The Second Supplement to the Twenty-Second Edition brings the Main Work fully up to date with the latest developments, including decisions of the Supreme Court in:
Perry v Raleys Solicitors on the correct approach to a “lost chance” claim against solicitors, approving Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons
Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe on the potential liability of a parent company in relation to the activities of its subsidiaries
Stocker v Stocker on the correct approach to determining the meaning of words posted to a social media site (Facebook) for the purposes of the tort of defamation
James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis holding that an employer does not owe a duty of care to employees to defend a civil action against the employer in a manner that protects the employees from economic or reputational harm
Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA holding that no duty of care is owed by a bank to a casino in respect of a credit reference on a customer given to the casino’s agent, where the bank was unaware of the existence of the casino
And in the Court of Appeal, including:
Economou v de Freitas and Serafin v Malkiewicz on the correct approach to s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013 and its relationship to the common law defence of responsible journalism
ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd confirming that the same policy objections to awarding compensation for the costs of raising a healthy child in a wrongful birth claim apply to breach of strict contractual obligations as well as negligence actions
Khan v Meadows holding that negligent advice about the risk of a child being born with haemophilia did not give rise to a claim for the costs of raising a child with autism in a wrongful birth claim, applying SAAMCo
Rees v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on who can qualify as a “prosecutor” for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution
Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation v Goldscheider on the correct approach to the meaning of all “reasonably practicable” steps to avoid the risk under the Control of Noise Regulations 2005 in a case of occupational deafness
