] AC 1013 . . . 376 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 65,
CG Vokes Ltd v F J Evans and Marble Arch 78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 92, 99, 102, 112,
Motor Supples Ltd (1931) 49 RPC 140 . . . 345 117, 181, 206
CHC Software Care Ltd v Hopkins & Wood Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v George Henty
[1993] FSR 241 . . . 354 & Sons (1881–82) LR7 App Cas 741 . . . 502
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire CC
Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 All ER [1997] QB 1004; [1997] 2 All ER 865 . . . 35, 47
213 . . . 348, 350 Capps v Miller [1989] 1 WLR 839 (CA) . . . 187,
Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015 . . . 551, 552 193, 194
Caldwell v Maguire [2002] PIQR P6 . . . 132 Carlgarth, The [1927] P 93 . . . 218
xx TABLE OF CASES
Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955] AC Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 . . . 597

549 . . . 29, 46, 128 Chadwick v British Transport Commission
Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR [1967] 2 All ER 945 . . . 58, 70
2042 . . . 592 Chakravarti v Advertisers Newspapers [1998]
Carr v Foster (1842) 3 QB 581 . . . 438 HCA 37 . . . 502
Carr-Glynn v Frearsons [1998] 4 All ER Chandler v Cape plc [2011] 1 WLR 3111 . . . 49,
225 . . . 90 619
Carribbean Steel Co Ltd v Price Waterhouse Chapman v Lord Ellesmere [1932] 2 KB
[2013] PNLR 27 . . . 138 431 . . . 522, 538
Carrier v Bonham [2001] QCA 234 . . . 254–5 Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v
Carroll v Fearon [1998] PIQR P416 . . . 394 Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 . . . 462,
Carstairs v Taylor (1871) LR 6 Exch 217 . . . 465, 464
466 Charleston v News Group Newspaper Ltd [1995]
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 2 AC 65 . . . 502
758 . . . 56, 634, 636, 639 Charterhouse Clinical Research Unit Ltd v
Carty v Croydon LBC [2005] EWCA Civ 19; Richmond Pharmacology Ltd [2003] EWHC
[2005] 1 WLR 2312 . . . 111, 116, 592 1099 . . . 360
Case de Modo Decimandi, and of Prohibitions, Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003]
The (1609) 13 Coke 37; 77 ER 1448 . . . 102 EMLR 11; [2002] EWCA Civ 1772 . . . 513, 523
Case of the King’s Prerogative in Saltpetre Chase International Express Ltd v McRae [2003]
(1606) 12 Co Rep 12; 77 ER 1294 . . . 322 EWCA 505 . . . 650
Cassa di Risparmio della Republicca di San Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432 . . . 313
Marino SpA v Barclays Bank Ltd [2011] Chatterton v Secretary of State for India [1895] 2
EWHC 484 (Comm) . . . 341, 342 QB 189 . . . 531
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] AC Chaudhry v Prabhaker [1989] 1 WLR 29; [1988]
1027 . . . 328, 526, 552, 647 3 All ER 718 . . . 83, 92, 130, 137
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 Chauvy v France (2005) 41 EHRR 29 . . . 495
KB 331 . . . 504, 505 Cheater v Cater [1918] 1 KB 247 . . . 233–4
Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB Chester v Ashfar [2005] 1 AC 134 . . . 61, 90,
343 . . . 144, 145, 590, 592, 596, 609 158, 159
Castle v St Augustine’s Links Ltd (1922) 38 TLR Chet Camp Fisheries Co-operative Ltd v
615 . . . 444, 445 Canada (1995) 123 DLR (4th) 121 . . . 379
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Chettle v Denton (1951) 95 Sol Jo 802 . . . 232
Ltd [1940] AC 152 (HL); [1939] 3 All ER Chetwynd v Tunmore [2017] QB 188 . . . 475,
722 . . . 192, 485 483
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks (1875) LR 10 QB Chinery v Viall (1860) 5 H & N 288 . . . 273
453 . . . 94, 457, 459 Chocosuisse Union de Fabricants Suisses
Cavalier v Pope [1906] AC 428 . . . 240 de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1998] RPC
Cavanagh v London Passenger Transport 117 . . . 352
Executive (1956) Times, 23 October . . . 628 Chomley v Watson [1907] VLR 502 . . . 508
Cavanagh v Ulster Weaving Co Ltd [1960] AC Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316 . . . 433
145 . . . 127 Christie v Leachinsky [2011] UKSC 23 . . . 264
Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf [2003] 1 AC Christmas v General Cleaning Contractors
384 . . . 642 [1953] AC 180 . . . 217
Caxton Publishing Co Ltd v Sutherland Chubb Cash Ltd v John Crilley & Son [1983] 2
Publishing Co [1939] AC 178 . . . 281, 288 All ER 294 . . . 281
Cayzer, Irvine & Co v Cannon Co (1884) 9 App Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding [2010] 2
Cas 873 . . . 127 CLC 277 . . . 173
Cellactite and British Uralite Ltd v HH Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-
Robertson & Co (1957) Times, 23 July . . . 356 Smith [1972] 1 QB 522 . . . 530
Cellular Clothing Co v Maxton and Murray Citation plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd [2013] EWCA
[1899] AC 326 . . . 346 Civ 155 . . . 358
Centre for Reproductive Medicine v U [2002] Citizens’ Life Assurance Co v Brown [1904] AC
EWCA Civ 565 . . . 312 423 . . . 536
Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland City of Lincoln, The (1889) 15 PD 15 . . . 170
TABLE OF CASES xxi
City Motors (1933) Pty Ltd v Southern Aerial Collins Stewart Ltd v Financial Times Ltd
Super Service Pty Ltd (1961) 106 CLR [2004] EWHC 2337; [2005] EMLR 5 . . . 507,
477 . . . 274 551
Clark v Molyneux (1877) 3 QBD 237 . . . 534, 535 Colls v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd [1904] AC
Clark v Oxfordshire HA [1998] IRLR 179 . . . 425
125 . . . 592 Colour Quest Ltd v Total Downstream UK plc
Clarke v Army and Navy Co-Operative Society [2009] 1 CLC 186 . . . 444
[1903] 1 KB 155 . . . 390 Columbia Pictures Industries v Robinson [1987]
Clarke v Bruce Lance and Co. [1988] 1 All ER Ch 38 . . . 666
364 . . . 89 Colvilles v Devine [1969] 2 All ER 53 . . . 147
Clarke v Crew [1999] NLJR 899 . . . 261 Colwill v Reeves (1811) 2 Camp 575 . . . 270
Clarke v Holmes (1862) 7 H & N 937 . . . 129 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v
Clarke v Taylor (1836) 2 Bing NC 654 . . . 524 Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181; [2005]
Clay v AJ Crump & Sons [1964] 1 QB 533 . . . 392 1WLR 2082 . . . 46, 48, 49, 87
Clay v Pooler [1982] 3 All ER 570 . . . 649, 663, Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR
Clayton v Le Roy [1911] 2 KB 1031 . . . 284 258 . . . 609
Clayton v Woodman & Son (Builders) Ltd Compton v McClure [1975] ICR 378 . . . 597
[1961] 3 All ER 249 . . . 81 Comr pf Police v Copeland [2014] EWCA Civ
Clef Aquitaine Sarl v Laporte Materials 1014 . . . 575
(Barrow) Ltd [2001] QB 488 . . . 343 Condon v Basi [1985] 2 All ER 453; [1985] 1
Clegg v Dearden (1848) 12 QB 576 . . . 299 WLR 866 . . . 132, 310
Cleghorn v Oldham (1927) 43 TLR 465 Condon v Condon [1977] RTR 483
(KBD) . . . 201 (QBD) . . . 189, 192
Clifford v CC of Hertfordshire [2011] EWHC Conlon v Simms [2008] 1 WLR 484 . . . 341
815 . . . 577 Connor v Surrey County Council [2011] QB
Clift v Slough BC [2010] EWCA Civ 1484 . . . 495 429 . . . 115, 116
Clissold v Cratchley [1910] 2 KB 244 . . . 580 Consolidated Co v Curtis & Son [1892] 1 QB
Close v Steel Co of Wales [1962] AC 367 . . . 483 495 . . . 281
Club Cruise Entertainment and Travelling Conway v Wade [1909] AC 506 . . . 380
Services Europe BV v Department for Cook v Alexander [1974] QB 279 . . . 537
Transport [2008] EWHC 2794 . . . 285 Cook v Broderip (1968) 206 EG 128 . . . 221
Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1998] QB Cook v Cox (1814) 3 M & S 110 . . . 514
978 (CA); [1998] 3 All ER 180 . . . 206 Cook v JL Kier & Co Ltd [1970] 2 All ER
Clutterbuck v Chaffers (1816) 1 Stark 471 . . . 510 513 . . . 655
Clydesdale Bank Ltd v Paton [1896] AC Cook v Lewis [1952] 1 DLR 1 . . . 145, 626
381 . . . 342 Cook v Ward (1830) 6 Bing 409 . . . 522
