Cyfraith Achosion
Trosolwg cynhwysfawr o bob maes cyfreithiol pwysig yng nghyfraith Lloegr.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
[1893] 1 QB 256 · Court of Appeal · 1893
An advertisement can constitute a unilateral offer to the world at large, which is accepted by performing the stipulated conditions. Consideration is provided by the inconvenience of performing those conditions. The deposit of money in a bank as a show of sincerity negates any argument that the offer was a mere puff.
Donoghue v Stevenson
[1932] AC 562 · House of Lords · 1932
A manufacturer of products owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the products reach the consumer in the form in which they left the manufacturer, with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination. More broadly, you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour — that is, persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.
R v Woollin
[1999] 1 AC 82 · House of Lords · 1999
Where a defendant did not directly intend a result but the result was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant's actions, and the defendant appreciated that this was so, the jury is entitled to find (but is not required to find) that the defendant had the necessary intention. The word 'find' should be used rather than 'infer', correcting the direction in R v Nedrick [1986].
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
[1897] AC 22 · House of Lords · 1897
A properly incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, even where one person effectively controls the company and is its principal shareholder. The company's debts are not the debts of its shareholders. The corporate veil will not be lifted merely because it is 'just and equitable' to do so or because the company is in substance a one-person operation.
Hyde v Wrench
(1840) 3 Beav 334 · Court of Chancery · 1840
A counter-offer destroys the original offer, which cannot thereafter be accepted. When an offeree responds with a counter-offer rather than an unconditional acceptance, the original offer is terminated and a new offer is made which the original offeror is free to accept or reject.
Balfour v Balfour
[1919] 2 KB 571 · Court of Appeal · 1919
Agreements between spouses relating to their domestic arrangements are not contracts because the parties do not intend to create legal relations. There is a presumption against contractual intention in domestic and social agreements.
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd
[1991] 1 QB 1 · Court of Appeal · 1991
Where a party to an existing contract promises additional payment in return for the other party's promise to perform existing contractual obligations, and the promisor thereby obtains a practical benefit or avoids a disbenefit, this practical benefit is capable of constituting good consideration, provided there is no economic duress.
Hadley v Baxendale
(1854) 9 Ex 341 · Court of Exchequer · 1854
Damages for breach of contract are limited to those which: (1) arise naturally from the breach (according to the usual course of things), or (2) may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time the contract was made, as the probable result of the breach.
Stilk v Myrick
(1809) 2 Camp 317 · King's Bench · 1809
Performing an existing contractual duty owed to the promisor does not constitute good consideration for a fresh promise. Where a party merely does what they are already contractually bound to do, they provide nothing additional to support a new promise of extra payment.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
[1990] 2 AC 605 · House of Lords · 1990
A duty of care in negligence arises only where three criteria are satisfied: (1) the damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct; (2) there must be a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties; and (3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. This three-stage test replaced the broad two-stage test from Anns v Merton [1978].
Rylands v Fletcher
(1868) LR 3 HL 330 · House of Lords · 1868
A person who brings onto their land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at their peril, and if they fail to do so, they are prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is a form of strict liability for non-natural use of land.
Nettleship v Weston
[1971] 2 QB 691 · Court of Appeal · 1971
The standard of care expected of a learner driver is the same as that of a reasonably competent experienced driver. The standard of care in negligence is objective — it does not take account of the particular defendant's inexperience or lack of skill.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc
[1994] 2 AC 264 · House of Lords · 1994
Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a prerequisite for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and in nuisance. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance and should be developed in that context. Strict liability does not mean liability for unforeseeable consequences.
R v Cunningham
[1957] 2 QB 396 · Court of Criminal Appeal · 1957
The word 'maliciously' in a criminal statute requires proof that the defendant either intended the particular kind of harm that in fact occurred, or was reckless as to whether such harm should occur — i.e., the defendant foresaw the risk of that harm and went on to take it anyway. This is subjective recklessness (Cunningham recklessness).
R v Adomako
[1995] 1 AC 171 · House of Lords · 1995
Gross negligence manslaughter is established where: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the death; and (4) the negligence was so gross as to be characterised as criminal. The question of whether negligence is 'gross' is for the jury.
R v Brown
[1994] 1 AC 212 · House of Lords · 1994
Consent is not a defence to the infliction of actual bodily harm or more serious injury for the purpose of sadomasochistic activities. The House of Lords held (by a 3–2 majority) that public policy required that consent should not be available as a defence to what would otherwise be assaults occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 OAPA 1861, where the purpose of the activity was the satisfaction of sadomasochistic desires.
DPP v Smith
[1961] AC 290 · House of Lords · 1961
An objective test for intention in murder was established: a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. This decision was later reversed by statute (s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967) which required courts to have regard to all the evidence and draw inferences from it, restoring a subjective approach.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
[1948] 1 KB 223 · Court of Appeal · 1948
A decision of a public authority can be challenged on the ground that it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it (Wednesbury unreasonableness). The court will intervene if the authority has taken into account irrelevant factors, failed to take into account relevant factors, or reached a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have reached it.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
[2017] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2017
The government could not use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 TEU and begin the UK's withdrawal from the European Union without an Act of Parliament. Since the European Communities Act 1972 had given EU law effect in domestic law, and withdrawal would remove rights conferred by Parliament, only Parliament could authorise the removal of those rights.
Keech v Sandford
(1726) Sel Cas Ch 61 · Court of Chancery · 1726
A trustee must not profit from their position of trust. Where a trustee takes a renewal of a lease that they hold on trust, the renewed lease is held on the same trust, even if the landlord had refused to renew the lease for the benefit of the beneficiary. The rule is strict and inflexible to prevent trustees from being tempted to act in their own interest.
Stack v Dowden
[2007] UKHL 17 · House of Lords · 2007
Where a family home is conveyed into the joint names of cohabitants without an express declaration of trust, equity follows the law and the presumption is that the beneficial interest is held jointly in equal shares. This presumption can be displaced, but only by showing that the parties' common intention at the time of acquisition (or subsequently) was to hold in different shares, and the burden of displacing the presumption is heavy.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
[2013] UKSC 34 · Supreme Court · 2013
The court distinguished between 'piercing the corporate veil' (treating the company and its controller as one — the concealment principle) and the 'evasion principle' (where a person interposes a company to evade or frustrate an existing legal obligation). The Supreme Court held that veil piercing is available only under the evasion principle — where a person deliberately uses a company structure to evade an existing legal obligation. In the present case, the properties were held by the companies on resulting trust for the husband, so veil piercing was unnecessary.
Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
[1961] AC 12 · Privy Council · 1961
A person can be both the controlling shareholder and managing director of a company and simultaneously be employed by that company as a worker. The company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders and directors, following Salomon v Salomon. A controlling shareholder can therefore enter into a valid contract of employment with the company they control.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
[1986] AC 112 · House of Lords · 1986
A child under 16 can consent to medical treatment (including contraceptive advice and treatment) without parental knowledge or consent, provided the child has sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is proposed. This is known as 'Gillick competence'. Parental rights diminish as the child matures and are justified only insofar as they are needed for the child's protection.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
[1978] QB 761 · Court of Appeal · 1978
Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer. The test is contractual, not based on the employer's unreasonable conduct. The employee must show the employer breached a fundamental term of the contract, they resigned in response to that breach, and they did not delay too long (thereby affirming the contract).
British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
[1980] ICR 303 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 1978
In cases of dismissal for misconduct, the employer must show: (1) a genuine belief in the employee's guilt, (2) reasonable grounds for that belief, and (3) a reasonable investigation. The tribunal must not substitute its own view of the evidence — it is not for the tribunal to decide whether the employee actually committed the misconduct.
White v White
[2001] 1 AC 596 · House of Lords · 2000
In determining financial provision on divorce, there should be no discrimination between a breadwinner and a homemaker. The court should check any tentative award against the 'yardstick of equality' to ensure there is no discrimination. Departure from equality requires good reason.
Radmacher v Granatino
[2010] UKSC 42 · Supreme Court · 2010
A pre-nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications should be given decisive weight unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
Street v Mountford
[1985] AC 809 · House of Lords · 1985
An agreement granting exclusive possession of residential accommodation for a term at a rent creates a tenancy, regardless of the label the parties attach to it. The court looks at the substance of the arrangement, not the form. A 'licence' that grants exclusive possession is in law a lease.
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland
[1981] AC 487 · House of Lords · 1981
A person in actual occupation of registered land has an overriding interest that binds a purchaser, even if the purchaser did not know of the occupation. A spouse who has contributed to the purchase price and is in actual occupation has a beneficial interest that constitutes an overriding interest.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (Cherry/Miller No 2)
[2019] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2019
The Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was justiciable and unlawful. Prorogation is unlawful if it has the effect of frustrating Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed
[2003] EWCA Civ 696 · Court of Appeal · 2003
Use of a registered trade mark on goods, even if perceived by the public as a badge of allegiance rather than an indication of trade origin, constitutes trade mark infringement if it affects the essential function of the trade mark — guaranteeing the identity of the origin of the goods.
Google LLC v Lloyd
[2021] UKSC 50 · Supreme Court · 2021
A representative action for breach of data protection legislation cannot succeed where the claim is for uniform, per capita damages without proof of individual loss. Each class member must show they suffered material damage or distress — 'loss of control' of personal data alone, without more, does not give rise to a right to compensation.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] UKSC 11 · Supreme Court · 2015
A doctor is under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. A risk is 'material' if a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
[1957] 1 WLR 582 · High Court (QBD) · 1957
A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if other doctors would have acted differently. This is the 'Bolam test' for professional negligence.
Adams v Cape Industries plc
[1990] Ch 433 · Court of Appeal · 1990
The corporate veil will only be lifted in limited circumstances: where the company is a mere façade concealing the true facts, where a company is an agent of its parent, or where statute authorises it. The fact that a subsidiary is wholly owned and controlled by a parent does not, without more, justify piercing the corporate veil.
Central London Property Trust v High Trees House
[1947] KB 130 · King's Bench Division · 1947
A promise made without consideration may be binding if the promisor intended it to be acted upon and the promisee has relied upon it. This established the modern doctrine of promissory estoppel in English law.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
[1980] AC 827 · House of Lords · 1980
An exclusion clause can be effective even in cases of fundamental breach, provided it is clear enough to cover the breach in question. The doctrine of fundamental breach as a rule of law was rejected.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
[1964] AC 465 · House of Lords · 1964
A duty of care can arise in respect of negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss, where there is a 'special relationship' between the parties. The defendant must have assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the statement and the claimant must have reasonably relied on it.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
[2002] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2002
Where a claimant cannot prove which of several negligent defendants caused their injury (because each materially increased the risk), the 'but for' test of causation is modified. Each defendant who materially contributed to the risk is liable.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
[2017] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2017
The test for dishonesty in criminal and civil law is objective: the court must first ascertain the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts, then determine whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The subjective element of the Ghosh test (whether the defendant knew their conduct was dishonest) was held to be wrong.
R v Dudley and Stephens
(1884) 14 QBD 273 · Queen's Bench Division · 1884
Necessity is not a defence to murder. The deliberate killing of an innocent person to preserve one's own life is murder, even in the most extreme circumstances of survival.
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen
[2016] UKSC 8 · Supreme Court · 2016
The doctrine of parasitic accessory liability (joint enterprise) was wrongly extended by R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] and R v Powell; English [1999]. Mere foresight that the principal might commit a crime is not sufficient for accessory liability; the prosecution must prove that the accessory intended to assist or encourage the principal's crime.
Entick v Carrington
(1765) 19 St Tr 1029 · Court of Common Pleas · 1765
The executive cannot interfere with the property or liberty of the individual unless authorised by law. A general warrant issued by the Secretary of State to search premises and seize papers was held to be unlawful.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1985] AC 374 · House of Lords · 1985
The exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review. The three grounds for judicial review are: illegality (decision-maker must correctly understand and apply the law), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety (failure to follow fair procedures).
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh)
[2004] UKHL 56 · House of Lords · 2004
The indefinite detention without trial of suspected foreign terrorists under s.23 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR, as it was disproportionate and discriminatory (applying only to foreign nationals).
Foss v Harbottle
(1843) 2 Hare 461 · Court of Chancery · 1843
The proper claimant in an action for a wrong done to a company is the company itself, not individual shareholders (the 'proper plaintiff' rule). Where the alleged wrong is a matter that could be ratified by a simple majority of shareholders, the court will not intervene at the suit of a minority shareholder (the 'majority rule' principle).
Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan
[1995] 2 AC 378 · Privy Council · 1995
A third party who dishonestly assists a trustee in a breach of trust is personally liable, regardless of whether the trustee acted dishonestly. The test for dishonesty is objective: whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people.
Beswick v Beswick
[1968] AC 58 · House of Lords · 1968
A third party cannot enforce a contract to which they are not a party (privity of contract). However, a party to the contract can obtain specific performance for the benefit of a third party where damages would be inadequate.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council
[1978] AC 728 · House of Lords · 1978
Lord Wilberforce proposed a two-stage test for duty of care: (1) is there sufficient proximity such that carelessness may cause damage? (2) are there policy considerations to negate or limit the duty? This expansive test was later overruled by Murphy v Brentwood.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
[2018] UKSC 4 · Supreme Court · 2018
The Caparo test is not a universal test to be applied in every case. Where an established duty of care exists (e.g., the police owe a duty not to cause foreseeable physical injury to bystanders), the court should apply established principles rather than the Caparo test.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
[1988] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1988
An employer cannot argue that a failure to follow a fair procedure made no difference to the outcome (the 'no difference' principle is rejected). However, if the tribunal finds that the employee would or might have been dismissed anyway even if a fair procedure had been followed, compensation may be reduced accordingly.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
[2011] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2011
In determining employment status, the court must look at the true agreement between the parties rather than the written terms of the contract where those terms do not reflect the reality. Sham or unrealistic contractual terms will be disregarded.
Re B (Children)
[2008] UKHL 35 · House of Lords · 2008
The standard of proof in care proceedings is the simple balance of probabilities. There is no heightened standard for serious allegations. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter to be taken into account in deciding whether it has been proved, but is not a separate legal test.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza
[2004] UKHL 30 · House of Lords · 2004
Under s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court has a broad interpretive power to read and give effect to legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights, even if this departs from the ordinary meaning of the words. This power goes beyond mere ambiguity resolution.
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd
[1925] AC 619 · House of Lords · 1925
A shareholder has no insurable interest in the assets of the company, because the company is a separate legal person. Even a sole shareholder does not own the company's assets — they own shares in the company.
Pinnel's Case
(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a · Court of Common Pleas · 1602
Payment of a lesser sum on the day it is due cannot be satisfaction for the whole debt, because payment of a lesser sum is no consideration for a promise to accept it in full settlement. However, payment of a lesser sum before the due date, at a different place, or with the addition of something else (e.g., a horse) can be good consideration.
Foakes v Beer
[1884] UKHL 1, (1884) 9 App Cas 605 · House of Lords · 1884
Payment of a lesser sum cannot be satisfaction for a greater debt. The rule in Pinnel's Case (1602) was affirmed: a creditor's promise to accept part payment in full settlement is not binding for want of consideration, even where the debtor has relied upon it.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1)
[1961] AC 388 · Privy Council · 1961
The test for remoteness of damage in negligence is reasonable foreseeability, not directness. A defendant is only liable for damage of a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen as a consequence of their negligence.
Bolton v Stone
[1951] AC 850 · House of Lords · 1951
A defendant is not negligent merely because injury is a foreseeable possibility. The risk must be sufficiently probable that a reasonable person would take precautions against it. A very small risk may be disregarded if a reasonable person would consider it insignificant.
