CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS by Professor Michael A. Jones ( 9780414052802 )

Item Details

Title:

CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS

Volume:

Mainwork & Supplement

By:

Professor Michael A. Jones

Format:

Hardback

List price:	£575.00
We currently do not stock this item, please contact the publisher directly for further information.

ISBN 10:

0414052803

ISBN 13:

9780414052802

Publisher:

SWEET & MAXWELL LTD

Pub. date:

23 September, 2015

Edition:

21st edition

Pages:

2592

Synopsis:

As part of our Common Law Library series, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts stands out as one of our flagship titles. It is the definitive work and market leader in this area of law; it offers the most comprehensive coverage of the subject, providing the end user with indispensable access to current, frequent and unrivalled authoritative information on all aspects of tort law. An essential reference tool, Clerk & Lindsell is widely referred to and cited by practitioners and the judiciary. Clerk & Lindsell on Torts: Covers all areas of tort, including negligence, defamation, nuisance and trespass, and statutory torts Deals with common law, statutory, individual and commercial torts individually, chapter by chapter Offers unequalled explanation of the general principles and shows how these apply in different situations through detailed analysis of case law Gives detailed guidance on remedies, such as damages and injunctions Examines possible defences and arguments that can be used Covers the relevant human rights issues Considers Commonwealth law, making the work relevant throughout the common law world Keeps you fully up to date with regular supplements New to the 21st Edition The new edition will bring work completely up to date with the changes in the law since the last edition, including those arising from the Defamation Act 2013 and the developments in all of the key case law, including for example decisions of the Supreme Court in: Baker v Quantum Clothing Group on the relationship between an action for breach of statutory duty and common law negligence in respect of a claim for occupationally induced deafness. Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltdy where it was held that the Fairchild test of causation applies in a case where the claimant has also been non-torsiously exposed to asbestos. R (on the application of WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department where it was held that a ?causation test? does not apply to the tort of false imprisonment. A v Essex CC ? the failure for a period of 18 months to cater for the special educational needs of a child does not constitute a denial of the child?s right to education. Joseph v Spiller ? in an action for defamation it is not a prerequisite of the defence of honest or fair comment that the readers should be in a position to evaluate the comment for themselves. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth holding that helmets and armour forming part of the ?storm trooper? costumes in the Star Wars films were neither sculptures nor works of artistic craftsmanship within the meaning of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Smith v Ministry of Defence where it was held that ?combat immunity? did not apply to the provision of allegedly defective equipment or inadequate training to serving soldiers and that therefore the Ministry could owe a duty of care to service personnel killed or injured in a combat zone in some circumstances Catholic Child Welfare Society v The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools: an unincorporated association of lay brothers could be vicariously liable for an intentional tort committed by brothers who perform teaching duties at a school Ruddy v Chief Constable of Strathclyde where the Supreme Court held that a damages claim based on violations of Art.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be permitted to proceed in relation to an alleged assault by police officers and an alleged failure to investigate the case Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc on whether the Financial Services Authority was required to give a cross-undertaking in damages for loss suffered by innocent third parties when seeking a worldwide freezing injunction of a person?s assets who was suspected of fraudulent share-dealing Hayes v Willoughby on the defence contained in s.1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to an action for harassment Vestergaard Frandsen A/S v Bestnet Europe Ltd on liability for breach of confidence in the use of trade secrets R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Sturnham) v Parole Board on the principles applicable to Art.5(4) cases arising from delay in the review of a prisoner?s detention And in Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd the Privy Council held that an action for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings could lie The new edition will also cover all of the important decisions handed down by the Court of Appeal, for example: Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank concerning the application of SAAMCO to negligence actions against lawyers. Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd v Pritchard where it was held that contributory negligence could not be relied upon as a defence to an action in trespass to the person.y Connor v Surrey CC on the relationship between a common law action for negligence in respect of personal injury and a local authority?s failure to exercise a statutory discretion conferred by public law.y In International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Supreme Court decision in Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd has, in effect, overruled the decision of the House of Lords in Barker v Corus Joyce v O?Brien on the ?causation test? for ex turpi causa defence Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc on the nature of an unlawful act sufficient to engage the illegality defence Smeaton v Equifax plc on whether a credit reference agency owes a duty of care to a person refused credit on the basis of adverse data on his credit file Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd on who qualifies as a secondary victim for the purposes of a negligence action for ?pure? psychiatric damage Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) v Barratt Homes Limited on the principle that a mere failure to perform a statutory duty will not normally give rise to a common law right to damages if the statute itself does not give rise to an action for breach of statutory duty Chief Constable of Hampshire Police v Taylor on the burden of proving causation in an action based on breach of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 Brumder v Motornet Service and Repairs Ltd where the Court of Appeal extended the defence in Ginty v Belmont Building Supplies and Boyle v Kodak to a case where the claimant was the sole director and shareholder of the defendant