Cocking v Eacott [2016] QB 1080 . . . 422 Cooke v Forbes (1867) LR 5 Eq 166 . . . 442
Codd v Cabe (1875–1876) LR 1 Ex D 352 Cooke v MGN Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 895 . . . 506
(CA) . . . 316 Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of
Cohen v Morgan (1825) 6 Dow & Ry KB Ireland [1909] AC 229 . . . 214, 217
8 . . . 574 Cookson v Harewood [1932] 2 KB 478n . . . 522
Cole v Davis-Gilbert (2007) Times, 6 Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556 . . . 650, 661,
April . . . 124 662
Cole v De Trafford (No 2) [1918] 2 KB Cooper v Carillion plc [2003] EWCA Civ
523 . . . 146 1811 . . . 188, 190
Cole v Turner (1704) 6 Mod Rep 149 . . . 251 Cooper v Crabtree (1882) 20 Ch D 589 . . . 294
Collett v Smith [2009] EWCA Civ 583 . . . 650 Cooper v Hobart [2001] 3 SCR 537
Colley v Hart (1890) 44 Ch D 179 . . . 355 (Canada) . . . 54
Collingwood v Home & Colonial Stores Ltd Cooper v Lawson (1838) 8 Ad & El 746 . . . 524,
[1936] 3 All ER 200 . . . 457, 461 548
Collins v Hertfordshire CC [1947] KB Cooper v Railway Executive (Southern Region)
598 . . . 592 [1953] 1 All ER 477 . . . 485
Collins v Renison (1754) Say 138; 96 ER 830 Cooper v Willomatt (1845) 1 CB 672 . . . 275
(KB) . . . 319 Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd v Pritchard
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 . . . 20, 249 [2012] QB 320 . . . 187, 330
xxii TABLE OF CASES
Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Crow v Johnson [2012] EWHC 1982
Partnership Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1419 . . . 627 (QB) . . . 501
Cope v Sharpe (No 2) [1912] 1 KB 496 Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4
(CA) . . . 322, 328 Ex D 5 . . . 454
Corbett v Barking, Havering and Brentwood Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton
Health Authority [1991] 2 QB 408 . . . 66, 662, Fireworks Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep
663 533 . . . 430, 431, 453, 462
Corbett v Burge, Warren and Ridgley Ltd (1932) Cruddas v Calvert [2014] EMLR 5 . . . 355, 360
48 TLR 626 . . . 580 Cruise v Express Newspapers plc [1999] QB
Corby Group Litigation, In re [2008] EWCA Civ 931 . . . 525
463 . . . 446 Cruise v Terrell [1922] 1 KB 664 . . . 294
Cornwell v Myskow [1987] 2 All ER 504 . . . 553 Crump v Lambert (1867) LR 3 Eq 409 . . . 425
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] 1 AC 884; [2008] CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011]
2 WLR 499 . . . 169, 171, 172, 176, 194 EWHC 1326 (QB) . . . 567
Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2001] Cullen v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] 1
1 WLR 1437 . . . 270 WLR 1763 . . . 478
Couch v Steel (1854) 3 E & B 402 . . . 472 Cullin v London Fire and Civil Defence
Countryside Residential (North Thames) Ltd v Authority [1999] PIQR P314 . . . 70
Tugwell [2000] 34 EG 87 . . . 304 Cummings v Granger [1977] QB 397
Coupland v Eagle Bros Ltd (1969) 210 EG (CA) . . . 197, 319, W4, W5
581 . . . 220 Cummings (or McWilliams) v Sir William Arrol
Covell v Laming (1808) 1 Camp 497 . . . 252, 271 [1962] 1 All ER 623 . . . 158, 166, 484
Cowan v CC of Avon and Somerset [2002] HLR Cumpănă and Mazăre v Romania (2005) 41
44 . . . 117 EHRR 200 . . . 495
Coward v Baddeley (1859) 4 H & N 478 . . . 248 Cunard v Antifyre [1933] 1KB 551 . . . 233, 234,
Coward v Wellington (1836) 7 C & P 531 . . . 517 431
Cox v Ergo Versicherung [2014] AC Cunningham v Harrison [1973] QB 942 . . . 652,
1379 . . . 644, 658 654
Cox v Glue (1848) 5 CB 533 . . . 296 Cunningham v Reading Football Club Ltd
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 660; [2014] [1992] PIQR 141 . . . 218
EWCA Civ 132 . . . 588, 590, 594, 595 Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008]
Coxhead v Richards (1846) 2 CB 569 . . . 540 EWCA Civ 432 . . . 537
Craggy v CC of Cleveland Police [2009] EWCA Currie v Clamp 2002 SLT 196 (OH) . . . 204
Civ 1128 . . . 125 Curtis v Betts [1990] 1 All ER
Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant [2014] 2 WLR 769 . . . W3, W4
317 . . . 98 Cutler v United Dairies (London) Ltd [1933] 2
Crawford v Jenkins [2016] QB 231 . . . 580 KB 297 (CA) . . . 199
Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance Cutler v Vauxhall Motors [1974] 1 QB
(Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366; [2013] 3 WLR 418 . . . 654
927 . . . 20, 574, 575–6, 579, 580 Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium [1949] AC
Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 398 . . . 475, 481
253; [2004] 3 WLR 918 . . . 554, 665, 666 D v AMF Bowling [2002] 12 CL 476 . . . 219
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Export D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust
Credits Guarantee Department [2000] 1 AC [2005] 2 AC 373; [2004] QB 558 . . . 105,
486 . . . 604 109–10
Cresswell v Eaton [1991] 1 All ER 484 . . . 664 D & F Estates v Church Commissioners for
Crest Homes Ltd v Ascott [1980] FSR England [1989] AC177; [1988] 2 All ER
396 . . . 554 992 . . . 93, 237, 396
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v D & L Caterers Ltd and Jackson v D’Ajou [1945]
Veitch [1942] AC 435 . . . 373, 374, 375 KB 364 . . . 500
Croke v Wiseman [1981] 3 All ER 852 . . . 650, DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Times
651, 652 Newspapers Ltd [1973] QB 21 . . . 503
Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269 . . . 513 DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240 . . . 297, 445
Cross v Kirkby [2000] All ER (D) 212; (2000) Daar v CC of Merseyside [2005] EWCA Civ
Times, 5 April (CA) . . . 317, 326 1774 . . . 576
TABLE OF CASES xxiii
Daborn v Bath Tramway Motor Co Ltd [1946] 2 De Beers Abrasive Products Ltd v International
All ER 333 . . . 124, 125 General Electric Co of New York Ltd [1975] 2
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau [2004] IRLR All ER 599 . . . 355
358 . . . 592 De Buse v McCarthy [1942] 1 KB 156 . . . 536
Dadourian Group Int’l Inc v Simms [2009] 1 De Franco v Metropolitan Commr (1987)
Lloyd’s Rep PN 601 . . . 341 Times, 8 May . . . 278
Daiichi Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd v Stop De Freville v Dill (1927) 96 LJKB 1056 . . . 81, 264
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2004] 1 WLR De Martell v Merton and Sutton HA [1992] 3
1503 . . . 257 All ER 820 . . . 59
Daily Mirror Newspapers v Gardner [1968] 2 D’Urso v Sanson [1939] 4 All ER 26
QB 762 . . . 371 (KBD) . . . 199
Dale v Wood (1822) 7 Moore CP 33 . . . 317 Dean v Hogg and Lewis (1824) 10 Bing 345; 131
Daly v General Steam Navigation Co (The ER 937 (CCP) . . . 318
Dragon) [1980] 3 All ER 696 . . . 650, 653 Deane v Clayton (1817) 7 Taunt 489 . . . 255
Danby v Beardsley (1880) 43 LT 603 . . . 574 Delaney v Pickett [2012] 1 WLR 2149 . . . 205
Daniels v Griffith [1998] EMLR 489 . . . 532 Delaney v TP Smith Ltd [1946] KB 393 . . . 295
Daniels v Jones [1961] 3 All ER 24 . . . 662 Delaware Mansions Ltd v Westminster City
Daniels and Daniels v R White & Sons Ltd and Council [2002] 1 AC 321 . . . 415,
Tabbard [1938] 4 All ER 258 . . . 395 425, 435, 441
Danish Mercantile Co v Beaumont (1950) 67 Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC
RPC 111 . . . 356 198; [2003] Env LR 34 . . . 436, 667
Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 Department of the Environment v Thomas
(KBD) . . . 197, 200 Bates & Sons Ltd [1991] 1 AC 499 . . . 93, 237
Darby v National Trust for Places of Historic Department of Social Security v Butler [1995] 1
Interest or Natural Beauty [2001] PIQR WLR 1528 . . . 666
P372 . . . 214, 220 Department of Transport v NW Water
Daressa, The [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 60 . . . 178 Authority [1984] AC 336 . . . 438
