Snakes & ladders – New Law Journal

“The press would have us believe that criminals can do what they like and then merrily sue all and sundry for the unfortunate consequences of those actions. Sadly for tabloid journalists this is simply not true as the Court of Appeal recently remind us in Joyce v O’Brien [2012] EWHC 1324 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 202 (May). The case is a useful reminder of the rule often shortened to “ex turpi”, namely that the court will not allow a party to profit from a loss arising from that party’s own criminal or immoral activity.”

Full story

New Law Journal, 27th June 2013

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Joyce v O’Brien and another – WLR Daily

Joyce v O’Brien and another [2013] EWCA Civ 546; [2013] WLR (D) 182

“Where the character of a joint criminal enterprise was such that it was foreseeable that a party or parties might be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialised, the harm could properly be said to have been caused by the criminal act of the party suffering it even if it resulted from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the criminal enterprise. Therefore, in such circumstances the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio would provide the negligent party with a defence to a claim for negligence by the injured party.”

WLR Daily, 17th May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 28th, 2013 in appeals, burden of proof, causation, fire, insurance, law reports, negligence by sally

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25

“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”

WLR Daily, 24th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London – WLR Daily

Posted January 23rd, 2013 in causation, law reports, negligence, nuisance, statutory duty, utilities by sally

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Transport for London [2013] WLR (D) 15

“On the plain construction of regulation 19 of the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 a statutory undertaker could not avoid a criminal sanction where a person contracted to act on its behalf to undertake specified works in a specified street did so without a permit.”

WLR Daily, 17th January 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Drawing the Fault Line: Multiple Tortfeasors and Intervening Acts – Cloisters

Posted December 4th, 2012 in assault, causation, negligence, news, personal injuries, prosecutions, third parties by sally

“It is not uncommon for a potential personal injury or clinical negligence claimant to have been subjected to a series of events that may all be linked to causation of his injury – we’ve all met the unfortunate client for whom nothing seems to go right. Sometimes the events will be the acts of third parties, which
may or may not be tortious; at other times, the individual’s own actions may have played a part in the causation of his injuries. The third party acts may involve personal injury, or clinical negligence, or even assault. In such circumstances, there may be multiple potential defendants to any legal claim
and serious thought needs to be given to the question of whom to claim against, to avoid potential adverse costs consequences from bringing proceedings against the wrong, or too many, defendant(s) or – worse – failing to sue the tortfeasor ultimately found to be primarily or even solely responsible for the claimant’s losses.”

Full story (PDF)

Cloisters, November 2012

Source: www.cloisters.com

Gore v Stannard (trading as Wyvern Tyres) – WLR Daily

Posted October 11th, 2012 in appeals, causation, fire, insurance, law reports, strict liability by sally

Gore v Stannard (trading as Wyvern Tyres) [2012] EWCA Civ 1248; [2012] WLR (D) 266

“Where a party brought a claim relying on the strict liability rule under Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the claim being founded on an outbreak of fire said to be caused by another party having brought a ‘thing’ on to his land which then ‘escaped’, close attention would have to be given to the precise ‘thing’ which was said to have ‘escaped’ when analysing whether the principles relied on in fact applied. It remained a moot point whether there was any room for the classic principles to be reformulated in fire cases.”

WLR Daily, 4th October 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) – WLR daily

Posted June 13th, 2011 in causation, delay, doctors, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by tracey

Wright v Cambridge Medical Group (a partnership) [2011] EWCA Civ 669;  [2011] WLR (D)  189

“General practitioners were liable in negligence for the late referral of an infant to hospital where, if she had received effective treatment in time, she would probably have made a full recovery from an infection which in fact caused permanent damage to her hip.”

WLR Daily, 9th June 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd; Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council – WLR daily

Posted March 11th, 2011 in asbestos, causation, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally
“The special rule attributing causation to multiple defendants in mesothelioma cases also applied to a single defendant who, in breach of duty, exposed a victim to asbestos dust, where her only other known exposure was low level asbestos fibres in the general atmosphere and where she subsequently contracted the disease.”
WLR Daily, 10th March 2011
 
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 4th, 2011 in causation, consumer protection, law reports, unfair commercial practices by sally

Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 106 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 34

“For the purposes of applying the causation test in regulations 5 and 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 the combined effect of all relevant misleading acts and omissions had first to be ascertained, and then subjected to the test whether, taken in the aggregate, it would probably cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken.”

WLR Daily, 3rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Sienkiewicz (administratrix of the estate of Enid Costello decd) v Greif (UK) Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted November 12th, 2009 in asbestos, causation, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Sienkiewicz (administratrix of the estate of Enid Costello decd) v Greif (UK) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1159; [2009] WLR (D) 321

“A claimant bringing an action in tort for exposure to asbestos dust resulting in mesothelioma was required to establish that the tortious exposure had materially increased the risk of contracting the disease.”

WLR Daily, 10th November 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Burglar cleared of woman’s murder – BBC News

Posted July 17th, 2009 in assault, causation, grievous bodily harm, murder, news by sally

“A burglar who attacked a 94-year-old woman has been cleared of her murder.”

Full story

BBC News, 16th July 2009

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Bailey v Ministry of Defence and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted August 26th, 2008 in causation, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Bailey v Ministry of Defence and Another

Court of Appeal

“Where medical science could not establish the probability that but for an act of negligence an injury would not have happened but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘but for’ test was modified and the claimant would succeed.”

The Times, 26th August 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Bailey (by her father and litigation friend) v Ministry of Defence and another – WLR Daily

Posted July 31st, 2008 in causation, law reports, negligence, personal injuries by sally

Bailey (by her father and litigation friend) v Ministry of Defence and another [2008] EWCA Civ 883

“Where medical science could not establish the probability that ‘but for’ an act of negligence an injury would not have happened, but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the ‘but for’ test was modified and the claimant would succeed.”

WLR Daily, 30th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Drake v Harbour – Times Law Reports

Posted March 25th, 2008 in causation, law reports, negligence by sally

Drake v Harbour

Court of Appeal

“Where a claimant proved both that a defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, that would ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the claimant was unable to prove positively the precise mechanism.”

The Times, 24th March 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.