company, and had breached a different duty from the duty whose breach was the basis of his action Gore v Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) where the Court of Appeal considered the application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to cases of fire, and concluded that its scope is significantly narrower than previous interpretations of the rule appeared to suggest Tamiz v Google Inc on the responsibility of the provider of an internet platform for blogging for defamatory content contained within individual blogs Cruddas v Times Newspapers Ltd on whether accusing a politician of acting ?corruptly? involved an allegation of criminal corruption for the purposes of defamation Cairns v Modi and KC v MGN Ltd on damages awards in actions for libel Force India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd on the measure of damages for unlawful use made of confidential information The First Supplement brings the Main Work fully up to date with the latest developments, including decisions of the Supreme Court in: Coventry v Lawrence (No.2) on the liability of landlords for a noise nuisance caused by their tenants Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK on the requirements for liability as a joint tortfeasor as an accessory to the commission of a tort Hounga v Allen, Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd, and Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc where the Supreme Court reviewed, without finally resolving, the criteria to be applied to the defence of ex turpi causa International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc UK where it was held that the common law rule established in Barker v Corus (that when causation is established by applying the Fairchild principle the defendant?s liability is proportional to the risk created by the defendant) is still good law Jackson v Murray where the principles to be applied to an assessment of apportionment in cases of contributory negligence, and the circumstances in which an appellate court can overturn such an assessment, were reviewed Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc holding that the Water Industry Act 1991 carries an implied right on the part of a sewerage undertaker to discharge surface water and certain treated effluents into private watercourses where the duties imposed under the Act could not be performed without continuing to discharge from existing outfalls Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales on whether the police owe a duty of care to victims of violence when they are aware of immediate and credible threats to the victim but fail to act on that knowledge (and the difference in this context between a duty of care in tort and claim under art.2 ECHR) Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board on the duty owed by a doctor to a patient to disclose information about the risks of proposed medical treatment and the alternatives to that treatment R (on the application of Kaiyam) v Secretary of State for Justice on the ancillary duty under art.5 ECHR to facilitate the rehabilitation and release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences when in the post-tariff stage (though the prisoner?s detention remains lawful under art.5) Rhodes v OPO on the necessary mental element for the tort of intentional infringement of the right to personal safety, as established in Wilkinson v Downton (holding that intention cannot be imputed as a matter of law, though it can be inferred as a question of fact) Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc on the question of what level of goodwill a foreign company must have in the UK in order to bring a claim in passing off A number of important decisions have also been handed down by the Court of Appeal, including: Best v Chief Land Registrar holding that, although a squatter who enters a residential property commits an offence under s.144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, this illegality does not prevent his conduct from qualifying as adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 Bostridge v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust holding that a mentally disordered patient who had been detained unlawfully because the NHS Trust had failed to comply with statutory requirements was entitled to nominal damages only because his mental state was such that he could have been lawfully detained throughout the period concerned Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v Copeland on who can be regarded as the prosecutor for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution Coope v Ward on the ?measured duty of care? owed by adjoining landowners in relation to the collapse of a wall between the properties where the wall had provided support for the claimants? land Coventry University v Mian and Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the correct approach to a claim for psychiatric harm induced by stress at work arising out of disciplinary procedures instituted by the employer Crawford v Jenkins on the fundamental distinction between actions where a complainant is said to have procured an abuse of the process of a court and those where no such abuse of process occurs and which may be appropriately argued in false imprisonment Cruddas v Calvert on the test for showing malice in an action for malicious falsehood Haxton v Philips Electronics UK Ltd where a widow whose life expectancy had been curtailed by the defendant?s negligence was entitled to recover the diminution in the value of her claim for loss of dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 arising out of the death of her husband Levi v Bates holding that the ability to bring a harassment claim was not restricted to the individual targeted by the course of conduct complained of, but extended to other persons who were foreseeably and directly harmed by the course of conduct Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Ronayne on the test for what qualifies as a ?horrifying? event for the purposes of a claim in respect of psychiatric harm when witnessing the consequences of clinical negligence in a hospital Northumbrian Water Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd holding that a claim in nuisance for an unforeseeable isolated escape causing physical damage could not succeed unless it fell within the rule in Rylands v Fletcher Walker v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where it was held that confining an individual in a doorway for a short a time without lawful authority amounts to a false imprisonment Zenati v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the important distinction between a claimant's action in respect of art.5 ECHR and a claim in false imprisonment

Publication:

Imprint:

Sweet & Maxwell

Returns:

Non-returnable

Some other items by this author:

177 WAYS TO LOSE WEIGHT AND BURN CALORIES

24 HOURS AT AGINCOURT

24 HOURS AT AGINCOURT (HB)

24 HOURS AT AGINCOURT (PB)

A CALL FOR ME (PB)

A HANDBOOK OF DATES (PB)