Darker v CC of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993]
AC 435 . . . 583 AC 534; [1993] 1 All ER 1011 . . . 495, 501
Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell (1886) 11 Derry v Peek (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337 . . . 81,
App Cas 127 . . . 429 82, 337, 339
Das v Ganju [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Med 198 . . . 639 Design Progression Ltd v Thurloe Properties Ltd
David v Abdul Cader [1963] 3 All ER 579 . . . 581 [2005] 1 WLR 1 . . . 646
David T Morrison & Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Desmond v CC of Nottinghamshire Police
[2014] SC 222 . . . 142, 146 [2011] EWCA Civ 2; [2011] 1 FLR 1361 . . . 51,
Davidson v CC of North Wales [1994] 2 All ER 106, 108, 117
597 . . . 266, 574 Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi -Aventis SA
Davie v New Merton Board Mills [1959] AC [2009] Ch 390; [2007] EWHC 2394 . . . 648
604 . . . 610 Devereux v Barclay (1819) 2 B & Ald
Davies v DTI [2007] 1 WLR 3232 . . . 627 702 . . . 283
Davies v Global Strategies Group (Hong Kong) Dewey v White (1827) Mood & M 56 (D); 173
Ltd [2009] EWHC 2342 (QB) . . . 200 ER 1079 . . . 322
Davies v Ilieff 2000 WL 33201551 . . . 302 Dhaliwal v Personal Representatives of Hunt
Davies v Mann (1842) 10 M & W 546; 152 ER [1995] PIQR Q56 . . . 650
588 (Exch) . . . 186 Dhesi v Chief Constable of the West Midlands
Davies v Powell Duffryn Collieries Ltd [1942] 2000 WL 491455 . . . W5
AC 601 . . . 661, 663 Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental
Davies v Solomon (1871) LR 7 QB 112 . . . 517 Brands Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 920 . . . 352
Davies v Swan Motor Co [1949] 2 KB 291 . . . 194 Dibble (HE) Ltd v Moore [1970] 2 QB
Davies v Taylor [1974] AC 207 . . . 660 181 . . . 285
Davis v Bromley Corpn [1908] 1 KB 170 . . . 581 Dickins v O2 plc [2009] IRLR 58 . . . 160
Davis v Bunn (1936) 56 CLR 246 . . . 146 Dicks v Brooks (1880) 15 Ch D 22 . . . 355
Davis v Oswell (1837) 7 C & P 804 . . . 287 Dietz v Lennig Chemicals Ltd [1969] 1 AC
Davison v Leggett (1969) 133 JP 552 . . . 145 170 . . . 663
Day v Edwards (1794) 5 TR 648 . . . 7 Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 . . . 664
xxiv TABLE OF CASES
Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2008] 1 AC
QB 162; [1961] 1 All ER 897 . . . 551, 624 1 . . . 562–3
Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 6) [2006] QB
Concrete (UK) Ltd & Another (Re Supply of 125 . . . 11, 373, 567, 568
Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) [1995] 1 AC Douglas Valley Finance Co Ltd v S Hughes
456 . . . 618 (Hirers) Ltd [1969] 1 QB 738 . . . 281
Dixon v Bell (1816) 5 M & S 198 . . . 389, 390 Dove v Banhams Patent Locks Ltd [1983] 2 All
Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors [2005] PNLR ER 833 . . . 636, 640
6 . . . 157 Downs v Chappell [1996] 3 All ER 344 . . . 341
Dixon v Dixon [1904] 1 Ch 161 . . . 380 Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB
Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority 158 . . . 343
[1996] 4 All ER 474 . . . 278 Drake v Foster Wheeler Ltd [2011] 1 All ER
Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2010] 63 . . . 652, 658
HLR 9; [2009] 3 All ER 319 . . . 417 Drake v Harbour [2008] 21 Con LR 18 . . . 165
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Drane v Evangelou [1978] 2 All ER 437; [1978] 1
Council [1980] 1 All ER 928 . . . 410, 643, 656 WLR 455 . . . 303, 643, 646, 647
Dodds v Dodds [1978] QB 543 . . . 659, 663 Dransfield v British Insulated Cables Ltd [1937]
Dodwell v Burford (1669) 1 Mod Rep 24 . . . 251 4 All ER 382 . . . 392
Doe d Bishop of Rochester v Bridges (1831) 1 B Draper v Hodder [1972] 2 QB 556 . . . 177, W2
& Ad 847 . . . 472 Draper v Trist [1939] 3 All ER 513 . . . 352, 353,
Dolby v Newnes (1887) 3 TLR 393 . . . 499 354
Dominion Mosaics and Tile Co v Trafalgar Drinkwater v Kimber [1952] 1 All ER
Trucking Co [1990] 2 All ER 246 . . . 302 701 . . . 623
Dominion Natural Gas Co Ltd v Collins and Drummond-Jackson v British Medical
Perkins [1909] AC 640 . . . 391 Association [1970] 1 All ER 1094 . . . 499
Domsalla v Barr [1969] 1 WLR 630 . . . 645 DSG Retail Ltd v Comet Group plc [2002] FSR
Donaghey v Boulton and Paul Ltd [1968] AC 58 . . . 355
1 . . . 175 Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2003] 2 AC
Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585 . . . 276, 366; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65 . . . 601, 604
282 Duckworth v Johnson (1859) 4 H & N
Donaldson v McNiven [1952] 2 All ER 653 . . . 660
691 . . . 134, 621 Dudgeon v UK (1981) 4 EHRR 149 . . . 565
Donnelly v Jackman [1970] 1 All ER 987 . . . 251 Duke v University of Salford [2013] EWHC 196
Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454 . . . 652 (QB) . . . 501
Donoghue v Copiague Union Free School Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB
District 407 NYS 2d 878 (1978) . . . 55 185 . . . 510
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669 . . . 64, 65
EWCA Civ 231; [2003] QB 1008 . . . 220, 228 Dumbell v Roberts [1944] 1 All ER
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 . . . 12, 27, 326 . . . 251
28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 38, 54, 82, 88, 98, 387, 388, Dunlop v Woollahra MC [1982] AC
390, 391, 392, 394 158 . . . 581
Donovan v Rana [2014] 1 P&CR 23 . . . 301 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Maison Talbot
Donovan v Union Cartage Co Ltd [1933] 2 KB (1904) 20 TLR 579 . . . 358
71 . . . 133 Dunlop Rubber Co Ltd v Dunlop [1921] 1 AC
Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 367 . . . 497
406 . . . 278 Dunn v Birmingham Canal Navigation Co
Dooley v Cammell Laird [1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep (1872) LR 7 QB 244 . . . 465
271 . . . 74, 628 Dunn v Large (1783) 3 Doug KB 335 . . . 302
Dorset Flint & Stone Blocks Ltd v Moir [2004] Dunnage v Randall [2016] QB 639 . . . 136, 620
EWHC 2173 . . . 357 Dunton v Dover DC (1977) 76 LGR 87 . . . 667
Dougal v McCarthy [1893] 1 QB 736 . . . 299 Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd (in scheme of
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co [1964] 1 arrangement) (‘Trigger Litigation’ case)
QB 518 . . . 175, 177 [2012] 1 WLR 867 . . . 164
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 1) [2001] QB Dwek v Macmillan Publishers Ltd [2000] EMLR
967 . . . 509, 561 284 . . . 507
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"Intrusted by the people for a second time with the office of
President, I enter upon its administration appreciating the
great responsibilities which attach to this renewed honor and
commission, promising unreserved devotion on my part to their
faithful discharge and reverently invoking for my guidance the
direction and favor of Almighty God. I should shrink from the
duties this day assumed if I did not feel that in their
performance I should have the cooperation of the wise and
patriotic men of all parties. It encourages me for the great
task which I now undertake to believe that those who
voluntarily committed to me the trust imposed upon the chief
executive of the republic will give to me generous support in
my duties to 'preserve, protect and defend the constitution of
the United States,' and to 'care that the laws be faithfully
executed.' The national purpose is indicated through a
national election. It is the constitutional method of
ascertaining the public will. When once it is registered it is
a law to us all, and faithful observance should follow its
decrees.
"Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and fortunately