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
[2001] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2001
An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the nature of the employment and the wrongful act. The 'close connection' test replaced the older Salmond test of whether the act was an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised act.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[1969] 1 QB 439 · Queen's Bench Divisional Court · 1969
Where an act constituting the actus reus is a continuing act, the mens rea need not be present at the inception of the act but may be superimposed upon it while it is still continuing. The actus reus and mens rea must coincide at some point, but the actus reus need not be a single instantaneous event.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
[1993] AC 789 · House of Lords · 1993
It is lawful to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (including artificial nutrition and hydration) from a patient in a persistent vegetative state where it is in the patient's best interests, provided the court's prior approval is obtained. The withdrawal is properly characterised as an omission, not a positive act.
Campbell v MGN Ltd
[2004] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2004
The tort of misuse of private information protects information in respect of which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court must balance the claimant's right to privacy (ECHR Article 8) against the defendant's right to freedom of expression (Article 10), applying a proportionality test.
Uber BV v Aslam
[2021] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2021
Uber drivers are 'workers' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Working Time Regulations, and the National Minimum Wage Act. The written contractual terms stating drivers were self-employed contractors did not reflect the true nature of the relationship. Courts must look at the reality of the working arrangement, not just the written contract.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd
[1987] AC 460 · House of Lords · 1987
A stay of English proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens will be granted where the defendant shows that there is another available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action. The court considers connecting factors (location of evidence, applicable law, residence of parties) and whether justice requires the case to be tried in England.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
[2017] UKSC 51 · Supreme Court · 2017
Fees for employment tribunal claims were unlawful because they effectively prevented access to justice. The right of access to courts is both a common law constitutional right and an EU law right. Subordinate legislation that has the effect of preventing the exercise of legal rights is ultra vires.
Tweddle v Atkinson
[1861] EWHC QB J57 · Queen's Bench · 1861
A person who is not a party to a contract cannot sue upon it, even if the contract was made for their benefit. Only a party to a contract can enforce it (the doctrine of privity).
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd
[1960] AC 87 · House of Lords · 1960
Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Even trivial items (such as chocolate bar wrappers) can constitute good consideration if they are part of the bargain, even if they have no intrinsic economic value.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
[1962] 2 QB 26 · Court of Appeal · 1962
Not all contractual terms can be classified as conditions or warranties. Some terms are 'innominate' (intermediate) — whether breach entitles the innocent party to terminate depends on the nature and consequences of the breach, not the label given to the term.
Hochster v De La Tour
[1853] EWHC QB J72 · Queen's Bench · 1853
Where one party to a contract announces before the date of performance that they will not perform their obligations, the other party may treat the contract as breached immediately and sue for damages without waiting for the performance date (anticipatory breach).
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth
[1996] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1996
The cost of reinstatement is not always the appropriate measure of damages for defective performance. Where reinstatement would be unreasonable or disproportionate, the court may award damages for loss of amenity or diminution in value instead.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
[1915] AC 79 · House of Lords · 1915
A contractual clause fixing a sum payable on breach is enforceable as liquidated damages if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered. If the sum is extravagant and unconscionable, it is a penalty and unenforceable.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
[1991] 1 AC 398 · House of Lords · 1991
A local authority owes no duty of care in negligence for the cost of repairing a defective building. Defects in the quality of a building constitute pure economic loss, which is generally not recoverable in negligence.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd
[1995] 2 AC 145 · House of Lords · 1995
A duty of care in tort may exist concurrently with contractual obligations. Where a person assumes responsibility for providing professional services and another relies on that assumption of responsibility, a tortious duty of care arises regardless of any contractual framework.
White v Jones
[1995] 2 AC 207 · House of Lords · 1995
A solicitor retained by a testator to prepare a will owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiaries. If the solicitor's negligence results in the beneficiaries receiving less than intended, they may recover damages in tort.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
[1988] AC 1074 · House of Lords · 1988
Where there are multiple possible causes of the claimant's injury, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence was a cause. It is not sufficient to show that the defendant's negligence was one of several possible causes.
Woolmington v DPP
[1935] AC 462 · House of Lords · 1935
Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen — that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution from start to finish, subject only to the defence of insanity and any statutory exceptions.
R v Cheshire
[1991] 1 WLR 844 · Court of Appeal · 1991
The defendant's act need not be the sole or even the main cause of death; it is sufficient that it contributed significantly to the result. Only if the original wound has healed and the medical treatment is so independent of the defendant's acts and so potent in causing death that the contribution of the defendant's acts is insignificant will the chain of causation be broken.
R v Howe
[1987] AC 417 · House of Lords · 1987
Duress is not available as a defence to murder, whether as a principal or as an aider and abettor. A person who takes an innocent life cannot invoke threats to their own life as a defence.
R v Ghosh
[1982] QB 1053 · Court of Appeal · 1982
Dishonesty in theft and fraud involves a two-stage test: (1) was what was done dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? (2) Did the defendant realise that ordinary decent people would regard what he did as dishonest?
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 1969
An ouster clause in a statute purporting to exclude judicial review of a tribunal's decisions cannot protect decisions made in excess of jurisdiction. Any error of law by a tribunal renders its decision a nullity, which means the ouster clause has nothing to protect.
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd
[2005] UKPC 37 · Privy Council · 2005
For dishonest assistance, the defendant must have knowledge of the facts making the transaction dishonest. It is not necessary that the defendant appreciated that what they were doing was dishonest by ordinary standards — it is sufficient that they were aware of the relevant facts.
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2015
A parking charge of £85 for overstaying a two-hour free parking limit was not an unenforceable penalty. The charge was not extravagant or unconscionable, served a legitimate interest in managing the car park, and was prominently displayed.
R v Chargot Ltd (t/a Contract Services)
[2008] UKHL 73 · House of Lords · 2008
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, once the prosecution proves that an employee was injured at work and that the employer failed to ensure their safety so far as was reasonably practicable, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it was not reasonably practicable to do more.
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton
[1903] 2 KB 683 · Court of Appeal · 1903
A contract is not frustrated merely because an event that formed one party's motive for entering the contract fails to occur. Frustration only applies where the supervening event destroys the foundation or common purpose of the contract for both parties, not merely one party's particular purpose.
Smith v Hughes
(1871) LR 6 QB 597 · Queen's Bench · 1871
The question is not what was the intention of the parties but what would a reasonable person understand the parties' intentions to be from their words and conduct. The objective test of agreement prevails over subjective intentions.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists
[1953] 1 QB 401 · Court of Appeal · 1953
The display of goods on a self-service shop shelf is an invitation to treat, not an offer. The customer makes the offer when presenting goods at the cash desk, and the shopkeeper accepts (or may decline) at that point. The contract is formed at the till, not when the customer picks up the item.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd (in liquidation)
[2005] UKHL 41 · House of Lords · 2005
A charge over book debts that allows the chargor to collect and use the proceeds of the debts in the ordinary course of business, without requiring them to be paid into a blocked account, is a floating charge, not a fixed charge, regardless of how the parties have labelled it. The essential characteristic of a fixed charge is that the chargor cannot deal with the charged assets without the chargee's consent.
Coventry v Lawrence
[2014] UKSC 13 · Supreme Court · 2014
The grant of planning permission for an activity does not, in itself, legitimise a nuisance or provide a defence to a nuisance claim. However, planning permission is relevant to the question of the character of the locality, which is one of the factors in determining whether an interference is unreasonable. The court also reconsidered the approach to injunctions, holding that damages may be awarded in lieu of an injunction and departing from the rigid approach in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895].
Derry v Peek
(1889) 14 App Cas 337 · House of Lords · 1889
Fraud (deceit) is proved when it is shown that a false representation was made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly (careless whether it be true or false). An honest belief in the truth of a statement, however unreasonable, negates fraud. Negligence, however gross, is not fraud.
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
[1969] 1 QB 428 · Queen's Bench Division · 1969
Even where a defendant owes a duty of care and is in breach of that duty, the claimant must still prove factual causation — that 'but for' the breach, the damage would not have occurred. If the claimant would have suffered the same harm regardless of the breach, the claim fails on causation.
Re Ellenborough Park
[1956] Ch 131 · Court of Appeal · 1956
For a right to qualify as an easement, four characteristics must be satisfied: (1) there must be a dominant and a servient tenement; (2) the easement must accommodate (benefit) the dominant tenement; (3) the dominant and servient owners must be different persons; and (4) the right claimed must be capable of forming the subject matter of a grant — it must be sufficiently definite and must not amount to exclusive possession of the servient land.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
[1955] 2 QB 327 · Court of Appeal · 1955
Where communication is instantaneous (such as telephone, telex, or other direct communication), a contract is formed at the place and time when the acceptance is received by the offeror, not where and when it is sent. The postal acceptance rule does not apply to instantaneous methods of communication.
Banks v Goodfellow
(1870) LR 5 QB 549 · Queen's Bench · 1870
To make a valid will, the testator must: (1) understand the nature of the act and its effects; (2) understand the extent of the property being disposed of; (3) comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect; and (4) not be affected by any disorder of the mind or insane delusion that influences the dispositions made.
Ilott v The Blue Cross
[2017] UKSC 17 · Supreme Court · 2017
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 does not override testamentary freedom but allows the court to make reasonable financial provision for eligible applicants. The court must balance the testator's wishes, the applicant's needs, and the claims of other beneficiaries. An adult child's claim is limited to maintenance.
Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
[2000] 1 AC 406 · House of Lords · 2000
A tenancy can be created by agreement between the parties even where the grantor does not have a proprietary estate in the land. The question of whether an occupier is a tenant or licensee depends on the nature of the agreement, not on the grantor's own title.
R v Gul
[2013] UKSC 64 · Supreme Court · 2013
The definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is wide enough to cover military attacks by non-state armed groups against armed forces in a non-international armed conflict. The breadth of the definition is a matter for Parliament, not the courts, to address.
Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2021] UKSC 7 · Supreme Court · 2021
The courts should not substitute their own view for that of the Secretary of State on matters of national security. Where citizenship deprivation engages national security considerations, judicial review is limited to examining the Secretary of State's decision on conventional public law grounds, and the court cannot make its own assessment of the national security case.
R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner
[2007] UKHL 13 · House of Lords · 2007
Article 2 ECHR imposes a procedural obligation on the state to carry out an effective investigation into deaths where agents of the state are or may be responsible. This obligation requires an investigation that is capable of establishing the facts, identifying those responsible, and determining whether the state's substantive obligations under Article 2 were complied with.
RSPCA v Johnson
[2009] EWHC 2702 (Admin) · High Court (Admin) · 2009
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 creates a duty of care that is objective — it is judged by whether the animal's needs are being met, not by the owner's intentions or personal circumstances. The section 9 duty applies to any person responsible for an animal, whether or not they are the owner.
R v Mackinlay
[2018] UKSC 42 · Supreme Court · 2018
Election expenses for party campaigning and candidate campaigning are distinct categories. Spending on campaigning that promotes or disparages a party nationally is not necessarily candidate spending, even if it incidentally benefits or harms a local candidate.
Pepper v Hart
[1993] AC 593 · House of Lords · 1993
Where primary legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity, the court may refer to statements made in Parliament (Hansard) by the minister or promoter of the Bill to ascertain the intention of Parliament, provided the statements relied upon are clear.
Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
[2001] Fam 147 · Court of Appeal · 2001
The separation of conjoined twins, which would inevitably kill the weaker twin, was lawful. The operation was justified on the basis of necessity (the defence of others), as without it both twins would die. The doctors performing the operation would not be guilty of murder.
Fisher v Bell
[1961] 1 QB 394 · Queen's Bench Division · 1961
The display of goods in a shop window with a price tag is an invitation to treat, not an offer. A shopkeeper who displays a flick knife in his window is not 'offering it for sale' within the meaning of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
R v Kingston
[1995] 2 AC 355 · House of Lords · 1995
Involuntary intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge if the defendant still formed the necessary mens rea. A drugged intent is still an intent. The fact that the defendant would not have committed the offence but for being surreptitiously drugged does not negative the mens rea.
Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 [2009] · Court of Justice of the European Union · 2009
Passengers whose flights are subject to long delays (3 hours or more on arrival at their final destination) are entitled to compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 on the same basis as passengers whose flights are cancelled, provided the delay was not caused by extraordinary circumstances.
R v Dica
[2004] EWCA Crim 1103 · Court of Appeal · 2004
A person who recklessly transmits a serious sexually transmitted disease (HIV) to a sexual partner, knowing they are infected and without disclosing their condition, can be convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to the risk of infection where the complainant was unaware of the defendant's condition.
Mandla v Dowell Lee
[1983] 2 AC 548 · House of Lords · 1983
Sikhs constitute an ethnic group within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976. To qualify as an ethnic group, a community must regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics, of which a long shared history and a cultural tradition of its own are essential.
R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire
[2020] UKSC 46 · Supreme Court · 2020
The standard of proof for all conclusions at an inquest, including short-form conclusions such as suicide and unlawful killing, is the civil standard (balance of probabilities), not the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
R v G
[2003] UKHL 50 · House of Lords · 2003
A person acts recklessly within the meaning of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 when they are aware of a risk that exists or will exist, or are aware of a risk that a result will occur, and it is in the circumstances known to them unreasonable to take that risk. The objective test of recklessness from R v Caldwell [1982] was departed from and overruled.
DPP v Majewski
[1977] AC 443 · House of Lords · 1977
Voluntary intoxication (by alcohol or drugs) is no defence to a charge of a 'basic intent' offence (one that can be committed recklessly). However, voluntary intoxication may be a defence to a 'specific intent' offence (one requiring intention) if the defendant was so intoxicated that they could not form the required intent.
Smith v Eric S Bush
[1990] 1 AC 831 · House of Lords · 1990
A valuer instructed by a building society to value a modest residential property owes a duty of care to the purchaser, even though the valuer's contract is with the building society, because the valuer knows that the purchaser will rely on the valuation. A disclaimer purporting to exclude liability for negligent valuation fails the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Attorney General v Blake
[2001] 1 AC 268 · House of Lords · 2001
In exceptional circumstances, the court may award an account of profits for breach of contract — ordering the contract-breaker to pay over the profits made from the breach — even though the innocent party has suffered no financial loss. This remedy is available where the claimant has a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant from profiting from the breach that cannot be adequately protected by damages, specific performance, or injunction.
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
[2012] UKSC 2 · Supreme Court · 2012
The operational duty under Article 2 ECHR (right to life) to take reasonable steps to protect a person from a real and immediate risk of suicide applies to voluntary psychiatric patients, not only to detained patients. The NHS Trust owed an Article 2 operational duty to a voluntary patient who was known to be at real and immediate risk of suicide.
R v G
[2008] UKHL 37 · House of Lords · 2008
The offence of rape of a child under 13 (s.5 Sexual Offences Act 2003) is one of strict liability as to age. The prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew or was reckless as to the child's age. A genuine belief that the child was 13 or over is not a defence.
R v Gold; R v Schifreen
[1988] AC 1063 · House of Lords · 1988
Unauthorised access to a computer system by using stolen credentials did not constitute an offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 because a password is not a 'false instrument'. This case exposed a gap in the law and directly led to the enactment of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Chambers v DPP
[2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin) · High Court (Divisional Court) · 2012
A joke tweet threatening to blow up an airport was not 'menacing' within the meaning of s.127(1)(a) Communications Act 2003. The test is whether a reasonable person would regard the message as a genuine threat. Context, including the medium of communication (Twitter), is relevant.
Re St Stephen Walbrook
[1987] Fam 146 · Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved · 1987
A faculty could be granted to install a Henry Moore altar (a large circular stone sculpture) in a Wren church, notwithstanding that it departed from traditional altar design, provided the change served the needs of worship and was consistent with the character of the building.
Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2002] UKHL 40 · House of Lords · 2002
A claimant who proves defamation but whose own conduct means he has suffered no real damage may be awarded only nominal damages. The House of Lords reduced the jury award from £85,000 to £1 for a footballer who won a libel claim but was found to have been involved in match-fixing corruption.
Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc
[1992] Ch 505 · Court of Appeal · 1992
The court established guidelines for the exercise of discretion to grant leave to proceed against a company in administration. The administrator's proposals should normally be given a chance to succeed, but the rights of a lessor or owner of property in the possession of the company should be respected unless the administrator can show a compelling reason to override them.
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas)
[2008] UKHL 48 · House of Lords · 2008
Remoteness of damage in contract may depend not just on foreseeability but also on whether the type of loss fell within the scope of the defendant's assumed responsibility. A charterer who redelivered a vessel late was not liable for the difference between the original charter rate and a lower market rate on the next fixture, because such market exposure was not within the scope of the charterer's responsibility.
R (on the application of ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment
[2015] UKSC 28 · Supreme Court · 2015
The Supreme Court ordered the UK government to produce new air quality plans to comply with EU nitrogen dioxide limits. The government's failure to meet binding air quality limits was unlawful and the court could mandate the production of compliant plans.
Vidal-Hall v Google Inc
[2015] EWCA Civ 311 · Court of Appeal · 2015
Breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 can give rise to a claim for compensation for distress alone, without requiring pecuniary loss. The misuse of private information is a tort. Service of proceedings on Google outside the jurisdiction was permitted.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
[2001] 2 AC 127 · House of Lords · 2001
A new form of qualified privilege (later called 'Reynolds privilege') was available to the media where responsible journalism on a matter of public interest was practised. The court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors to assess whether publication was responsible.
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios)
[1985] AC 191 · House of Lords · 1985
Where two competing constructions of a contract clause are possible, the court should prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense over one which produces a commercially absurd result. An arbitration clause entitling a charterer to withdraw from a charterparty for any breach would be commercially absurd.
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2015
A parking charge of £85 for overstaying a two-hour free parking period at a retail park was not an unenforceable penalty. The charge was not extravagant or unconscionable having regard to the legitimate interests of the landowner in managing parking and ensuring turnover of spaces for customers.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] UKSC 11 · Supreme Court · 2015
A doctor has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of any material risks involved in a proposed treatment, and of any reasonable alternative treatments. A risk is 'material' if a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it, or if the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
[1957] 1 WLR 582 · Queen's Bench Division · 1957
A doctor is not guilty of negligence if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion skilled in that particular art, even if other doctors would have adopted a different practice.
Re B (Children)
[2008] UKHL 35 · House of Lords · 2008
In care proceedings, the standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities. There is no heightened standard for serious allegations such as sexual abuse. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter to be taken into account when deciding whether it has been proved, but it does not change the standard of proof itself.
R v Chargot Ltd (t/a Contract Services)
[2008] UKHL 73 · House of Lords · 2008
Under sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the prosecution need only prove that there was a risk to health and safety and that the defendant failed to eliminate or reduce it. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that it was not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 1969
An error of law by a tribunal or public body takes it outside its jurisdiction, rendering the decision a nullity. A statutory 'ouster clause' purporting to exclude judicial review cannot protect a decision made in excess of jurisdiction.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1985] AC 374 · House of Lords · 1985
Executive action (including exercise of the royal prerogative) is subject to judicial review. The three grounds for judicial review are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. However, matters of national security may justify restricting the scope of review.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
[2017] UKSC 51 · Supreme Court · 2017
Employment tribunal fees introduced by the Lord Chancellor were unlawful because they effectively prevented access to justice. The fees were an unjustified interference with the constitutional right of access to the courts and with EU rights to an effective remedy.
Tweddle v Atkinson
(1861) 1 B&S 393 · Queen's Bench · 1861
Only a party to a contract can sue on it. A third party cannot enforce a contract even if it was made for their benefit. This established the doctrine of privity of contract.
Pinnel's Case
(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a · Court of Common Pleas · 1602
Payment of a lesser sum on the due date cannot be satisfaction for a greater sum owed. However, payment of a lesser sum before the due date, at a different place, or with an additional element (e.g., a horse or hawk) at the creditor's request can constitute good consideration.
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
[1947] KB 130 · King's Bench Division · 1947
Where a party makes a promise not to enforce their strict legal rights, and the other party relies on that promise, the promisor may be estopped from going back on their promise. This is promissory estoppel — it is a shield, not a sword (it cannot create new causes of action).
R v Dica
[2004] EWCA Crim 1103 · Court of Appeal · 2004
A person who recklessly transmits a serious sexually transmitted disease (HIV) to a sexual partner, knowing they are infected, can be convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861. Consent to sexual intercourse does not amount to consent to the risk of infection.
R v G and Another
[2003] UKHL 50 · House of Lords · 2003
The test for recklessness in criminal damage is subjective: a person acts recklessly when they are aware of a risk and it is unreasonable to take it. The objective Caldwell test was overruled as it was unfair and could lead to unjust convictions.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
[1915] AC 79 · House of Lords · 1915
A clause in a contract providing for payment of a sum of money on breach is a penalty (and unenforceable) if it is extravagant and unconscionable in amount compared with the greatest loss that could result from the breach. If it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it is enforceable as liquidated damages.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
[1980] AC 827 · House of Lords · 1980
An exclusion clause can be effective to exclude liability for a fundamental breach of contract. The doctrine of fundamental breach is a rule of construction, not a rule of law — the question is whether, on the true construction of the contract, the exclusion clause covers the breach that occurred.
Jones v Kernott
[2011] UKSC 53 · Supreme Court · 2011
Where a property is held in joint names but the parties' common intention as to beneficial ownership has changed over time, the court may infer or impute the parties' intentions as to their shares. Where intention cannot be inferred, the court may impute an intention to hold in shares that are fair having regard to the whole course of dealing.
Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP
[2021] UKSC 20 · Supreme Court · 2021
In professional negligence claims, the scope of the defendant's duty determines the losses for which they are responsible. The court must ask: was the purpose of the duty to protect the claimant against the type of loss that occurred? The 'SAAMCO counterfactual' applies: what would the claimant's position have been if the information/advice had been correct?
R v Jogee
[2016] UKSC 8 · Supreme Court · 2016
Parasitic accessory liability (joint enterprise) based on foresight of what the principal might do was wrongly established by R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] and R v Powell & English [1999]. The correct test for secondary liability is intentional assistance or encouragement: the accessory must intend to assist or encourage the principal to commit the offence.
Barton v Armstrong
[1976] AC 104 · Privy Council · 1976
Where a party enters a contract partly because of duress to the person and partly for other reasons, the contract is voidable for duress. The victim need not prove that duress was the sole or predominant reason; it is sufficient that it was a reason. The burden shifts to the party exerting duress to show it had no effect.
Woodward v Hutchins
[1977] 1 WLR 760 · Court of Appeal · 1977
Where a public figure has courted publicity and presented a false image to the public, the press may be entitled to set the record straight. The duty of confidence may be outweighed by the public interest in correcting a misleading public image.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd
[1960] AC 87 · House of Lords · 1960
Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Chocolate wrappers, though of trivial value and discarded, formed part of the consideration for the offer.
Fisher v Bell
[1961] 1 QB 394 · Queen's Bench Division · 1961
The display of goods in a shop window with a price tag is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale.
Pinnel's Case
(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a · Court of Common Pleas · 1602
Payment of a lesser sum on the due date in satisfaction of a greater debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the balance. However, payment of a lesser sum before the due date, or at a different place, or with a different thing (e.g. a horse) at the creditor's request may be good consideration.
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
[1947] KB 130 · King's Bench Division · 1947
A promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon, is binding so far as its terms properly apply — the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents a party from going back on a promise even without consideration.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
[1953] 1 QB 401 · Court of Appeal · 1953
In a self-service shop, the display of goods on shelves is an invitation to treat, not an offer. The customer makes the offer at the checkout, and the shopkeeper accepts or rejects it.
Foakes v Beer
(1884) 9 App Cas 605 · House of Lords · 1884
Payment of a lesser sum cannot be satisfaction for a greater sum owed. A creditor's promise to forgo interest on a judgment debt in return for payment by instalments is not binding for want of consideration.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
[1915] AC 847 · House of Lords · 1915
Only a party to a contract can sue on it (privity of contract). A person who is not a party to a contract cannot enforce a promise made for their benefit, even if they are the intended beneficiary.
Beswick v Beswick
[1968] AC 58 · House of Lords · 1968
A third party beneficiary cannot enforce a contract to which they are not a party, but the promisee (or their personal representative) can obtain specific performance to compel the promisor to perform their obligations to the third party.
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton
[1903] 2 KB 683 · Court of Appeal · 1903
A contract is not frustrated merely because the commercial purpose of one party has been defeated, if the contract can still be performed. Frustration requires that the common foundation of the contract is destroyed.
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore
(1866) LR 1 Ex 109 · Court of Exchequer · 1866
An offer to purchase shares (or other offer) lapses after a reasonable time. What constitutes reasonable time depends on the subject matter and circumstances.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1)
[1961] AC 388 · Privy Council · 1961
The test for remoteness of damage in negligence is reasonable foreseeability, not directness. A defendant is only liable for damage of a kind that a reasonable person would have foreseen.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
[1951] AC 367 · House of Lords · 1951
When assessing breach of duty, the seriousness of potential harm is a relevant factor. A greater risk of serious injury to a particular claimant may require greater precautions.
Latimer v AEC Ltd
[1953] AC 643 · House of Lords · 1953
An employer is not required to close down a factory to eliminate a risk if reasonable steps short of closure have been taken. The cost of precautions must be proportionate to the risk.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
[1988] AC 1074 · House of Lords · 1988
Where there are multiple possible causes of harm, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's breach of duty was the cause. The 'material increase in risk' principle from McGhee does not reverse the burden of proof.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
[2002] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2002
Where an employee has been negligently exposed to asbestos by multiple employers and develops mesothelioma, each employer who materially increased the risk of the disease is liable, even though it is impossible to prove which employer's asbestos actually caused the disease.
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
[2000] 1 WLR 1082 · House of Lords · 2000
When determining foreseeability, the question is whether the broad type of harm was foreseeable, not the precise mechanics of how the injury occurred. It was foreseeable that an abandoned boat would attract children who might be injured.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
[1987] AC 241 · House of Lords · 1987
There is generally no duty of care to prevent a third party from causing damage to another. However, a duty may arise where the defendant has created or is responsible for a source of danger, or has knowledge of a specific risk.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
[1997] AC 655 · House of Lords · 1997
Only a person with a proprietary interest in land can sue in private nuisance. Interference with television reception by a building is not actionable in nuisance.
R v Dudley and Stephens
(1884) 14 QBD 273 · Queen's Bench Division · 1884
Necessity is not a defence to murder. No matter how extreme the circumstances, the deliberate killing of an innocent person to preserve one's own life is murder.
R v Howe
[1987] AC 417 · House of Lords · 1987
Duress is not a defence to murder, whether as a principal or as an aider and abettor. A person cannot rely on threats to justify taking the life of an innocent person.
R v Gotts
[1992] 2 AC 412 · House of Lords · 1992
Duress is not a defence to attempted murder. The logic of R v Howe that duress cannot be a defence to murder applies equally to attempted murder.
R v Nedrick
[1986] 1 WLR 1025 · Court of Appeal · 1986
For oblique intent in murder, the jury should consider whether death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and whether the defendant appreciated this.
R v G and R
[2003] UKHL 50 · House of Lords · 2003
Recklessness in criminal damage requires subjective awareness of the risk. The objective Caldwell test for recklessness was overruled.
Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd
[2017] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2017
The test for dishonesty is objective: the question is whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The subjective limb of the Ghosh test (whether the defendant realised their conduct was dishonest) was departed from.
R v Kingston
[1995] 2 AC 355 · House of Lords · 1995
Involuntary intoxication is not a defence if the defendant formed the necessary mens rea. A drugged intent is still an intent.
R v Dica
[2004] EWCA Crim 1103 · Court of Appeal · 2004
A person who knowingly transmits HIV through consensual sexual intercourse can be convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861. Consent to sexual intercourse does not equate to consent to the risk of infection if the complainant was unaware of the defendant's condition.
R v Church
[1966] 1 QB 59 · Court of Criminal Appeal · 1966
For constructive manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter), the unlawful act must be one that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise as subjecting the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm.
DPP v Majewski
[1977] AC 443 · House of Lords · 1977
Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to crimes of specific intent (where the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea due to intoxication) but not to crimes of basic intent (where the act of becoming voluntarily intoxicated is itself reckless).
R v Mohan
[1976] QB 1 · Court of Appeal · 1976
Direct intent means a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the defendant's power, the prohibited consequence, no matter whether the defendant desired that consequence or not.
R v Smith (Thomas Joseph)
[1959] 2 QB 35 · Courts-Martial Appeal Court · 1959
The defendant's act need not be the sole or main cause of death. If the original wound is still an operating and substantial cause of death, the defendant is liable for murder even if medical treatment was negligent.
Entick v Carrington
(1765) 19 St Tr 1029 · Court of Common Pleas · 1765
The executive cannot interfere with the property or liberty of individuals without clear legal authority. A general warrant to search and seize papers is unlawful if not authorised by statute or common law.
Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[1979] Ch 344 · Chancery Division · 1979
Telephone tapping by the police, though not specifically authorised by statute, was not illegal because there was no right to privacy recognised at common law. However, the case highlighted the inadequacy of English law in protecting privacy, leading to the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
[1968] AC 997 · House of Lords · 1968
A statutory discretion must be exercised to promote the policy and objects of the Act. A minister cannot refuse to exercise a discretion for improper reasons or to frustrate the purpose of the legislation.
Ridge v Baldwin
[1964] AC 40 · House of Lords · 1964
The rules of natural justice (right to a fair hearing) apply to any decision that affects a person's rights, not merely judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. A chief constable dismissed without a hearing was denied natural justice.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
[2017] UKSC 51 · Supreme Court · 2017
Employment tribunal fees were unlawful because they effectively prevented access to justice. The right of access to courts is not merely a right to issue proceedings but a right to have access to justice in substance.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2)
[1991] 1 AC 603 · House of Lords · 1991
EU law takes precedence over inconsistent national legislation. English courts have the power to grant interim relief (including suspending an Act of Parliament) to protect rights under EU law, notwithstanding parliamentary sovereignty.
Tulk v Moxhay
(1848) 2 Ph 774 · Court of Chancery · 1848
A restrictive covenant (negative obligation) attached to land can be enforced against subsequent purchasers who take the land with notice of the covenant, in equity.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset
[1991] 1 AC 107 · House of Lords · 1991
For a common intention constructive trust in property, the claimant must show either (a) an express common intention to share ownership, plus detrimental reliance, or (b) a direct financial contribution to the purchase price from which common intention can be inferred.
Walsh v Lonsdale
(1882) 21 Ch D 9 · Court of Appeal · 1882
An agreement for a lease that is specifically enforceable is treated in equity as if the lease had already been granted. Equity looks on as done that which ought to be done.
Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
[2000] 1 AC 406 · House of Lords · 2000
A lease can be created even by a person who does not have an estate in land capable of granting one. The hallmarks of a lease (exclusive possession for a term at a rent) determine whether a tenancy exists, regardless of the grantor's title.
Milroy v Lord
(1862) 4 De GF & J 264 · Court of Appeal in Chancery · 1862
Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. There are three ways to transfer property: outright transfer, self-declaration of trust, or transfer to trustees. If a settlor intends one mode but fails to complete it, equity will not treat the failed transfer as effecting another mode.
