Clerk & Lindsell on Torts is the definitive work in this area. It supplies the most authoritative guidance available on all aspects of the law of tort and 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
When you are dealing with tort law, there really is only one work to turn to - Clerk & Lindsell on Torts. With an unrivalled reputation, it gives you guidance on the entire range of torts, from first principles through to negligence, defamation and passing-off.
Part of the Common Law Library, Clerk & Lindsell is clearly written and set out in an easy-to-use style. With coverage of key legislation and case law, it really is a must-have for any tort law practitioner.
Publishing October 2011, the 1st supplement to the 20th edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts brings the main work up to date with all the latest developments including 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) Ltd where it was held that the Fairchild test of causation applies in a case of exposure to asbestos by a single defendant where the claimant has also been non-tortiously 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, so the fact the defendant could have acted lawfully to detain the claimant is not a defence where the defendant has in fact acted unlawfully in detaining the claimant (although this is a relevant consideration when considering an award of damages – the claimant was entitled to nominal damages only)
-
Jones v Kaney on the removal of immunity from claims in negligence of expert witnesses
-
A v Essex County Council - the failure for a period of 18 months to cater for the special educational needs of a child did not constitute a denial of the child's right to education under the ECHR, Protocol 1, art.2
-
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
And a number of important decisions have also been handed down by the Court of Appeal:
-
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust limiting the state's duty under Art.2 ECHR to voluntary mental patients
-
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
-
Desmond v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire - no duty of care owed by the police to a person applying for an enhanced criminal record certificate, even though errors in the information provided affected the claimant’s ability to obtain employment
-
Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd (t/a Metropolitan) holding that the management of a nightclub could owe a duty of care to customers in respect of an assault by a third party (another customer)
-
Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd holding that an ordinary building contract does not give rise to an assumption of responsibility between builder and building owner, and the relationship is governed by the contract rather than the law of tort
-
Connor v Surrey County Council on the relationship between a common law action for negligence in respect of personal injury the a local authority’s failure to exercise a statutory discretion conferred by public law
-
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Conarken Group Ltd where claims for economic loss were held recoverable following the interruption of rail services caused by negligently inflicted damage to the railway infrastructure
-
Scout Association v Barnes and Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd on the balance between the social value of an activity and the degree of risk of harm in determining whether the activity was reasonably safe
-
Chubb Fire Ltd v Vicar of Spalding on the circumstances in which the conduct of a third party will constitute an intervening act
-
Wright (A Child) v Cambridge Medical Group on the attribution of causation in a case involving negligently delayed diagnosis by a general practitioner and subsequent negligent medical treatment by a hospital
-
Smith v Youth Justice Board for England and Wales rejecting a claim for psychiatric damage by a custody officer at a secure training centre when a detainee died following inappropriate physical restraint of the boy by the claimant and other officers
-
Levicom International Holdings BV v Linklaters indicating that little will be needed in the way of evidence to establish causation in a case of negligent advice by a solicitor to a client about commencing proceedings
-
Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger on the application of the ex turpi causa defence to a claimant company in breach of the Competition Act 1998
-
Lambert v Barratt Homes Ltd concerning the extent of an occupier’s liability for the cost of remedial works to prevent flooding to neighbouring land
- A number of issues relating to nuisance and negligence affecting the maintenance and use of the highway were considered in Wilkinson v York City Council, Ali City of Bradford, Yetkin v London Borough of Newham, and Valentine v Transport for London
-
TTM v Hackney LBC on a local authority’s vicarious liability for the actions of an approved mental health professional who had applied to detain the claimant under the Mental Health Act 1983, notwithstanding that the application was made in good faith
-
RMT v Serco Ltd on the requirements relating to balloting for strike action and the provision of information to employers imposed on trade unions under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
-
Brink’s Global Services v Igrox Ltd and Maga v Birmingham Roman Catholic Archdiocese Trustees on the “close connection” test for vicarious liability established by Lister v Hesley Hall
-
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd on the application of the Reynolds qualified privilege defence to an action for defamation
-
Clift v Slough BC on the loss of the defence of qualified privilege where the disclosure of defamatory information was too extensive (“ill-considered and indiscriminate”) and so was disproportionate
-
Khader v Aziz on “malice” in the context of qualified privilege and defamation
-
Moulton v Chief Constable of the West Midlands on the meaning of reasonable and probable cause, and malice, in an action for malicious prosecution
-
Tchenguiz v Imerman on the confidential nature the relationship between spouses, and ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd on the private nature of a sexual relationship
-
Jenson v Faux where it was held that the duty owed under the Defective Premises Act 1972, s.1 does not apply to improvements to an existing dwelling-house