we have them in every part of our beloved country. We are
reunited. Sectionalism has disappeared. Division on public
questions can no longer be traced by the war maps of 1861.
These old differences less and less disturb the judgment.
Existing problems demand the thought and quicken the
conscience of the country, and the responsibility for their
presence as well as for their righteous settlement rests upon
us all, no more upon me than upon you. There are some national
questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude
partisanship. Magnifying their difficulties will not take them
off our hands nor facilitate their adjustment. Distrust of the
capacity, integrity and high purpose of the American people
will not be an inspiring theme for future political contests.
Dark pictures and gloomy forebodings are worse than useless.
These only becloud, they do not help to point the way of
safety and honor. 'Hope maketh not ashamed.'
{681}
"The prophets of evil were not the builders of the republic,

nor in its crises have they saved or served it. The faith of
the fathers was a mighty force in its creation, and the faith
of their descendants has wrought its progress and furnished
its defenders. They are obstructionists who despair and who
would destroy confidence in the ability of our people to solve
wisely and for civilization the mighty problems resting upon
them. The American people, intrenched in freedom at home, take
their love for it with them wherever they go, and they reject
as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our own
liberties by securing the enduring foundations of liberty to
others. Our institutions will not deteriorate by extension,
and our sense of justice will not abate under tropic suns in
distant seas.
"As heretofore so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its