Paul v Constance
[1977] 1 WLR 527 · Court of Appeal · 1977
A declaration of trust need not use formal or technical language. Words such as 'the money is as much yours as mine' can constitute a valid declaration of trust if they show a present intention to create a trust.
Knight v Knight
(1840) 3 Beav 148 · Rolls Court · 1840
For a valid express trust, three certainties must be present: certainty of intention (words must show a clear intention to create a trust), certainty of subject matter (the trust property must be identifiable), and certainty of objects (the beneficiaries must be ascertainable).
Saunders v Vautier
(1841) 4 Beav 115 · Rolls Court · 1841
A beneficiary who is of full age and capacity and is absolutely entitled to trust property can call upon the trustee to transfer the property to them, even if the trust instrument provides for a later date of distribution.
Boardman v Phipps
[1967] 2 AC 46 · House of Lords · 1967
A fiduciary who obtains a profit by virtue of their fiduciary position must account for that profit to the beneficiaries, even if they acted in good faith and even if the trust could not have obtained the profit itself.
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan
[1995] 2 AC 378 · Privy Council · 1995
For accessory (dishonest assistance) liability in a breach of trust, the accessory must have acted dishonestly. The trustee's breach need not itself be dishonest or fraudulent — an innocent breach suffices. The test for dishonesty is objective.
DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council
[1976] 1 WLR 852 · Court of Appeal · 1976
The corporate veil may be lifted to treat a group of companies as a single economic entity where the subsidiaries are wholly owned and controlled by the parent, and justice requires it.
Adams v Cape Industries plc
[1990] Ch 433 · Court of Appeal · 1990
The corporate veil will only be pierced in very limited circumstances. A parent company is not liable for the debts of its subsidiary merely because it is part of the same group. The single economic unit theory is not a general basis for piercing the veil.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
[1933] Ch 935 · Court of Appeal · 1933
The corporate veil will be pierced where a company is used as a device or stratagem to evade an existing legal obligation, such as a restrictive covenant.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd (in liquidation)
[2005] UKHL 41 · House of Lords · 2005
A charge over book debts where the chargor is free to collect and use the proceeds in the ordinary course of business is a floating charge, not a fixed charge, regardless of how the parties label it.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
[2011] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2011
In determining employment status, the court should look at the reality of the relationship, not merely the terms of the written contract. Contractual terms that do not reflect the true agreement (e.g. sham substitution clauses) may be disregarded.
Uber BV v Aslam
[2021] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2021
Uber drivers are 'workers' under UK employment legislation and are working whenever logged into the app and available for rides. The statutory definition of 'worker' must be applied to the facts of the relationship, not the contractual documentation.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
[1988] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1988
A dismissal may be procedurally unfair even if the employer would have dismissed the employee in any event had a fair procedure been followed. However, the tribunal should reduce compensation to reflect the chance that the employee would have been dismissed fairly (the 'Polkey reduction').
Wilson v Racher
[1974] ICR 428 · Court of Appeal · 1974
A single act of insubordination does not necessarily justify summary dismissal. The context, provocation, and all circumstances must be considered. The old master-servant approach to employment is outdated.
Owens v Owens
[2018] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2018
The court must apply the statutory test for divorce (that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them) and cannot grant a divorce simply because the marriage has broken down, if the behaviour allegations are insufficient.
Eves v Eves
[1975] 1 WLR 1338 · Court of Appeal · 1975
Where a common intention to share beneficial ownership is established (even if the expressed reason for not putting the property in joint names is false), and the claimant acts to their detriment in reliance on that intention, a constructive trust will arise.
Burns v Burns
[1984] Ch 317 · Court of Appeal · 1984
An unmarried cohabitant who makes no financial contribution to the purchase price or mortgage of a property has no beneficial interest under a resulting or constructive trust, even after 17 years of cohabitation and significant domestic contributions.
Campbell v MGN Ltd
[2004] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2004
The tort of misuse of private information protects information in respect of which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The test involves balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). Details of drug addiction treatment are private even for a public figure who has lied about drug use.
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2010] UKSC 31 · Supreme Court · 2010
A gay asylum seeker cannot be refused asylum on the basis that they could avoid persecution by concealing their sexuality. The right to live freely and openly as a gay person is protected. The 'discretion test' (expecting a person to be discreet about their sexuality) was rejected.
Osman v United Kingdom
(1998) 29 EHRR 245 · European Court of Human Rights · 1998
The state has a positive obligation under Article 2 (right to life) to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life and failed to take reasonable measures.
Z v United Kingdom
(2001) 34 EHRR 97 · European Court of Human Rights · 2001
The failure of a local authority to protect children from severe neglect and abuse constituted a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The state has a positive obligation to protect individuals from treatment contrary to Article 3.
City of London Corporation v Fell
[1994] 1 AC 458 · House of Lords · 1994
The burden of a tenant's covenants in a lease runs with the land under the doctrine of privity of estate. An assignee of a lease is bound by and can enforce the covenants contained in it for the duration of their estate.
R v Jogee
[2016] UKSC 8 · Supreme Court · 2016
The law of parasitic accessory liability (joint enterprise) took a wrong turn in Chan Wing-Siu and R v Powell and English. Foresight of what a co-accused might do is evidence of intention to assist or encourage, but is not sufficient on its own to establish guilt. The accessory must intend to encourage or assist the principal's crime.
Jones v Kernott
[2011] UKSC 53 · Supreme Court · 2011
Where a property is held in joint names but the parties' common intention as to beneficial ownership has changed over time, the court may infer or impute an intention as to their respective shares. The court should have regard to the whole course of dealing between the parties.
Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP
[2021] UKSC 20 · Supreme Court · 2021
The scope of duty principle (SAAMCO principle) applies to determine the extent of a professional adviser's liability. The adviser is liable only for losses falling within the scope of the duty they assumed. A distinction must be drawn between 'advice' cases and 'information' cases.
Barton v Armstrong
[1976] AC 104 · Privy Council · 1976
Where a party has been subjected to duress (threats to kill), the contract is voidable even if the threats were not the sole reason for entering the contract. If illegitimate pressure is a reason (not necessarily the predominant reason), the burden shifts to the party exerting pressure to prove the threats had no effect.
Derry v Peek
(1889) 14 App Cas 337 · House of Lords · 1889
The tort of deceit (fraudulent misrepresentation) requires proof that the defendant made a false statement knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless as to whether it was true or false. Honest belief in the truth of a statement negates fraud, even if that belief was unreasonable.
Coventry v Lawrence
[2014] UKSC 13 · Supreme Court · 2014
In nuisance cases, the grant of planning permission is relevant but not determinative in establishing whether an activity constitutes a nuisance. The court retains discretion to award damages in lieu of an injunction under s.50 Senior Courts Act 1981.
R v Lambert
[2001] UKHL 37 · House of Lords · 2001
Statutory reverse burdens of proof in criminal cases should be read down under s.3 HRA 1998 to impose only an evidential burden (duty to raise the issue) rather than a legal burden (duty to prove on the balance of probabilities), where imposing a legal burden would be disproportionate to the legislative aim.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 1969
A decision made in error of law is a nullity (void) and not a valid 'determination' protected by an ouster clause. The distinction between errors of law going to jurisdiction and errors within jurisdiction was effectively abolished.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case)
[1985] AC 374 · House of Lords · 1985
Decisions made under the royal prerogative are subject to judicial review, just as decisions made under statutory powers. However, certain categories of prerogative power (national security, treaties, defence) may not be justiciable. The three grounds of judicial review are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Pinnel's Case
(1602) 5 Co Rep 117a · Court of Common Pleas · 1602
Payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater sum cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. However, payment of a lesser sum before the due date, or at a different place, or by delivering a chattel (a 'horse, hawk, or robe') may be good consideration for releasing the remainder.
Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd
[1947] KB 130 · King's Bench Division · 1947
Where a party makes a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon, that party will not be permitted to revert to the original legal position as if the promise had not been made. This is the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Fisher v Bell
[1961] 1 QB 394 · Queen's Bench Division · 1961
The display of goods in a shop window with a price tag is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale. The shopkeeper is inviting customers to make offers to purchase.
Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd
[1953] 1 QB 401 · Court of Appeal · 1953
In a self-service shop, the display of goods on shelves is an invitation to treat. The customer makes an offer by presenting goods at the cash desk, which the cashier may accept or reject.
Foakes v Beer
(1884) 9 App Cas 605 · House of Lords · 1884
An agreement to accept payment of a debt by instalments, without interest, is not binding for want of consideration. Part payment of a debt is not good consideration for a promise to forgo the remainder, confirming the rule in Pinnel's Case.
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co v Montefiore
(1866) LR 1 Ex 109 · Court of Exchequer · 1866
An offer lapses after a reasonable time if not accepted. What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the subject matter and circumstances.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
[1955] 2 QB 327 · Court of Appeal · 1955
Where communication is instantaneous (such as telex), the postal rule does not apply. Acceptance takes effect when and where it is received, not when it is sent.
Adams v Lindsell
(1818) 1 B & Ald 681 · King's Bench · 1818
Where acceptance is sent by post, the contract is formed at the moment the letter of acceptance is posted, even if it never reaches the offeror. This is the 'postal rule'.
Felthouse v Bindley
(1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 · Court of Common Pleas · 1862
Silence cannot constitute acceptance of an offer. An offeror cannot impose acceptance by stating that silence will be deemed consent.
Partridge v Crittenden
[1968] 1 WLR 1204 · Queen's Bench Division · 1968
An advertisement in a periodical stating a price for goods is an invitation to treat, not an offer for sale, unless the language clearly indicates otherwise.
Combe v Combe
[1951] 2 KB 215 · Court of Appeal · 1951
Promissory estoppel can only be used as a defence (a shield), not as a cause of action (a sword). It does not create new rights but prevents a party from going back on a promise in certain circumstances.
Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestlé Co Ltd
[1960] AC 87 · House of Lords · 1960
Consideration need not be adequate but must be sufficient. Even something of trivial economic value (such as chocolate bar wrappers) can constitute consideration if it forms part of what the promisor bargained for.
Currie v Misa
(1875) LR 10 Ex 153 · Court of Exchequer · 1875
Valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.
Tweddle v Atkinson
(1861) 1 B & S 393 · Queen's Bench · 1861
Only a party to a contract can sue on it (privity of contract). A third party beneficiary has no right to enforce a contract to which they are not a party, even if the contract was made for their benefit.
Beswick v Beswick
[1968] AC 58 · House of Lords · 1968
A third party cannot enforce a contract made for their benefit (privity). However, a party to the contract can obtain specific performance requiring payment to a third party. The administratrix of an estate, being also a party in her capacity as personal representative, could enforce the contract.
Smith v Hughes
(1871) LR 6 QB 597 · Queen's Bench · 1871
The objective test of agreement is applied: the question is not what the parties subjectively intended but what a reasonable person would understand from their words and conduct. There is no duty to disclose facts which the other party might consider material, absent misrepresentation.
Harvey v Facey
[1893] AC 552 · Privy Council · 1893
A statement of the minimum price at which a party would sell is not an offer to sell — it is merely a supply of information. An offer requires a clear indication of willingness to be bound on stated terms.
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council
[1940] 1 KB 532 · Court of Appeal · 1940
An exclusion clause on a receipt or ticket may not be incorporated into the contract if the ticket is not reasonably regarded as a contractual document but merely as a receipt or voucher.
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel Ltd
[1949] 1 KB 532 · Court of Appeal · 1949
Terms displayed after the contract is formed are not incorporated into it. The contract is formed at the point of agreement (e.g., at the reception desk), not when the parties later encounter the terms.
J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw
[1956] 1 WLR 461 · Court of Appeal · 1956
A particularly onerous or unusual clause must be fairly and reasonably brought to the other party's attention. The more unusual or onerous the clause, the greater the degree of notice required (the 'red hand' rule).
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
[1989] QB 433 · Court of Appeal · 1989
If a condition in a contract is particularly onerous or unusual, the party seeking to enforce it must show that it was fairly and reasonably brought to the other party's attention. Failure to give adequate notice means the clause is not incorporated.
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd
[1962] 2 QB 26 · Court of Appeal · 1962
Not all terms of a contract are conditions or warranties. Some terms are 'innominate' (intermediate) terms. The remedy for breach of an innominate term depends on the seriousness of the breach: if it deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract, they may terminate; otherwise, only damages are available.
Poussard v Spiers and Pond
(1876) 1 QBD 410 · Queen's Bench Division · 1876
A term going to the root of the contract is a condition. Breach of a condition entitles the innocent party to terminate the contract and claim damages.
Bettini v Gye
(1876) 1 QBD 183 · Queen's Bench Division · 1876
A term that does not go to the root of the contract is a warranty. Breach of a warranty entitles the innocent party to damages but not termination.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd
[1949] 2 KB 528 · Court of Appeal · 1949
Damages for breach of contract are limited to losses within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract. Losses arising naturally from the breach (first limb of Hadley v Baxendale) are recoverable; unusual losses known to the defendant (second limb) are also recoverable.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd
[1915] AC 79 · House of Lords · 1915
A sum stipulated in a contract as payable on breach is a penalty (and unenforceable) if it is extravagant and unconscionable in comparison with the greatest loss that could follow the breach. It is a genuine pre-estimate of loss (liquidated damages) if it represents a reasonable attempt to estimate the loss.
Herne Bay Steam Boat Co v Hutton
[1903] 2 KB 683 · Court of Appeal · 1903
Frustration does not apply where the contract can still be performed, even if the main purpose has been partially defeated. The doctrine is limited to cases where the entire foundation of the contract has been destroyed.
Krell v Henry
[1903] 2 KB 740 · Court of Appeal · 1903
A contract may be frustrated where a supervening event destroys the entire foundation or purpose of the contract, rendering it radically different from what was contemplated. It is not necessary that performance be physically impossible — frustration of purpose suffices.
Taylor v Caldwell
(1863) 3 B & S 826 · Queen's Bench · 1863
Where performance of a contract depends on the continued existence of a specific thing, and that thing is destroyed without fault of either party, the contract is discharged by frustration. Both parties are excused from further performance.
Derry v Peek
(1889) 14 App Cas 337 · House of Lords · 1889
Fraud requires proof that a false representation was made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to whether it was true or false. Mere carelessness or negligence does not constitute fraud.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
[1964] AC 465 · House of Lords · 1964
A duty of care can arise in respect of negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss where there is a 'special relationship' between the parties — that is, the defendant assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the statement and the claimant reasonably relied on it.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
[1951] AC 367 · House of Lords · 1951
The standard of care in negligence varies according to the particular characteristics of the claimant. A higher standard of precaution is required where the potential consequences of injury to a particular individual are more serious than usual.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1)
[1961] AC 388 · Privy Council · 1961
The test for remoteness of damage in negligence is reasonable foreseeability, not directness. A defendant is only liable for damage of a type that was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of duty.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co (The Wagon Mound No 2)
[1967] 1 AC 617 · Privy Council · 1967
Damage is reasonably foreseeable (and therefore not too remote) if there is a real risk of its occurrence, even if the probability is small. A reasonable person would not ignore a risk which was real and not far-fetched or fanciful.
Bolton v Stone
[1951] AC 850 · House of Lords · 1951
A defendant is not negligent merely because harm was foreseeable as a theoretical possibility. The risk must be assessed by reference to its probability, the potential gravity of harm, the cost and practicability of precautions, and the social utility of the defendant's activity.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd
[1962] 2 QB 405 · Queen's Bench Division · 1962
The 'thin skull' rule (egg-shell skull rule) survived The Wagon Mound (No 1). A tortfeasor must take the victim as they find them. It is sufficient that the type of damage (physical injury) was foreseeable; the tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of injury even if it is more severe than expected due to a pre-existing vulnerability.
