Clerk & Lindsell On Torts 21st ed (eBook)

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

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) Ltd 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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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