fitness to administer any new estate which events devolve upon
it, and in the fear of God will 'take occasion by the hand and
make the bounds of freedom wider yet.' If there are those
among us who would make our way more difficult we must not be
disheartened, but the more earnestly dedicate ourselves to the
task upon which we have rightly entered. The path of progress
is seldom smooth. New things are often found hard to do. Our
fathers found them so. We find them so. They are inconvenient.
They cost us something. But are we not made better for the
effort and sacrifice, and are not those we serve lifted up and
blessed?
"We will be consoled, too, with the fact that opposition has
confronted every onward movement of the republic from its
opening hour until now, but without success. The republic has
marched on and on, and its every step has exalted freedom and
humanity. We are undergoing the same ordeal as did our
predecessors nearly a century ago. We are following the course
they blazed. They triumphed. Will their successors falter and
plead organic impotency in the nation? Surely after one
hundred and twenty-five years of achievement for mankind we
will not now surrender our equality with other Powers on
matters fundamental and essential to nationality. With no such
purpose was the nation created. In no such spirit has it
developed its full and independent sovereignty. We adhere to
the principle of equality among ourselves, and by no act of
ours will we assign to ourselves a subordinate rank in the
family of nations.
"My fellow citizens, the public events of the last four years
have gone into history. They are too near to justify recital.
Some of them were unforeseen; many of them momentous and far
reaching in their consequences to ourselves and our relations
with the rest of the world. The part which the United States
bore so honorably in the thrilling scenes in China, while new
to American life, has been in harmony with its true spirit and
best traditions, and in dealing with the results its policy
will be that of moderation and fairness.
"We face at this moment a most important question—that of the

future relations of the United States and Cuba. With our near
neighbors we must remain close friends. The declaration of the
purposes of this government in the resolution of April 20,
1898, must be made good. Ever since the evacuation of the
island by the army of Spain the Executive with all practicable
speed has been assisting its people in the successive steps
necessary to the establishment of a free and independent
government prepared to assume and perform the obligations of
international law, which now rest upon the United States under
the Treaty of Paris. The convention elected by the people to
frame a constitution is approaching the completion of its
labors. The transfer of American control to the new government
is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting
from our intervention and the treaty of peace, that I am glad
to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy
which the legislative branch of the government deems essential
to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The
principles which led to our intervention require that the
fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be
adapted to secure a government capable of performing the
duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of
observing its international obligations, of protecting life
and property, insuring order, safety and liberty, and
conforming to the established and historical policy of the
United States in its relation to Cuba.
"The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people

must carry with it the guarantees of permanence. We became
sponsors for the pacification of the island, and we remain
accountable to the Cubans no less than to our own country and
people for the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth,
on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty and assured
order. Our enfranchisement of the people will not be completed
until free Cuba shall 'be a reality, not a name—a perfect
entity, not a hasty experiment, bearing within itself the
elements of failure.'
"While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on February

6, 1899, and ratifications were exchanged nearly two years
ago, the Congress has indicated no form of government for the
Philippine Islands. It has, however, provided an army to
enable the Executive to suppress insurrection, restore peace,
give security to the inhabitants and establish the authority
of the United States throughout the archipelago. It has
authorized the organization of native troops as auxiliary to
the regular force. It has been advised from time to time of
the acts of the military and naval officers in the islands, of
my action in appointing civil commissions, of the instructions
with which they were charged, of their duties and powers, of
their recommendations and of their several acts under
Executive commission, together with the very complete general
information they have submitted.
"These reports fully set forth the conditions, past and
present, in the islands, and the instructions clearly show the
principles which will guide the Executive until the Congress
shall, as it is required to do by the treaty, determine 'the
civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants.'
The Congress having added the sanction of its authority to the
powers already possessed and exercised by the Executive under
the constitution, thereby leaving with the Executive the
responsibility for the government of the Philippines, I shall
continue the efforts already begun until order shall be
restored throughout the islands, and as fast as conditions
permit will establish local governments, in the formation of
which the full co-operation of the people has been already
invited, and when established will encourage the people to
administer them.
{682}
"The settled purpose, long ago proclaimed, to afford the

inhabitants of the islands self-government as fast as they
were ready for it will be pursued with earnestness and
fidelity. Already something has been accomplished in this
direction. The government's representatives, civil and
military, are doing faithful and noble work in their mission
of emancipation, and merit the approval and support of their
countrymen. The most liberal terms of amnesty have already
been communicated to the insurgents, and the way is still open
for those who have raised their arms against the government
for honorable submission to its authority.
"Our countrymen should not be deceived. We are not waging war

against the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A portion
of them are making war against the United States. By far the
greater part of the inhabitants recognize American
sovereignty, and welcome it as n guarantee of order and
security for life, property, liberty, freedom of conscience
and the pursuit of happiness. To them full protection will be
given. They shall not be abandoned. We will not leave the
destiny of the loyal millions in the islands to the disloyal
thousands who are in rebellion against the United States.
Order under civil institutions will come as soon as those who
now break the peace shall keep it. Force will not be needed or
used when those who make war against us shall make it no more.
May it end without further bloodshed, and there be ushered in
the reign of peace, to be made permanent by a government of
liberty under law."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).

Rejection by the British government of the Interoceanic Canal
Treaty as amended by the Senate.
See (in this volume)

CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).