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
[1997] AC 655 · House of Lords · 1997
Only a person with a proprietary interest in land (owner or tenant with exclusive possession) can sue in private nuisance. The erection of a building on one's own land which interferes with television reception does not give rise to an actionable nuisance.
Sturges v Bridgman
(1879) 11 Ch D 852 · Court of Appeal · 1879
What amounts to a nuisance depends on the character of the locality. The standard is that of the reasonable user of land in that particular neighbourhood. A prescriptive right to commit a nuisance cannot be acquired until the activity actually becomes actionable.
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
[1954] 1 WLR 835 · Court of Appeal · 1954
The social utility of the defendant's activity is a relevant factor in assessing breach of duty. Where the activity has high social value (such as emergency rescue), a greater degree of risk may be acceptable.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
[1969] 1 QB 428 · Queen's Bench Division · 1969
Even where the defendant owed a duty of care and breached it, the claimant must prove that the breach caused or materially contributed to the damage. If the damage would have occurred regardless of the breach, causation is not established ('but for' test).
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd
[2002] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2002
Where an employee contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos by multiple employers, and it was impossible to prove which employer's asbestos caused the disease, the 'but for' test could be modified. It was sufficient to prove that each employer's breach materially increased the risk of the disease.
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw
[1956] AC 613 · House of Lords · 1956
Where a disease is caused by cumulative exposure, it is sufficient for the claimant to show that the defendant's breach made a material contribution to the injury. The claimant need not show that the breach was the sole or dominant cause.
Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd
[1921] 3 KB 560 · Court of Appeal · 1921
Once some damage was foreseeable from the defendant's negligent act, the defendant was liable for all direct consequences, however unforeseeable. This is the 'directness' test of remoteness.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
[2003] UKHL 47 · House of Lords · 2003
Occupiers do not owe a duty to protect people from obvious risks that they willingly accept. The social value of keeping land accessible to the public is a relevant factor. The occupier's duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 does not extend to preventing competent adults from choosing to take obvious risks.
Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd
[1966] AC 552 · House of Lords · 1966
There may be more than one occupier of premises for the purposes of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. An occupier is a person who has a sufficient degree of control over the premises to be under a duty of care to visitors.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
[1988] AC 1074 · House of Lords · 1988
Where there are multiple possible causes of the claimant's injury, the burden remains on the claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's breach was a cause. Material increase in risk is not equivalent to material contribution to injury.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
[2018] UKSC 4 · Supreme Court · 2018
Where an established duty of care exists (here, the police owed a duty not to cause personal injury through their positive acts), there is no need to apply the Caparo three-stage test. The Caparo test is only needed for novel duty situations. The police are not generally immune from negligence liability for their positive acts.
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co
(1865) 3 H & C 596 · Court of Exchequer · 1865
Where an accident occurs that would not ordinarily happen without negligence, and the instrumentality causing the accident was under the defendant's control, the court may infer negligence (res ipsa loquitur). The burden then shifts to the defendant to provide a reasonable explanation.
Baker v Willoughby
[1970] AC 467 · House of Lords · 1970
Where the claimant suffers a subsequent injury from a different tortfeasor or event, the first tortfeasor remains liable for the original loss. The subsequent event does not reduce the first tortfeasor's liability.
Jobling v Associated Dairies Ltd
[1982] AC 794 · House of Lords · 1982
Where a non-tortious supervening event (such as a naturally occurring illness) overtakes the original injury and would have produced the same disability regardless, the first tortfeasor's liability is limited to the period before the supervening event.
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
[1992] 1 AC 310 · House of Lords · 1992
A secondary victim claiming for psychiatric injury caused by witnessing an accident must satisfy proximity requirements: (1) a close tie of love and affection with the primary victim; (2) proximity in time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath; (3) perception of the accident with their own unaided senses.
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
[1999] 2 AC 455 · House of Lords · 1999
Police officers who attended the Hillsborough disaster as employees were not entitled to recover for psychiatric injury as rescuers unless they were in physical danger themselves. There is no special duty owed to rescuers for psychiatric harm where they are not exposed to personal danger.
Page v Smith
[1996] AC 155 · House of Lords · 1996
A primary victim (someone within the range of foreseeable physical injury) can recover for psychiatric illness even if physical injury was foreseeable but psychiatric injury was not. There is no need to show that psychiatric injury itself was foreseeable for a primary victim.
Chadwick v British Railways Board
[1967] 1 WLR 912 · Queen's Bench Division · 1967
A rescuer who suffers psychiatric injury from the horrifying scenes encountered during rescue operations may recover damages from the party whose negligence caused the original accident, provided the rescuer was exposed to personal danger.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
[1991] 1 AC 398 · House of Lords · 1991
A local authority which negligently approves defective building plans does not owe a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss suffered by a subsequent owner. Defective quality in a product or building is pure economic loss, not physical damage, and is not recoverable in negligence.
Mullin v Richards
[1998] 1 WLR 1304 · Court of Appeal · 1998
The standard of care expected of a child defendant is that of a reasonably careful child of the same age, not that of a reasonable adult. The question is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable child of that age would have foreseen the risk.
Fowler v Lanning
[1959] 1 QB 426 · Queen's Bench Division · 1959
In a modern action for trespass to the person, the burden of proving that the defendant acted intentionally or negligently rests on the claimant. The claimant must plead whether the act was intentional or negligent.
Letang v Cooper
[1965] 1 QB 232 · Court of Appeal · 1965
Where personal injury is caused unintentionally, the appropriate cause of action is negligence, not trespass to the person. Trespass to the person should be confined to intentional acts.
R v Dudley and Stephens
(1884) 14 QBD 273 · Queen's Bench Division · 1884
Necessity is not a defence to murder. No matter how extreme the circumstances, one person cannot lawfully take the life of another innocent person to preserve their own life.
R v Pagett
(1983) 76 Cr App R 279 · Court of Appeal · 1983
The reasonable act of a third party acting in self-defence or in the execution of duty does not break the chain of causation. The defendant who creates the dangerous situation remains the legal cause of the victim's death.
R v Nedrick
[1986] 1 WLR 1025 · Court of Appeal · 1986
For indirect (oblique) intention, the jury should ask whether the defendant foresaw the consequence as a virtual certainty. If so, they are entitled (but not compelled) to find that the defendant intended it.
R v Mohan
[1976] QB 1 · Court of Appeal · 1976
Direct intention means a decision to bring about a particular consequence, whether or not the defendant desired that consequence. It is the defendant's aim or purpose.
R v Kingston
[1995] 2 AC 355 · House of Lords · 1995
Involuntary intoxication is not a defence if the defendant still formed the necessary mens rea. A drugged intent is still an intent.
R v Dica
[2004] EWCA Crim 1103 · Court of Appeal · 2004
A person who recklessly transmits HIV through consensual sexual intercourse may be guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA 1861. Consent to sexual intercourse does not equate to consent to the risk of disease transmission.
R v Lloyd
[1985] QB 829 · Court of Appeal · 1985
A borrowing is not theft unless the intention is to return the property in such a changed state that all its goodness or virtue has been taken.
R v Ghosh
[1982] QB 1053 · Court of Appeal · 1982
The test for dishonesty involved two stages: (1) Was the act dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people (objective)? (2) Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards (subjective)?
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
[2017] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2017
The test for dishonesty is: (1) ascertain the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts (subjective); (2) determine whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people (objective). The defendant's own assessment of whether they were dishonest is irrelevant.
R v Howe
[1987] AC 417 · House of Lords · 1987
Duress is not a defence to murder, whether the defendant is a principal or a secondary party.
R v Graham
[1982] 1 WLR 294 · Court of Appeal · 1982
The defence of duress requires: (1) genuine fear of death or serious injury; (2) a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics would have responded the same way.
R v Hasan
[2005] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2005
Duress is not available if the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals in circumstances where he ought reasonably to have foreseen compulsion by threats of violence.
R v Church
[1966] 1 QB 59 · Court of Criminal Appeal · 1966
Constructive manslaughter requires an intentional unlawful act that is dangerous — all sober and reasonable people would recognise it as subjecting the victim to the risk of some physical harm.
R v Lamb
[1967] 2 QB 981 · Court of Appeal · 1967
For unlawful act manslaughter, the unlawful act must be intentional. Pointing a revolver as a joke where both parties believed it would not fire does not constitute assault.
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen
[2016] UKSC 8 · Supreme Court · 2016
Mere foresight of what another might do is not sufficient for secondary liability for murder. The prosecution must prove the secondary party intended to assist or encourage the principal. The 'parasitic accessorial liability' doctrine from Chan Wing-Siu was wrong.
R v Caldwell
[1982] AC 341 · House of Lords · 1982
Recklessness for criminal damage included objective situations where the defendant either recognised a risk and unreasonably took it, or failed to give any thought to an obvious risk ('Caldwell recklessness').
R v G and another
[2003] UKHL 50 · House of Lords · 2003
Recklessness in criminal damage requires subjective awareness of the risk. A person acts recklessly when they are aware of a risk and unreasonably take it. Caldwell recklessness was overruled.
R v Latimer
(1886) 17 QBD 359 · Crown Cases Reserved · 1886
The doctrine of transferred malice: where the defendant intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another, the mens rea is transferred to the actual victim.
R v Pembliton
(1874) LR 2 CCR 119 · Crown Cases Reserved · 1874
Transferred malice only operates within the same type of offence. Intention to assault a person cannot be transferred to criminal damage to property.
R v White
[1910] 2 KB 124 · Court of Criminal Appeal · 1910
The 'but for' test of factual causation: the defendant's act must be a factual cause of the prohibited result. If the victim would have died the same way regardless, causation is not established.
R v Roberts
(1971) 56 Cr App R 95 · Court of Appeal · 1971
Where a victim takes evasive action to escape the defendant's unlawful conduct, the defendant is liable for the resulting injuries provided the victim's reaction was within the range of reasonably foreseeable responses.
R v Cheshire
[1991] 1 WLR 844 · Court of Appeal · 1991
Negligent medical treatment will not normally break the chain of causation. Only if medical treatment is so independent and potent in causing death that the defendant's contribution is rendered insignificant will the chain be broken.
R v Jordan
(1956) 40 Cr App R 152 · Court of Criminal Appeal · 1956
In exceptional circumstances, grossly negligent medical treatment can break the chain of causation where the original wound has substantially healed and the treatment is 'palpably wrong'.
R v Smith (Thomas Joseph)
[1959] 2 QB 35 · Courts-Martial Appeal Court · 1959
If the original wound is an operating and substantial cause of death, the defendant remains liable even if medical treatment was negligent.
R v Blaue
[1975] 1 WLR 1411 · Court of Appeal · 1975
The thin skull rule applies in criminal law. A defendant must take their victim as they find them, including religious beliefs. A victim's refusal of treatment on religious grounds does not break the chain of causation.
R v Kennedy (No 2)
[2007] UKHL 38 · House of Lords · 2007
Where the victim freely and voluntarily self-injects a drug supplied by the defendant, the defendant is not guilty of manslaughter. The victim's autonomous act breaks the chain of causation.
R v Martin (Anthony)
[2001] EWCA Crim 2245 · Court of Appeal · 2001
Self-defence must be judged by the circumstances as the defendant honestly believed them to be. Psychiatric conditions affecting perception may be relevant to diminished responsibility.
R v Gnango
[2011] UKSC 59 · Supreme Court · 2011
Where two parties voluntarily engage in a gunfight and an innocent bystander is killed by one party's shot, both can be convicted of murder. The surviving shooter is guilty as a secondary party.
Tulk v Moxhay
[1848] 2 Ph 774 · Court of Chancery · 1848
A restrictive covenant affecting land is enforceable in equity against a subsequent purchaser who takes with notice of it, even though there is no privity of contract.
Stack v Dowden
[2007] UKHL 17 · House of Lords · 2007
Where a family home is registered in joint names and there is no express declaration of trust, the starting point is that equity follows the law and the beneficial interest is shared equally. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of a different common intention.
Jones v Kernott
[2011] UKSC 53 · Supreme Court · 2011
Where a property is held in joint names and the parties' common intention as to beneficial ownership has changed over time, the court may infer or impute a new intention and adjust the shares accordingly.
Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset
[1991] 1 AC 107 · House of Lords · 1991
To establish a constructive trust in a sole-name property, there must be evidence of an express common intention to share the beneficial interest, or a direct financial contribution to the purchase price. Indirect contributions or domestic work are insufficient.
Milroy v Lord
(1862) 4 De GF & J 264 · Court of Appeal in Chancery · 1862
Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. For a voluntary transfer to be effective, the settlor must have done everything required of them to transfer legal title. There are three modes of giving: outright transfer, self-declaration of trust, or direction to a trustee.
Re Rose
[1952] Ch 499 · Court of Appeal · 1952
Where a donor has done everything in their power to transfer legal title, equity will treat the gift as complete even before the legal formalities are finalised by a third party.
Pennington v Waine
[2002] EWCA Civ 227 · Court of Appeal · 2002
A gift of shares may be treated as complete in equity where it would be unconscionable for the donor to recall the gift, even if the donor has not done everything in their power to transfer legal title.
Knight v Knight
(1840) 3 Beav 148 · Rolls Court · 1840
For a valid express trust to exist, there must be certainty of intention (to create a trust), certainty of subject matter (identifiable property), and certainty of objects (identifiable beneficiaries).
McPhail v Doulton (Re Baden's Deed Trusts No 1)
[1971] AC 424 · House of Lords · 1971
The test for certainty of objects in a discretionary trust is the 'is or is not' test: the trust is valid if it can be said with certainty that any given individual is or is not a member of the class.
Keech v Sandford
(1726) Sel Cas Ch 61 · Court of Chancery · 1726
A trustee must not profit from their position. Where a trustee renews a lease in their own name that was originally held on trust, the renewed lease is held on constructive trust for the beneficiary.
Boardman v Phipps
[1967] 2 AC 46 · House of Lords · 1967
A fiduciary who obtains information or an opportunity by virtue of their fiduciary position must account for any profit made, even if they acted in good faith and the trust benefited from their actions.
Pilcher v Rawlins
(1872) LR 7 Ch App 259 · Court of Appeal in Chancery · 1872
A bona fide purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice of a prior equitable interest takes free from that interest. This defence—equity's darling—is a complete answer to equitable claims.
Rochefoucauld v Boustead
[1897] 1 Ch 196 · Court of Appeal · 1897
The Statute of Frauds cannot be used as an instrument of fraud. Where a person acquires land on an oral understanding to hold it on trust for another, equity will enforce the trust despite the lack of written evidence.
Re Diplock
[1948] Ch 465 · Court of Appeal · 1948
Where executors distribute estate funds to persons not entitled under the will, the rightful beneficiaries have both a personal claim against the wrongly paid recipients and a proprietary claim to trace the money in equity.
Foskett v McKeown
[2001] 1 AC 102 · House of Lords · 2001
Tracing is a process of identifying trust property as it moves through different forms. Beneficiaries whose money has been used to pay premiums on a life insurance policy are entitled to a proportionate share of the policy proceeds.
Street v Mountford
[1985] AC 809 · House of Lords · 1985
The grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a tenancy regardless of the label the parties attach to the agreement. Substance prevails over form.
Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland
[1981] AC 487 · House of Lords · 1981
A spouse with a beneficial interest in the matrimonial home who is in actual occupation has an overriding interest binding on a mortgagee, even if the mortgage was granted by the sole legal owner without consent.
Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd
[2008] UKHL 55 · House of Lords · 2008
Proprietary estoppel cannot arise from an agreement that is expressly 'subject to contract'. In commercial contexts, sophisticated parties who knowingly proceed without binding agreement cannot claim they relied on an assurance to their detriment.