Death of Ex-President Harrison.
Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States 1889-1893,

died at his home in Indianapolis, on the afternoon of March
13, 1901, after an illness of a few days.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March-April).

Capture of Aguinaldo, the Filipino leader.
His oath of allegiance to the United States.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (MARCH-APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).

Organization of the enlarged regular army.
Its strength, 76,000 men.
A Press despatch from Washington, April 24, announced that the

Secretary of War had approved recommendations of
Lieutenant-General Miles for the organization of the army, not
raising it to the full strength of 100,000 men authorized by
Congress, but providing for a force of 76,787 enlisted men,
distributed as follows:
"Line of the army, 74,504;
ordnance department, 700;
signal corps, 760;
post quartermaster sergeants, 150;
post commissary sergeants, 200;
electrician sergeants, 100;
Military Academy detachment and band, 298;
Indian scouts, 75.
The cavalry is to be organized into fifteen regiments,

consisting of 12 troops of 85 enlisted men, which, with the
bands, will make a cavalry force of 15,840 men. The infantry
is to consist of 38,520 men, divided into 30 regiments of 12
companies each. The artillery corps will have a total of
18,862 men, of which the coast artillery will have 13, 734,
organized into 126 companies of 109 men each; and the field
artillery, 4,800 men, organized into 30 batteries of 150 men
each. The engineer battalions will consist of 12 companies
amounting to 1,282 men. This plan makes no provision for the
employment of Filipino natives, but this is explained by the
fact that the 12,000 authorized for the native military force
was made a distinctive feature of the Army bill by Congress
and separated from the Regular Army."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).

Petition from the workingmen of Porto Rico.

PORTO RICO: A. D. 1901 (APRIL).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (May).

Decision of the Supreme Court in the cases involving
questions touching the status of the new territorial
possessions of the nation.
The opinions of the Supreme Court in the cases before it known

as "the insular cases," involving questions touching the
relations of the government of the United States to the
insular possessions lately acquired (see above: A. D.
1900-1901), were announced on the 27th of May, as these sheets
of the present volume were about to go to press.
In the case of Elias S. A. De Lima et al. the opinion of the

majority of the Court, delivered by Justice Brown, was against
the claim of the government to duties on goods imported into
the United States from Porto Rico after the ratification of
the treaty of peace with Spain and before the passage of the
Porto Rican act of April 12, 1900.
See, (in this volume),

PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900, APRIL).
It was held in this decisive opinion that Porto Rico, at the

time the duties in question were collected, was not a foreign
country, but a territory of the United States. Said Justice
Brown: "If an Act of Congress be necessary to convert a
foreign country into domestic territory, the question at once
suggests itself, What is the character of the legislation
demanded for this purpose? Will an act appropriating money for
its purchase be sufficient? Apparently not. Will an act
appropriating the duties collected upon imports to and from
such country for the benefit of its government be sufficient?
Apparently not. Will acts making appropriations for its postal
service, for the establishment of lighthouses, for the
maintenance of quarantine stations, for erecting public
buildings, have that effect? Will an act establishing a
complete local government, but with the reservation of a right
to collect duties upon commerce, be adequate for that purpose?
None of these, nor all together, will be sufficient, if the
contention of the government be sound, since acts embracing
all these provisions have been passed in connection with Porto
Rico, and it is insisted that it is still a foreign country
within the meaning of the tariff laws. We are unable to
acquiesce in this assumption that a territory may be at the
same time both foreign and domestic. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that at the time these duties were levied Porto Rico
was not a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff
laws, but a territory of the United States; that the duties
were illegally exacted, and that the plaintiffs are entitled
to recover them back."
But in the case of Samuel B. Downes et al. a different set of

circumstances was dealt with, since the duties in question
were on goods imported from Porto Rico after the passage of
the Act of April 12 (called "the Foraker Act"). On the
question thus presented the majority of the Court sustained
the contention of the government, saying, in an opinion
delivered by Justice Brown:
{683}
"We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a

territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but
not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of
the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional so
far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island and
that the plaintiff cannot recover the duties exacted in this
case." The following general conclusions were held by Justice
Brown to be established:
"First—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are

not States, within the judicial clause of the Constitution
giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different
States.
"Second—That Territories are not States, within the meaning of

revised statutes, section 709, permitting writs of error from
this court in cases where the validity of a State's statute is
drawn in question.
"Third—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are

States as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers,
with respect to the ownership, disposition and inheritance of
property.
"Fourth—That the Territories are not within the clause of the

Constitution providing for the creation of a Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.
"Fifth—That the Constitution does not apply to foreign

countries or trials therein conducted, and that Congress may
lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals,
without the intervention of a grand or petit jury.
"Sixth—That where the Constitution has been once formally

extended by Congress to Territories, neither Congress nor the
Territorial Legislature can enact laws inconsistent
therewith."
Five of the nine justices of the Court concurred in the decree

announced by Justice Brown; but three of them, viz., Justices
White, Shims and McKenna, placed their concurrence on
different and quite opposed grounds, in an opinion prepared by
Justice White. In their view of the case before the court,
"the sole and only issue is, had Porto Rico, at the time of
the passage of the Act in question, been incorporated into and
become an integral part of the United States?" and their
conclusion is reported to have been, that "the question when
Porto Rico was to be incorporated was a political question, to
be determined by the American people, speaking through
Congress, and was not for the courts to determine."
The minority of the Court, consisting of Chief Justice Fuller,

Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham dissented from the decree
rendered by the majority, and from the varying grounds on
which the two sections of that majority had rested it. As
summarized in press despatches of the day, their opinion,
delivered by the Chief Justice, "absolutely rejected the
contention that the rule of uniformity [that is, the
constitutional provision that 'all duties, imposts and excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States'] was not
applicable to Porto Rico because it had not been incorporated
into and become an integral part of the United States; the
word incorporation had no occult meaning, and whatever its
situation before, the Foraker act made Porto Rico an organized
Territory of the United States." "The concurring opinion of
the majority," said the Chief Justice, "recognized that
Congress, in dealing with the people of new territories or
possessions, is bound to respect the fundamental guarantees of
life, liberty and property, but assumes that Congress is not
bound in those territories or possessions to follow the rules
of taxation prescribed by the Constitution. And yet the power
to tax involves the power to destroy and the levy of duty
touches all our people in all places under the jurisdiction of
the Government. The logical result is that Congress may
prohibit commerce altogether between the States and
Territories, and may prescribe one rule of taxation in one
Territory, and a different rule in another. That theory
assumes that the Constitution created a government empowered
to acquire countries throughout the world, to be governed by
different rules than those obtaining in the original States
and Territories, and substitutes for the present system of
republican government, a system of domination over distant
provinces in the exercise of unrestricted power. In our
judgment, so much of the Porto Rican act as authorized the
imposition of these duties is invalid and plaintiffs were
entitled to recover."
Justice Harlan announced his concurrence with the dissenting

opinion delivered by the Chief Justice. He regarded the
Foraker act as unconstitutional in its revenue provisions, and
believed that Porto Rico, after the ratification of the treaty
with Spain, became a part of the United States. In conclusion,
Justice Harlan said: "The addition of Porto Rico to the
territory of the United States has been recognized by direct
action upon the part of Congress. It has legislated in
recognition of the treaty with Spain. If Porto Rico did not by
such action become a part of the United States it did become
such, at least, when Congress passed the Foraker act. I can
not believe that Congress may impose any duty, impost or
excise with respect to that territory and its people which is
not consistent with the constitutional requirement that all
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States."
No decision was rendered in the case of the Fourteen Diamond