Thorner v Major
[2009] UKHL 18 · House of Lords · 2009
Proprietary estoppel can arise from indirect assurances. It is sufficient that the claimant reasonably understood the assurances to mean they would inherit property, even if the assurances were oblique rather than express.
Re Ellenborough
[1903] 1 Ch 697 · Chancery Division · 1903
An easement must accommodate the dominant tenement, meaning it must benefit the land itself rather than merely providing a personal advantage to the landowner.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation
[1948] 1 KB 223 · Court of Appeal · 1948
A decision of a public authority can be challenged if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. This 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' standard requires the decision to be beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ)
[1985] AC 374 · House of Lords · 1985
The exercise of prerogative powers is in principle subject to judicial review. The three heads of judicial review are illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 1969
An error of law by a tribunal renders its decision a nullity, and an ouster clause in a statute cannot prevent judicial review of such errors. There is no distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union
[1995] 2 AC 513 · House of Lords · 1995
A minister cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate the will of Parliament by introducing a scheme that effectively prevents a statutory scheme from being brought into force.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
[2017] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2017
The Government cannot use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 TEU to withdraw from the EU, because doing so would change domestic law by removing rights that Parliament had enacted through the European Communities Act 1972. An Act of Parliament is required.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (Miller II / Cherry)
[2019] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2019
The prorogation of Parliament is justiciable and can be reviewed by the courts. A prorogation that has the effect of frustrating Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification is unlawful, null, and of no effect.
Entick v Carrington
(1765) 19 St Tr 1029 · Court of Common Pleas · 1765
Executive action must have a basis in law. The state cannot interfere with an individual's property without lawful authority. The absence of a legal prohibition on the action does not make it lawful — there must be positive legal authority.
R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings
[1995] 1 All ER 513 · Court of Appeal · 1995
Public bodies can only do what they are lawfully authorised to do. Unlike private individuals, they have no general freedom of action — they must point to a specific power authorising their actions.
Ridge v Baldwin
[1964] AC 40 · House of Lords · 1964
The rules of natural justice (the right to a fair hearing) apply to administrative decisions that affect individual rights, not just judicial or quasi-judicial decisions.
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2001] UKHL 26 · House of Lords · 2001
Proportionality is a more structured and rigorous test than Wednesbury unreasonableness. Where Convention rights are at stake, the court must conduct a proportionality analysis rather than simply asking whether the decision was irrational.
R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School
[2006] UKHL 15 · House of Lords · 2006
The right to manifest religion under Article 9 ECHR can be lawfully restricted where the restriction is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate. The focus should be on whether the interference was justified, not on the decision-making process.
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh)
[2004] UKHL 56 · House of Lords · 2004
Indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR. The power was disproportionate and discriminatory as it applied only to foreign nationals.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2)
[1991] 1 AC 603 · House of Lords · 1991
EU law has primacy over inconsistent domestic legislation. National courts must set aside or disapply an Act of Parliament that conflicts with directly effective EU law. Parliamentary sovereignty is qualified by membership of the EU.
Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[1979] Ch 344 · Chancery Division · 1979
Telephone tapping authorised by the Home Secretary's warrant was not unlawful in domestic law because English law contains no general right to privacy. However, the lack of a legal framework regulating interception was a matter of concern.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
[2017] UKSC 51 · Supreme Court · 2017
Employment tribunal fees were unlawful because they effectively prevented access to justice. The right of access to the courts is a constitutional right that cannot be abrogated by subordinate legislation unless expressly authorised by Parliament.
Osman v United Kingdom
(1998) 29 EHRR 245 · European Court of Human Rights · 1998
Article 2 ECHR imposes a positive obligation on the state to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew or ought to have known of the risk.
R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2011] UKSC 18 · Supreme Court · 2011
The right to compensation for miscarriages of justice under s 133 Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires the applicant to show that a newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice, meaning the applicant is clearly innocent.
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2007] UKHL 11 · House of Lords · 2007
When deciding immigration appeals engaging Article 8 ECHR, the appellate body must decide for itself whether the refusal of leave to enter or remain is proportionate, applying the structured proportionality test rather than simply reviewing the decision-maker's reasoning.
Foss v Harbottle
(1843) 2 Hare 461 · Court of Chancery · 1843
The proper plaintiff in an action for a wrong done to a company is the company itself, not individual shareholders. Where an irregularity can be ratified by a simple majority of shareholders, no individual shareholder may sue.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd
[2013] UKSC 34 · Supreme Court · 2013
The corporate veil may be pierced only where a person is under an existing legal obligation which he deliberately evades or frustrates by interposing a company (the 'evasion principle'). The 'concealment principle' — where the company is used to conceal the true facts — does not involve piercing but rather looking behind the corporate facade.
Adams v Cape Industries plc
[1990] Ch 433 · Court of Appeal · 1990
The corporate veil will not be lifted merely because a subsidiary is wholly owned by a parent company or because the group operates as a single economic unit. Each company in a group is a separate legal entity with its own rights and liabilities.
Re Barings plc (No 5)
[2000] 1 BCLC 523 · Court of Appeal · 2000
A director who fails to acquire and maintain a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the company's business to enable proper discharge of duties may be found unfit to be a director. Directors have a duty to inform themselves about the affairs of the company.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
[2005] UKHL 41 · House of Lords · 2005
A charge over book debts that permits the chargor to collect the debts and use them freely in the ordinary course of business is a floating charge, not a fixed charge, regardless of how the parties label it.
West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodd
[1988] BCLC 250 · Court of Appeal · 1988
When a company is insolvent or of doubtful solvency, directors owe a duty to have regard to the interests of creditors. A director who causes the company to act to the detriment of creditors may be required to make good the loss.
Aron Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd
[1897] AC 22 · House of Lords · 1897
A validly incorporated company is a separate legal person from its shareholders, even where one shareholder holds virtually all the shares. The company's debts are its own and shareholders are not personally liable.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
[1998] 1 WLR 896 · House of Lords · 1998
Contractual interpretation is an objective exercise ascertaining the meaning a reasonable person with all the background knowledge available to the parties would give to the language used. The background includes anything that would have affected the way the language would have been understood by a reasonable man, but excludes prior negotiations and declarations of subjective intent.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
[1980] AC 827 · House of Lords · 1980
The doctrine of fundamental breach does not operate as a rule of law to prevent reliance on exclusion clauses. Whether an exclusion clause covers a fundamental breach is a question of construction. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides the appropriate control on exclusion clauses.
The Moorcock
(1889) 14 PD 64 · Court of Appeal · 1889
A term will be implied into a contract where it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract — that is, where without the term the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence.
Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA
[1981] 1 WLR 711 · House of Lords · 1981
In mercantile contracts, time stipulations are generally conditions, breach of which entitles the innocent party to terminate regardless of the seriousness of the consequences. Certainty is of paramount importance in commercial transactions.
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas)
[2008] UKHL 48 · House of Lords · 2008
The remoteness test in contract may include consideration of whether the type of loss fell within the scope of the parties' assumed responsibilities, in addition to the orthodox test of reasonable contemplation from Hadley v Baxendale.
Re Sigma Finance Corporation
[2009] UKSC 2 · Supreme Court · 2009
Complex financial instruments must be interpreted using the same principles as other contracts — by reference to what a reasonable person with the relevant background knowledge would understand the language to mean, read in the context of the instrument as a whole.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
[2003] UKHL 62 · House of Lords · 2003
In a written contract, the identity of the contracting parties is determined by the written document. A rogue who fraudulently assumes another's identity to obtain goods on hire purchase does not obtain title, and the innocent third-party purchaser from the rogue gets no title either.
R v Registrar of Companies, ex parte Attorney General
[1991] BCLC 476 · Queen's Bench Division · 1991
A company registered for an unlawful purpose (in this case, prostitution) may be struck off the register. The Registrar has a duty to refuse or cancel registration where the company's objects are wholly unlawful.
Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne
[1933] Ch 935 · Court of Appeal · 1933
The corporate veil will be pierced where a company is used as a mere cloak or sham to evade an existing legal obligation such as a restrictive covenant.
Smith v Eric S Bush
[1990] 1 AC 831 · House of Lords · 1990
A surveyor instructed by a mortgage lender owes a duty of care to the purchaser who relies on the valuation, even in the absence of a contractual relationship. A disclaimer of liability may be subject to the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
[1978] QB 761 · Court of Appeal · 1978
Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer. The employee must show the employer committed a repudiatory breach, the employee left in response to that breach, and did not delay too long before resigning (thereby affirming the contract).
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
[1988] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1988
An employer cannot argue that a failure to follow a fair procedure made no difference to the outcome. Procedural fairness is an essential element of a fair dismissal. However, if the tribunal finds that dismissal would have occurred anyway, compensation may be reduced accordingly (the 'Polkey reduction').
Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
[1983] ICR 17 · Employment Appeal Tribunal · 1983
The function of the tribunal in unfair dismissal cases is to determine whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer, not to substitute its own view of the right course to adopt.
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
[1998] AC 20 · House of Lords · 1998
There is an implied term of mutual trust and confidence in every employment contract. The employer must not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.
Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
[2011] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2011
In determining employment status, the tribunal must look at the true agreement between the parties rather than the written terms where those terms do not reflect the reality. Sham or unrealistic contractual provisions will be disregarded.
Uber BV v Aslam
[2021] UKSC 5 · Supreme Court · 2021
Uber drivers are 'workers' within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and are working whenever they are logged into the Uber app and ready to accept trips. The written contractual terms characterising drivers as independent contractors did not reflect the true nature of the relationship.
Radmacher v Granatino
[2010] UKSC 42 · Supreme Court · 2010
A pre-nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications should be given decisive weight unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
White v White
[2001] 1 AC 596 · House of Lords · 2001
On divorce, there should be no discrimination between a breadwinner and a homemaker. The court should check its provisional award against the 'yardstick of equality' to ensure there is no gender-based discrimination, though equal division is not a presumption or starting point.
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
[2006] UKHL 24 · House of Lords · 2006
The three principles governing ancillary relief on divorce are: needs, compensation (for relationship-generated disadvantage), and sharing (of the fruits of the matrimonial partnership). Non-matrimonial property may be treated differently from matrimonial property.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
[1986] AC 112 · House of Lords · 1986
A child under 16 can consent to medical treatment without parental consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed ('Gillick competence'). Parental rights diminish as the child develops sufficient understanding.
Re B (Children) (Care Order: Proportionality)
[2013] UKSC 33 · Supreme Court · 2013
Adoption without parental consent (a 'non-consensual adoption') requires the court to be satisfied that nothing else will do. It is a last resort and requires a proportionality analysis under Article 8 ECHR.
Woolmington v DPP
[1935] AC 462 · House of Lords · 1935
The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution throughout the trial. The accused does not have to prove innocence. This 'golden thread' runs through English criminal law, subject only to statutory exceptions and the defence of insanity.
R v Turnbull
[1977] QB 224 · Court of Appeal · 1977
Where the prosecution case depends wholly or substantially on identification evidence, the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution and direct them to examine the circumstances of the identification using the Turnbull guidelines.
R v Makanjuola
[1995] 1 WLR 1348 · Court of Appeal · 1995
Following the abolition of mandatory corroboration warnings by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it remains open to a judge to give a warning about the reliability of a witness where appropriate, but such warnings are discretionary, not mandatory.
R v Andrews
[1987] AC 281 · House of Lords · 1987
A statement made by a person so shortly after an event and in circumstances so closely associated with it that the mind was still dominated by the event is admissible as a res gestae statement, provided there was no possibility of concoction or distortion.
R v Horncastle
[2009] UKSC 14 · Supreme Court · 2009
The admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not necessarily violate Article 6 ECHR, even where the evidence is the sole or decisive evidence against the accused, provided there are sufficient counterbalancing measures to ensure fairness.
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd
[2000] 1 WLR 2416 · House of Lords · 2000
Copyright infringement requires proof that the defendant copied a substantial part of the claimant's work. Substantiality is assessed qualitatively, not merely quantitatively. The question is whether the copied features constitute an original intellectual creation.
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd
[2004] UKHL 46 · House of Lords · 2004
Patent claims should be interpreted purposively — ascertaining what a person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to have used the language of the claim to mean. The Protocol on Interpretation of Article 69 EPC requires a position between strict literal and broad purposive construction.
Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly & Co
[2017] UKSC 48 · Supreme Court · 2017
Patent infringement should be assessed in two stages: (1) does the variant infringe on a normal (purposive) interpretation of the claim? (2) if not, does the variant nonetheless infringe because it varies from the invention in a way that is immaterial? The reformulated Improver/Protocol questions apply to the second stage.
Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed
[2003] EWCA Civ 696 · Court of Appeal · 2003
Trade mark infringement occurs where the use of the sign is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, particularly its essential function of guaranteeing the origin of goods. It does not matter that the purchaser did not regard the sign as an indication of trade origin.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
[1957] 1 WLR 582 · Queen's Bench Division · 1957
A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if other doctors would have acted differently. This 'Bolam test' applies to diagnosis, treatment, and (formerly) disclosure of risks.
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
[1998] AC 232 · House of Lords · 1998
The Bolam test requires the body of medical opinion relied upon to have a logical basis. The court is not bound to accept expert evidence that is not capable of withstanding logical analysis, even if held by a responsible body of practitioners.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] UKSC 11 · Supreme Court · 2015
A doctor has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of any material risks involved in proposed treatment and of any reasonable alternatives. A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it, or the doctor should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would.
Gregg v Scott
[2005] UKHL 2 · House of Lords · 2005
English law does not recognise a claim for loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. Where the claimant's pre-existing chance of a good outcome was less than 50%, the reduction of that chance by negligence does not give rise to a claim in negligence.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
[1991] 2 AC 548 · House of Lords · 1991
English law recognises a cause of action in unjust enrichment (restitution) at common law. The defence of change of position is available where the defendant has changed their position in good faith in reliance on the receipt.
Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd
[1999] 1 AC 221 · House of Lords · 1999
A lender who discharges a secured debt of the borrower may be subrogated to the rights of the original secured creditor, even where there is no contractual or consensual basis for subrogation. Subrogation is a restitutionary remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.
Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners
[2007] UKHL 34 · House of Lords · 2007
Compound interest may be awarded as a restitutionary remedy where the defendant has been unjustly enriched by the use of money over time. The previous restriction to simple interest only was overruled.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council
[1999] 2 AC 349 · House of Lords · 1999
Money paid under a mistake of law is recoverable in a claim for restitution, just as money paid under a mistake of fact. The old rule barring recovery for mistakes of law was abolished.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc
[1994] 2 AC 264 · House of Lords · 1994
Liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires foreseeability of the type of damage. The escape of substances from land does not give rise to strict liability unless the type of harm was foreseeable at the time of the escape.
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
[2003] UKHL 61 · House of Lords · 2003
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance, not a freestanding cause of action. It requires a non-natural use of land and an escape causing foreseeable damage. The rule should not be extended to cover damage to infrastructure on neighbouring land.
Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd
[2012] EWCA Civ 312 · Court of Appeal · 2012
The grant of an environmental permit does not provide a defence to a claim in private nuisance. Regulatory compliance does not authorise the commission of a common law tort.
R v Hasan (formerly Z)
[2005] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2005
The defence of duress is not available if the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals in circumstances where he ought reasonably to have foreseen that he might be compelled to commit an offence. The threat must be of death or serious injury, must be imminent, and there must be no evasive action reasonably open.
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen
[2016] UKSC 8 · Supreme Court · 2016
The law of parasitic accessory liability (joint enterprise) took a wrong turn in R v Powell and R v English. Mere foresight that another party might commit a crime is not sufficient for secondary liability; what is required is that the secondary party intended to encourage or assist the commission of the offence.
R v Kennedy (No 2)
[2007] UKHL 38 · House of Lords · 2007
Where a fully informed and responsible adult freely and voluntarily self-administers a drug, the person who supplied the drug cannot be convicted of manslaughter by unlawful act. The free and voluntary act of the deceased breaks the chain of causation.
Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco
[1992] 2 AC 443 · House of Lords · 1992
A foreign judgment obtained by fraud cannot be enforced in England. The fraud exception to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is not limited to fraud discovered after the original proceedings.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd
[1987] AC 460 · House of Lords · 1987
A stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens will be granted where the court is satisfied that there is another available forum that is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, in which justice can be done at substantially less inconvenience and expense.
Boys v Chaplin
[1971] AC 356 · House of Lords · 1971
In tort claims with a foreign element, the lex loci delicti (law of the place where the tort occurred) is the general rule for determining applicable law, but a flexible exception may apply where another law has a more significant connection with the occurrence and the parties.
R v Caird
(1970) 54 Cr App R 499 · Court of Appeal · 1970
Participation in group violence or public disorder justifies a heavier sentence than the individual acts might warrant if committed alone. The sentence must reflect the overall gravity of the disorder and the offender's role in it.
R v Offen
[2001] 1 WLR 253 · Court of Appeal · 2001
The automatic life sentence provisions under s 2 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 should be read compatibly with Article 5 ECHR. A life sentence is not required where the offender does not pose a significant risk to the public, even where the statutory criteria are met.
R v Saunders
[2013] EWCA Crim 1027 · Court of Appeal · 2013
Sentencing guidelines are not a straitjacket. The court retains discretion to depart from guidelines where the particular circumstances of the case require it, provided reasons are given.
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council; P and Q v Surrey County Council
[2014] UKSC 19 · Supreme Court · 2014
A person is deprived of liberty for the purposes of Article 5 ECHR if they are under continuous supervision and control and are not free to leave, regardless of the purpose of the placement, the relative normality of the living arrangements, or whether the person is compliant or lacks capacity to object.
R v Golds
[2016] UKSC 61 · Supreme Court · 2016
For the partial defence of diminished responsibility under s 52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, 'substantial' impairment means an impairment that is more than merely trivial — it need not be total but it must be significant or appreciable.
Nettleship v Weston
[1971] 2 QB 691 · Court of Appeal · 1971
The standard of care in negligence is objective: a learner driver is held to the same standard as a reasonably competent driver. The defendant's inexperience does not lower the standard of care owed.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
[1951] AC 367 · House of Lords · 1951
The standard of care may be higher where the defendant knows or ought to know that the claimant is particularly vulnerable to injury. The risk of harm and the severity of potential consequences are relevant to what constitutes reasonable care.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No 1)
[1961] AC 388 · Privy Council · 1961
The test for remoteness of damage in negligence is reasonable foreseeability, not directness. The defendant is only liable for damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the negligent act.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
[1987] AC 241 · House of Lords · 1987
There is generally no duty to prevent a third party from causing damage to another. An occupier of land is not normally liable for the acts of trespassers who cause damage to neighbouring property, unless the occupier knew or ought to have known of the danger and failed to take reasonable steps.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
[1988] AC 1074 · House of Lords · 1988
Where there are multiple possible causes of the claimant's injury, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence was a cause. The McGhee material contribution approach does not apply where there are distinct competing causes.
Spring v Guardian Assurance plc
[1995] 2 AC 296 · House of Lords · 1995
An employer owes a duty of care to an employee or former employee when providing a reference. A negligently prepared reference causing economic loss to the subject is actionable in negligence.
Scammell v Ouston
[1941] AC 251 · House of Lords · 1941
An agreement is void for uncertainty if its terms are so vague that they cannot be given a definite meaning. The court cannot make a contract for the parties where the essential terms are insufficiently certain.
British Westinghouse Electric v Underground Electric Railways
[1912] AC 673 · House of Lords · 1912
The innocent party has a duty to mitigate their loss following a breach of contract. If the claimant takes reasonable steps in mitigation and those steps produce a benefit that exceeds the loss, the defendant is not liable for the original loss.
Re Selectmove Ltd
[1995] 1 WLR 474 · Court of Appeal · 1995
A promise to pay an existing debt by instalments is not supported by consideration, following the rule in Foakes v Beer. The practical benefit approach from Williams v Roffey Bros does not extend to promises to pay existing debts.
Pitt v Holt; Futter v Futter
[2013] UKSC 26 · Supreme Court · 2013
A voluntary disposition can be set aside for mistake only if the mistake is sufficiently grave. It is not enough that the claimant would not have entered the transaction but for the mistake; the mistake must make it unconscionable for the donee to retain the property.
Re Kayford Ltd
[1975] 1 WLR 279 · Chancery Division · 1975
Where a company in financial difficulty segregates customer deposits into a separate trust account, those funds are held on trust for the customers and do not form part of the company's assets available to general creditors in a liquidation.
British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie Nationale Air France
[1975] 1 WLR 758 · House of Lords · 1975
Contractual arrangements that have the effect of contracting out of the statutory scheme for pari passu distribution in insolvency are contrary to public policy and void.
Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
[1980] 1 All ER 393 · Court of Appeal · 1980
A person who knowingly receives trust property transferred in breach of trust is liable as a constructive trustee, even if they are a company. Knowledge in this context includes actual knowledge, wilful blindness, and knowledge of circumstances that would put an honest person on inquiry.
Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission
[2011] UKUT 421 (TCC) · Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) · 2011
For a trust to be charitable, it must be for the public benefit. Fee-charging charities (such as independent schools) must provide more than minimal or token benefit to those who cannot afford the fees, though the extent of the benefit is a matter for the trustees' judgment.
Argos Ltd & Littlewoods Ltd v Office of Fair Trading
[2006] EWCA Civ 1318 · Court of Appeal · 2006
Price-fixing agreements between retailers facilitated by a supplier constitute horizontal concerted practices caught by the Chapter I prohibition, even when the communication passes through a vertical hub-and-spoke arrangement.
BAA Ltd v Competition Commission
[2012] EWCA Civ 1077 · Court of Appeal · 2012
The Competition Commission's power to order divestiture of airports as a remedy for an adverse effect on competition is lawful and proportionate where the market investigation reveals structural competition concerns.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Office of Fair Trading
[2012] CAT 31 · Competition Appeal Tribunal · 2012
To establish a hub-and-spoke infringement, the OFT must prove that the retailer foresaw, or could be taken to have foreseen, that its confidential pricing information would be passed by the supplier to a competing retailer.
Streetmap.eu Ltd v Google Inc
[2016] EWHC 253 (Ch) · High Court (Chancery Division) · 2016
A dominant undertaking displaying its own mapping product prominently in search results does not necessarily constitute an abuse of dominant position where there is an objective justification related to improving the quality of search results for users.
Competition and Markets Authority v GlaxoSmithKline plc (Paroxetine)
[2018] CAT 4 · Competition Appeal Tribunal · 2018
Pay-for-delay agreements in the pharmaceutical sector, where an originator company pays generic competitors to stay out of the market, may constitute both a restriction of competition by object and an abuse of dominant position.
Street v Mountford
[1985] AC 809 · House of Lords · 1985
The grant of exclusive possession of residential premises for a term at a rent creates a tenancy regardless of how the parties label their agreement. The substance of the arrangement, not its form, determines whether a tenancy exists.
Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
[2000] 1 AC 406 · House of Lords · 2000
A tenancy can be granted by a person who does not themselves hold an estate in the land. The grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a tenancy as between the parties, even if the grantor is only a licensee of the freeholder.
Manchester City Council v Pinnock
[2010] UKSC 45 · Supreme Court · 2010
Article 8 of the ECHR requires that any person at risk of being dispossessed of their home by a public authority must be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal, regardless of the type of tenancy held.
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues
[2013] EWCA Civ 669 · Court of Appeal · 2013
A tenancy deposit that is not protected in an authorised scheme as required by sections 213–215 of the Housing Act 2004 prevents the landlord from serving a valid section 21 notice to recover possession, and the tenant is entitled to compensation of between one and three times the deposit.
McDonald v McDonald
[2016] UKSC 28 · Supreme Court · 2016
Article 8 proportionality does not provide a defence to possession proceedings brought by a private sector landlord. The statutory scheme under the Housing Act 1988, which grants a mandatory right to possession on expiry of a section 21 notice, strikes a fair balance between the rights of landlords and tenants.
Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group
[1990] ICR 616 (CJEU Case C-262/88) · Court of Justice of the European Communities · 1990
Occupational pension benefits constitute 'pay' within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 157 TFEU). Unequal pensionable ages for men and women in occupational pension schemes therefore breach the principle of equal pay.
Beckmann v Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd
[2002] IRLR 578 (CJEU Case C-164/00) · Court of Justice of the European Communities · 2002
Early retirement and redundancy benefits payable under an occupational pension scheme are not excluded from the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations (TUPE) merely because they are paid from a pension scheme. Only old age, invalidity, and survivors' benefits are excluded.
Independent Trustee Services Ltd v Hope
[2009] EWHC 2810 (Ch) · High Court (Chancery Division) · 2009
Pension scheme trustees owe fiduciary duties analogous to but not identical with those of ordinary trustees. A pension scheme employer's power to amend the scheme is implicitly limited and cannot be exercised in a way that is incompatible with the purpose of the scheme.
IBM United Kingdom Ltd v Dalgleish
[2017] EWCA Civ 1212 · Court of Appeal · 2017
An employer exercising discretionary powers in relation to a pension scheme owes an implied duty of good faith (the 'Imperial duty') which prevents the employer from exercising its powers in a way that would undermine the reasonable expectations of scheme members.
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
[1988] AC 344 · House of Lords · 1988
The question of whether an employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee must be judged at the time of dismissal, not with the benefit of hindsight. If a dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the employee would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed, compensation may be reduced accordingly.
R (Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2016] UKSC 58 · Supreme Court · 2016
The 'bedroom tax' (removal of the spare room subsidy in housing benefit) is unlawful discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8 where it fails to make allowance for a claimant's disability-related need for an additional bedroom.
R (DA and DS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2019] UKSC 21 · Supreme Court · 2019
The benefit cap, which limits total household welfare payments, does not constitute unlawful discrimination against lone parents and their children under Article 14 ECHR, as the government is entitled to a wide margin of appreciation in matters of economic and social policy.
R (SC, CB and 8 children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2021] UKSC 26 · Supreme Court · 2021
The two-child limit on the child element of Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit does not violate Article 14 ECHR or Article 3 UNCRC. The 'manifestly without reasonable foundation' test applies to welfare benefit measures of general application, and the government is entitled to a broad margin of appreciation.
R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[1997] 1 WLR 275 · Court of Appeal · 1997
Regulations that deny welfare benefits to asylum seekers who fail to claim asylum on arrival render the right to claim asylum under the Refugee Convention nugatory and are therefore ultra vires.
Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2015] UKSC 47 · Supreme Court · 2015
Suspending disability living allowance for a severely disabled child during an extended NHS hospital stay constitutes unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 1 of Protocol 1, where the child's disability-related needs continue during hospitalisation.
Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds (The Popi M)
[1985] 1 WLR 948 · House of Lords · 1985
In a case where the cause of a vessel's loss is unknown, the court is not required to choose between two improbable explanations. The burden of proof remains on the claimant, and if neither explanation is established on the balance of probabilities, the claim fails.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No. 1)
[1961] AC 388 · Privy Council · 1961
In tort, a defendant is liable only for damage that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of their negligence. The directness test from Re Polemis is rejected.
Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The Torenia)
[1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 210 · Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) · 1983
A time charterer is liable for the consequences of nominating an unsafe port, even if the unsafety could not have been anticipated at the time of nomination, unless the master could have avoided the danger by reasonable action.
Jindal Iron & Steel Co Ltd v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co Jordan Inc (The Jordan II)
[2004] UKHL 49 · House of Lords · 2004
Under the Hague Rules, the carrier's obligation to properly and carefully load, handle, stow and discharge the goods cannot be delegated so as to relieve the carrier of responsibility.
Elder Dempster & Co Ltd v Paterson Zochonis & Co Ltd
[1924] AC 522 · House of Lords · 1924
Stevedores employed by a carrier may be entitled to rely on the exceptions and limitations in the bill of lading contract, even though they are not parties to it, where there is an implied bailment on terms.
Smith v Ministry of Defence
[2013] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2013
The UK's human rights obligations under Article 2 ECHR can apply to the deaths of soldiers in combat zones, though the operational context will be highly relevant to the assessment of what was required.
R v Sergeant Alexander Blackman (Marine A)
[2017] EWCA Crim 190 · Court Martial Appeal Court / Court of Appeal · 2017
The defence of diminished responsibility applies in military law as it does in civilian law. Evidence of combat stress and adjustment disorder may reduce murder to manslaughter where it substantially impairs responsibility.
R (on the application of Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence
[2010] UKSC 29 · Supreme Court · 2010
Soldiers serving abroad on military operations remain within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR when on a UK military base, but the position is less clear for soldiers on patrol.
Al-Skeini v United Kingdom
(2011) 53 EHRR 18 · European Court of Human Rights · 2011
When a Contracting State exercises physical power and control over individuals during military operations abroad, it brings those individuals within its jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 ECHR, triggering Convention obligations.
R v Lyons
[2011] EWCA Crim 2808 · Court of Appeal (Courts-Martial Appeal) · 2011
Courts martial must follow the same sentencing principles as civilian courts, adapted to the military context. The maintenance of discipline and operational effectiveness are legitimate factors but do not justify substantially harsher sentences than would be imposed by a civilian court for the same offence.
Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Bosman
Case C-415/93 [1995] ECR I-4921 · Court of Justice of the European Communities · 1995
Rules requiring transfer fees for out-of-contract players, and rules limiting the number of EU nationals a club may field, constitute restrictions on the free movement of workers contrary to what is now Article 45 TFEU.
Bradley v Jockey Club
[2005] EWCA Civ 1056 · Court of Appeal · 2005
A sports regulatory body exercising quasi-public disciplinary functions must comply with the rules of natural justice. The relationship is contractual, and the court will imply a term that the body will act fairly.
Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd
[2001] EWCA Civ 1447 · Court of Appeal · 2001
A sports governing body may be liable in negligence or breach of contract if its disciplinary procedures are fundamentally flawed, but demonstrating such a breach and causation of loss is difficult.
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
[2001] QB 1134 · Court of Appeal · 2001
A sports governing body that assumes responsibility for the medical safety of participants owes them a duty of care. If the body's rules require medical provision, it must ensure that provision is adequate.
R v Barnes
[2004] EWCA Crim 3246 · Court of Appeal · 2004
Consent to physical contact in sport extends to contacts that are within the rules and playing culture of the game, even if technically foul. Criminal liability arises only for conduct sufficiently grave to be characterised as criminal, outside the reasonable expectations of the sport.
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd
[1951] AC 297 · House of Lords · 1951
A trust for the advancement of education must benefit a sufficient section of the public to be charitable. A trust limited to the children of employees of a particular company is not charitable because the beneficiaries are defined by a personal relationship (employment) rather than a public characteristic.
R (Independent Schools Council) v Charity Commission
[2011] UKUT 421 (TCC) · Upper Tribunal · 2011
A fee-charging school can be charitable provided it does not exclude the poor from benefit. Trustees must consider what they can do to provide opportunities for those who cannot afford the fees, but there is no fixed formula and the decision depends on the individual circumstances of each charity.