Rings, which involved questions relative to the status of the
Philippine Islands in their relations to the government of the
United States.
----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------
UNITED STATES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.

Its formation and dissolution.

CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1898.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.

TRUSTS: UNITED STATES: THE CLIMAX, &c.
UNIVERSITIES.

EDUCATION.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Expeditions to explore the ruins of Nippur.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL, RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN
EXPLORATION.
UNYORO:
British regulation of the kingdom.

UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.
UR.
See (in volume 1)

BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;
See (in volume 4)

SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.
{684}
URUGUAY: A. D. 1896-1899.
Revolutionary movement.
Assassination of President Borda.
Blancos and Colorados.
Restoration of tranquil government by the
Vice President, Cuestas.
In November, 1896, a movement for the overthrow of President

Borda was begun, with strong assistance from the neighboring
Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul. Months of civil war
followed, with varying fortunes, but the summer of 1897 found
the President parleying with the insurgents, endeavoring to
make terms. His original opponents had been the party called
that of the Blancos, or Whites; the Colorados, or Reds, had
supported him; but he seemed to be making enemies among them.
By an assassin of his own party he was shot, on the 25th of
August, as he came from a service in the cathedral at
Montevideo which commemorated the anniversary of Uruguayan
independence. Senor Juan Luis Cuestas, the President of the
Senate and ex-officio Vice President of the Republic, assumed
the administration of the government, made peace with the
insurgents, and prepared to deal with a faction in the
Chambers which is said to have made good government
impossible. "The Representatives had made themselves hated by
violence, corruption, and attacks on property. Senor Cuestas
accordingly removed all officials devoted to the Chambers,
called out a thousand National Guards, and being thus master
of the situation, on February 10th dissolved the Chambers and
declared himself provisional President. He then appointed a
'Council' of eighty prominent citizens of all parties,
invested them with the legislative power, and directed them to
elect a new President, and to settle the method and time of
the next elections. … According to the 'Times',
correspondent, the citizens of Monte Video of all parties
approved his action, not a stroke was struck for the Chambers,
and public securities rose at once by from eight to fourteen
points. Senor Cuestas, in fact, is trusted and competent."
The Spectator (London),

March 26, 1898.
In due time, the Provisional President had to deal with a

military revolt, which he effectually suppressed. Then, on the
1st of March, 1899, he was constitutionally elected President,
after resigning his dictatorial powers for a fortnight, in
order that the election might be freely held.
UTAH: A. D. 1895-1896.
Prohibition of polygamous marriages.
Proclamation of admission to the Union.
On the 4th of January, 1896, a proclamation by the President

of the United States, after reciting the provisions of the Act
of Congress approved July 16, 1894, and the action taken by a
convention of the people of Utah, held in accordance with the
said act, in March, 1895, which convention "did, by ordinance
irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the
people of said State, as required by said act, provide that
perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and
that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person
or property on account of his or her mode of religious
worship, but that polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited," thereupon declared and proclaimed the creation of
the State of Utah and its admission into the Union to be
accomplished. The constitution of the new State has some
radical features, providing for an eight-hours labor-day, and
giving to women equal rights with men in suffrage and in
eligibility to public office.
V.
VASSOS, Colonel, in Crete.

TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).
"VEGETARIANS," The.

CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895.
Revolt suppressed.
An attempted rising, in the interest of Dr. Rojas Paul,

against the government of President Crespo, in the autumn of
1895, was quickly suppressed.
VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (July).

The question of the boundary of British Guiana taken up by the
government of the United States.
Despatch of Secretary Olney to Ambassador Bayard.
For a number of years the government of the United States had

been exerting itself to bring about the settlement of a long
standing dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela
concerning the line of boundary between the territory of
Venezuela and that of British Guiana. In 1895 the effort
became more resolute, as appeared in a lengthy despatch
addressed, on the 20th of July, by the American Secretary of
State, Mr. Olney, to the American Ambassador in London, Mr.
Bayard. In this despatch Mr. Olney reviewed the long
controversy which had been in progress, and recalled the
communications on the subject which had passed between the
governments of the United States and Great Britain since 1886.
He then summarised "the important features of the existing
situation" as represented in his recital, by the following
statement:
"1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very

large extent is in dispute between Great Britain on the one
hand, and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the
other.
2. The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that

Venezuela can hope to establish her claim only through
peaceful methods—through an agreement with her adversary
either upon the subject itself or upon an arbitration.
3. The controversy with varying claims on the part of Great

Britain has existed for more than half-a-century, during which
period many earnest and persistent efforts of Venezuela to
establish a boundary by agreement have proved unsuccessful.
4. The futility of the endeavour to obtain a conventional line

being recognized, Venezuela, for a quarter of a century, has
asked and striven for arbitration.
5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously

refused, and still refuses, to arbitrate except upon the
condition of a renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan
claim, and of a concession to herself of a large share of the
territory in controversy.
{685}
6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the

instance of Venezuela, by constantly urging and promoting the
restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries,
by pressing for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering
to act as Arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever
new alleged instances of British aggression upon Venezuelan
territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of
the United States has made it clear to Great Britain and to
the world that the controversy is one in which both its honour
and its interests are involved, and the continuance of which
it cannot regard with indifference."
Mr. Olney proceeds next to consider the rights, the interests

and the duty of the United States in the matter, and to what
extent, if any, it "may and should intervene in a controversy
between and primarily concerning only Great Britain and
Venezuela," and his conclusions on these points are founded on
the doctrine set forth by President Monroe, of resistance to
European intervention in American affairs. Quoting President
Monroe's celebrated Message on the subject, in 1823, Mr. Olney
remarks:
"The Message just quoted declared that the American continents

were fully occupied, and were not the subjects for future
colonization by European Powers. To this spirit and this
purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same
Message which treat any infringement of the rule against
interference in American affairs on the part of the Powers of
Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. It
was realized that it was futile to lay down such a rule unless
its observance could be enforced. It was manifest that the
United States was the only Power in this hemisphere capable of
enforcing it. It was therefore courageously declared, not
merely that Europe ought not to interfere in American affairs,
but that any European Power doing so would be regarded as
antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the
United States.
"That America is in no part open to colonization, though the

proposition was not universally admitted at the time of its
first enunciation, has long been universally conceded. We are
now concerned, therefore, only with that other practical
application of the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by
an European Power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness
towards the United States. The precise scope and limitations
of this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. It does not
establish any general Protectorate by the United States over
other American States. It does not relieve any American State
from its obligations as fixed by international law, nor
prevent any European Power directly interested from enforcing
such obligations or from inflicting merited punishment for the
breach of them. It does not contemplate any interference in
the internal affairs of any American State, or in the
relations between it and other American States. It does not
justify any attempt on our part to change the established form
of Government of any American State, or to prevent the people
of such State from altering that form according to their own
will and pleasure. The rule in question has but a single
purpose and object. It is that no European Power or
combination of European Powers shall forcibly deprive an
American State of the right and power of self-government, and
of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and
destinies. That the rule thus defined has been the accepted
public law of this country ever since its promulgation cannot
fairly be denied. …
"It is manifest that, if a rule has been openly and uniformly

declared and acted upon by the Executive Branch of the
Government for more than seventy years without express
repudiation by Congress, it must be conclusively presumed to
have its sanction. Yet it is certainly no more than the exact
truth to say that every Administration since President
Monroe's has had occasion, and sometimes more occasions than
one, to examine and consider the Monroe doctrine, and has in
each instance given it emphatic indorsement. … A doctrine of
American public law thus long and firmly established and
supported could not easily be ignored in a proper case for its
application, even were the considerations upon which it is
founded obscure or questionable. No such objection can be
made, however, to the Monroe doctrine understood and defined
in the manner already stated. It rests, on the contrary, upon
facts and principles that are both intelligible and
incontrovertible. That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening
ocean make any permanent political union between an European
and an American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington
observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to
herself. America is not interested in them, and ought not to
be vexed or complicated with them. …
"If, … for the reasons stated, the forcible intrusion of

European Powers into American politics is to be deprecated—if,
as it is to be deprecated, it should be resisted and
prevented—such resistance and prevention must come from the
United States. They would come from it, of course, were it
made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must
also come from it when any other American State is attacked,
since only the United States has the strength adequate to the
exigency. Is it true, then, that the safety and welfare of the
United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the
independence of every American State as against any European
Power as to justify and require the interposition of the
United States whenever that independence is endangered? The
question can be candidly answered in but one way. The States
of America, South as well as North, by geographical proximity,
by natural sympathy, by similarity of Governmental
Constitutions, are friends and allies, commercially and
politically, of the United States. To allow the subjugation of
any of them by an European Power is, of course, to completely
reverse that situation, and signifies the loss of all the
advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that
is not all. The people of the United States have a vital
interest in the cause of popular self-government. … To-day the
United States is practically Sovereign on this continent, and
its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its
interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship
or good-will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its
high character as a civilised State, nor because wisdom and
justice and equity are the invariable characteristics of the
dealings of the United States. It is because, in addition to
all other grounds, its infinite resources, combined with its
isolated position, render it master of the situation, and
practically invulnerable as against any or all other Powers.
{686}
All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperilled
if the principle be admitted that European Powers may convert
American States into Colonies or provinces of their own. The
principle would be eagerly availed of, and every Power doing
so would immediately acquire a base of military operations
against us. What one Power was permitted to do could not be
denied to another, and it is not inconceivable that the
struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be
transferred to South America. If it were, the weaker countries

Street On Torts 15Th Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Street On Torts 15Th Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Street On Torts 15Th Edition Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(eBook PDF) Street on Torts 15th

Table of Cases xiii

Par t I Intro d uc tio n

1 Overview of tort law 3

Par t II Ne g lige n t in va sio n s o f pe r s o n a l , pro pe r t y,

2 Duty of care I: foundational principles 25

Section 4 Application of Caparo 112

Par t III In te ntio n a l in va sio n s o f inte re s t s in the

10 Trespass to the person and related torts 245

12 Trespass to land 293

Par t IV Misre pre se ntatio n -ba se d and

14 False representations 335

Par t V To r t s in vo lv in g s tric t o r

16 Product liability 387

Par t V I In te re s t s in re pu tatio n : de fa m atio n

20 Defamation: foundational principles 493

Section 9 Apology 550

PART VII Privac y

22 Privacy actions in tort 559

Par t VIII Mi suse o f pro ce ss and pub l ic p owe r s

23 Misuse of process and public powers 573

Par t IX Par tie s and re me die s

24 Vicarious liability 587

Section 3 Introduction to damages 644

Appendix 1 Additional Chapter 669

Box v Jubb (1879) 4 Ex D 76 . . . 466 British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2011]

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis [1955] AC Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509 . . . 597

"Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and fortunately

"The prophets of evil were not the builders of the republic,

"As heretofore so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its

"We face at this moment a most important question—that of the

"The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people

"While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on February

"The settled purpose, long ago proclaimed, to afford the

"Our countrymen should not be deceived. We are not waging war

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).

Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States 1889-1893,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March-April).

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).

A Press despatch from Washington, April 24, announced that the

The cavalry is to be organized into fifteen regiments,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (May).

The opinions of the Supreme Court in the cases before it known

In the case of Elias S. A. De Lima et al. the opinion of the

See, (in this volume),

It was held in this decisive opinion that Porto Rico, at the

But in the case of Samuel B. Downes et al. a different set of

"We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a

"First—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are

"Second—That Territories are not States, within the meaning of

"Third—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are

"Fourth—That the Territories are not within the clause of the

1 Overview of tort law 3

2 Duty of care I: foundational principles 25

Section 4 Application of Caparo 112

10 Trespass to the person and related torts 245

12 Trespass to land 293

14 False representations 335

16 Product liability 387

20 Defamation: foundational principles 493

Section 9 Apology 550

22 Privacy actions in tort 559

23 Misuse of process and public powers 573

24 Vicarious liability 587

Section 3 Introduction to damages 644

Appendix 1 Additional Chapter 669