Re Resch's Will Trusts
[1969] 1 AC 514 · Privy Council · 1969
A trust for the establishment of a private hospital charging fees is charitable if it relieves the burden on public healthcare services and does not exclude the poor from any benefit it might provide to the community.
Dingle v Turner
[1972] AC 601 · House of Lords · 1972
A trust for the relief of poverty among employees of a particular company can be charitable, because trusts for the relief of poverty have always been treated more favourably regarding public benefit than trusts for other purposes.
National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC
[1948] AC 31 · House of Lords · 1948
A trust whose main purpose is to change the law cannot be charitable because the court cannot determine whether the proposed change would be for the public benefit. Additionally, a purpose may not be charitable if its detriment (to medical research) outweighs its benefit.
Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank
[2003] UKHL 37 · House of Lords · 2003
A parochial church council is not a 'public authority' within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 when enforcing chancel repair liability, because it is not exercising functions of a public nature in doing so.
Shergill v Khaira
[2014] UKSC 33 · Supreme Court · 2014
The courts can adjudicate on religious disputes where they raise justiciable issues of property or civil rights. The court must identify the relevant religious doctrine and apply it neutrally, without making value judgments about the merits of the doctrine itself.
Re St Mary the Virgin, Banbury
[2016] ECC Oxf 2 · Oxford Consistory Court · 2016
The consistory court may grant a faculty for the removal of church pews and their replacement with chairs where this serves the church's mission, even if objectors prefer to preserve the traditional appearance.
Re St Alkmund, Duffield
[2013] Fam 158 · Court of Arches · 2013
When considering a faculty application, the consistory court must weigh the effect of proposed works on the church's significance as a building of special architectural and historic interest against the necessity of the works for mission and worship.
Williamson v Bishop of London
[2020] EWHC 3518 (Admin) · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2020
Clergy discipline decisions under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 are amenable to judicial review where procedural unfairness or error of law is alleged, though the court will give appropriate respect to the ecclesiastical tribunals' expertise.
NATS v Heathrow Airport Ltd
[2016] UKSC 39 · Supreme Court · 2016
Contractual risk allocation provisions will be interpreted according to their natural meaning. A party may be entitled to recover charges even where the underlying cause of the expenditure lies elsewhere in the supply chain.
R (SSE Generation Ltd) v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
[2019] EWCA Civ 1081 · Court of Appeal · 2019
Ofgem's decisions on the methodology for allocating transmission charges are subject to judicial review on conventional public law grounds, but the court will respect the regulator's specialist expertise in technical matters.
R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport (Heathrow Third Runway)
[2020] UKSC 52 · Supreme Court · 2020
When designating a National Policy Statement, the Secretary of State was not legally obliged to take into account the Paris Agreement targets on climate change where Parliament had not enacted those obligations into domestic law.
R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for BEIS
[2021] EWCA Civ 43 · Court of Appeal · 2021
Development consent for a new gas-fired power station was unlawful because the Secretary of State failed to give legally adequate reasons for concluding that the project would not affect the UK's ability to meet its carbon budgets.
R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for BEIS (Net Zero Strategy)
[2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) · High Court · 2022
The Secretary of State's Net Zero Strategy failed to comply with section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008 because it did not include quantified assessments showing how policies would enable carbon budgets to be met.
R (LVS) v Gambling Commission
[2020] EWHC 1097 (Admin) · High Court · 2020
The Gambling Commission has broad discretion in setting regulatory conditions, but must give adequate reasons when rejecting an operator's proposals for licence variations.
City Index Ltd v Leslie
[1992] QB 98 · Court of Appeal · 1992
Spread betting contracts are not void as wagering contracts under the Gaming Act 1845 because they are contracts for differences, not wagers on the outcome of events.
R (Betting Shop Services) v Responsible Gambling Strategy Board
[2020] EWHC 2631 (Admin) · High Court · 2020
Gambling policy decisions by public bodies must be based on evidence and must not be arbitrary. However, the public interest in preventing gambling harm justifies significant regulatory intervention.
R (Entain Group) v Gambling Commission
[2022] EWHC 1012 (Admin) · High Court · 2022
The Gambling Commission has power to impose substantial penalties for regulatory breaches, and such penalties will be upheld if they are proportionate to the seriousness of the breaches and the operator's culpability.
R (Campaign for Fairer Gambling) v Gambling Commission
[2019] EWHC 3256 (Admin) · High Court · 2019
The Gambling Commission has an ongoing duty to monitor the effectiveness of regulatory conditions, but the court will not substitute its judgment for the Commission's on how to regulate advertising.
R v Tronoh Mines Ltd
[1952] 1 All ER 697 · King's Bench Division · 1952
For an advertisement to be an election expense, it must be specifically directed to affecting the result in a particular constituency rather than a general political advertisement.
R (Woolas) v Parliamentary Election Court
[2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin) · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2010
An election may be voided under the Representation of the People Act 1983 if a candidate publishes statements about the personal character or conduct of another candidate that are false and made knowingly or recklessly.
R (Good Law Project) v Electoral Commission
[2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin) · High Court · 2018
The Electoral Commission's investigation and enforcement powers are subject to judicial review. Decisions to close investigations must be made lawfully and with adequate reasons.
Fee v Returning Officer for East Londonderry
[2021] NIQB 50 · High Court of Northern Ireland · 2021
An election petition must demonstrate errors sufficient to have affected the result. Minor procedural irregularities that could not have changed the outcome will not void an election.
McDonald v Crofts
[2022] EWHC 1042 (QB) · High Court · 2022
Social media statements by a candidate may constitute false statements about the personal character of another candidate under the Representation of the People Act 1983 if they are factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion.
Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
[1999] 67 Con LR 1 · Technology and Construction Court · 1999
A contracting authority that breaches the EU procurement rules by treating a tenderer unequally is liable in damages for the tenderer's wasted costs and loss of profit.
Alstom Transport v Eurostar International Ltd
[2010] EWHC 2747 (Ch) · High Court (Chancery Division) · 2010
A claim for a declaration of ineffectiveness must be brought promptly. The court will consider the importance of the contract to the contracting authority and third parties when deciding whether to grant such relief.
R (easyJet) v Civil Aviation Authority
[2021] EWHC 1586 (Admin) · High Court · 2021
The award of airport slots is subject to public law principles of fairness and consistency, even where the formal procurement rules may not apply.
Faraday Development Ltd v West Berkshire Council
[2018] EWCA Civ 2532 · Court of Appeal · 2018
A local authority that disposes of land to a developer in return for the developer constructing facilities may be entering into a public works contract subject to the procurement rules.
Ocean Outdoor UK Ltd v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC
[2019] EWCA Civ 1642 · Court of Appeal · 2019
A services concession contract (where the operator takes the operating risk) is not a public services contract but may still be subject to lighter-touch procurement requirements. The key question is whether the operator takes the demand risk.
Winterwerp v Netherlands
(1979) 2 EHRR 387 · European Court of Human Rights · 1979
Detention on the ground of unsoundness of mind is only lawful under Article 5(1)(e) ECHR if the individual is reliably shown by objective medical expertise to be of unsound mind, the disorder is of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, and the detention continues only so long as the disorder persists.
R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L
[1999] 1 AC 458 · House of Lords · 1999
An informal (compliant but incapacitated) patient could be detained under the common law doctrine of necessity without recourse to the Mental Health Act 1983, creating a gap in safeguards later addressed by the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust
[2012] UKSC 2 · Supreme Court · 2012
The operational duty under Article 2 ECHR to protect life applies to voluntary (informal) psychiatric patients where there is a real and immediate risk of suicide known to the hospital, not only to detained patients.
Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
[2009] 1 AC 681 · House of Lords · 2009
An NHS trust owes an operational duty under Article 2 ECHR to take reasonable steps to prevent the suicide of a detained psychiatric patient where staff know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk to life.
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council
[2014] UKSC 19 · Supreme Court · 2014
A person is deprived of liberty for Article 5 ECHR purposes if they are under continuous supervision and control and are not free to leave, regardless of the purpose of the placement, the relative normality of the living arrangements, or the reason for the incapacity.
Essop v Home Office
[2017] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2017
In an indirect discrimination claim, the claimant does not need to prove why a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage — only that it does so.
Bull v Hall
[2013] UKSC 73 · Supreme Court · 2013
A hotel owner who refused a double room to a same-sex couple in a civil partnership committed direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The restriction was not a proportionate means of manifesting religious belief.
Lee v Ashers Baking Company
[2018] UKSC 49 · Supreme Court · 2018
Refusing to produce a cake bearing a message supporting same-sex marriage was not direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The objection was to the message, not the customer's sexual orientation.
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
[2012] UKSC 15 · Supreme Court · 2012
A requirement for a law degree for promotion to the highest grade could constitute indirect age discrimination where an older employee close to retirement could not realistically obtain the qualification. The employer must objectively justify the PCP.
Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
[2003] ICR 318 · Court of Appeal · 2003
Compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases should be awarded in three bands: a lower band for less serious cases, a middle band for serious cases that do not merit the highest award, and an upper band for the most serious cases.
Rice v Connolly
[1966] 2 QB 414 · Queen's Bench Divisional Court · 1966
A citizen has no general legal duty to assist the police or answer their questions. Refusing to answer questions or to accompany police voluntarily does not constitute obstruction of a police officer in the execution of their duty.
Osman v DPP
[1999] 163 JP 725 · Queen's Bench Divisional Court · 1999
A lawful stop and search under s.1 PACE 1984 requires the officer to have reasonable grounds for suspicion based on objective factors relating to the individual, not merely the area or time of day. A search conducted without proper grounds renders any evidence inadmissible.
R v Samuel
[1988] QB 615 · Court of Appeal · 1988
The right of access to legal advice under s.58 PACE 1984 is a fundamental right. Delay can only be authorised under s.58(8) where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe access to a solicitor will lead to specific harms (alerting accomplices, hindering recovery of evidence). The grounds must relate to the specific solicitor, not solicitors in general.
R v Aspinall
[1999] 2 Cr App R 115 · Court of Appeal · 1999
Evidence obtained from a mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable suspect interviewed without an appropriate adult present, as required by PACE Code C, is likely to be excluded under s.76 or s.78 PACE 1984 as unreliable or unfair.
R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire
[2007] 2 AC 105 · House of Lords · 2007
Police may only take preventive action (such as stopping and turning back coaches of protesters) where a breach of the peace is imminent. The action must be proportionate and necessary. Pre-emptive action taken too far in advance of any anticipated breach is unlawful.
R v Ghosh
[1982] QB 1053 · Court of Appeal · 1982
Dishonesty in theft (and related offences) was to be determined by a two-stage test: (1) was the conduct dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people? (2) did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest? (Now replaced by Ivey v Genting Casinos.)
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
[2017] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2017
The test for dishonesty is: (1) ascertain the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts; (2) determine whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The second subjective limb of the Ghosh test is no longer good law.
R v Preddy
[1996] AC 815 · House of Lords · 1996
A mortgage advance obtained by deception did not constitute 'obtaining property belonging to another' under s.15 Theft Act 1968 because the bank transfer created a new chose in action rather than transferring existing property. This lacuna led directly to the Theft Act 1978 amendment and ultimately the Fraud Act 2006.
R v Hinks
[2001] 2 AC 241 · House of Lords · 2001
Appropriation for the purposes of theft can occur even where the owner consents to the transfer and the recipient obtains indefeasible title. The concept of appropriation is neutral — it is dishonesty that makes the conduct criminal.
R v Dougall
[2010] EWCA Crim 1048 · Court of Appeal · 2010
Under s.4 of the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by abuse of position requires that the defendant occupies a position in which they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another, and they dishonestly abuse that position with intent to make a gain or cause a loss.
R v Offen
[2001] 1 WLR 253 · Court of Appeal · 2001
The automatic life sentence under s.2 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 for a second serious offence must be read compatibly with Article 5 ECHR. The 'exceptional circumstances' exception should be interpreted broadly: if the offender does not pose a significant risk, a life sentence would be arbitrary and disproportionate.
R v Povey
[2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 42 · Court of Appeal · 2009
Sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council are not a straitjacket. Judges must follow the guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so, and must give reasons for departing from them.
R v Brewster
[1998] 1 Cr App R 220 · Court of Appeal · 1998
When suspending a sentence of imprisonment, the court must consider whether the case meets the custody threshold and then whether there are factors that justify suspension. A suspended sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment and should not be imposed lightly.
R v Blackshaw (Riots Cases)
[2011] EWCA Crim 2312 · Court of Appeal · 2011
Context is important in sentencing. Offences committed during widespread public disorder can properly attract sentences above the normal range. The courts may take into account the context of serious public disorder as a seriously aggravating feature.
R v Raza
[2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 56 · Court of Appeal · 2010
The totality principle requires that when consecutive sentences are imposed, the overall sentence must be just and proportionate. The court should step back and consider whether the aggregate term is appropriate for the overall offending behaviour.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
[2019] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2019
The 'serious harm' requirement in s.1 Defamation Act 2013 is a factual threshold distinct from the common law presumption of damage. A claimant must prove as a fact that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.
PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2016] UKSC 26 · Supreme Court · 2016
An injunction restraining publication of private information can be maintained even after the information has been published abroad and is widely available online, because publication in a national newspaper would cause additional harm through the 'hardcopy' factor and the intrusion into private life under Article 8 ECHR.
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd
[2004] 2 AC 457 · House of Lords · 2004
The tort of misuse of private information protects information in respect of which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The test involves a balancing exercise between Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights, with neither having automatic priority.
Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc
[2005] QB 946 · Court of Appeal · 2005
A defamation action can be struck out as an abuse of process where the publication is so limited that no real or substantial tort has been committed (the 'Jameel abuse' principle). The game must be worth the candle.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
[2001] 2 AC 127 · House of Lords · 2001
Responsible journalism on matters of public interest could provide a defence to defamation (the Reynolds privilege). A non-exhaustive list of factors ('the Reynolds factors') were relevant to whether the defence was made out.
Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof)
[2008] UKHL 35 · House of Lords · 2008
The standard of proof in care proceedings is the simple balance of probabilities. There is no heightened standard for serious allegations. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter to be taken into account in deciding whether it has been proved, but it does not change the standard of proof.
Re B (A Child) (Care Order: Proportionality)
[2013] UKSC 33 · Supreme Court · 2013
A care order with a plan for adoption — the most extreme interference with family life — can only be justified where 'nothing else will do'. The court must evaluate all realistic options and be satisfied that the intervention is necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
[1986] AC 112 · House of Lords · 1986
A child under 16 has the legal capacity to consent to medical treatment (and exercise other rights) if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully understand what is proposed — 'Gillick competence'. Parental rights yield to the child's right to make their own decisions when the child achieves sufficient understanding.
Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
[2001] Fam 147 · Court of Appeal · 2001
Where separation of conjoined twins would inevitably kill the weaker twin but was necessary to save the stronger twin, the court could authorise the surgery as being in the best interests of both children, and the defence of necessity would apply to what would otherwise be the murder of the weaker twin.
Lancashire County Council v B
[2000] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 2000
For the threshold criteria under s.31 Children Act 1989, where the court cannot identify which carer caused the harm, it is sufficient that the harm was caused by one of the carers. The 'uncertain perpetrator' principle allows care proceedings to continue without identifying the specific abuser.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Public Inquiry (2017–2024) · Public Inquiry · 2017
Systemic failures in fire safety regulation, building control, and the use of combustible cladding materials contributed to the Grenfell Tower disaster. Manufacturers, certifiers, and regulators all bore responsibility.
Rendlesham Estates plc v Barr Ltd
[2014] EWHC 3968 (TCC) · High Court (TCC) · 2014
A builder owes a duty under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to ensure dwellings are fit for habitation when completed, and this duty cannot be excluded by contract.
Batty v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd
[1978] QB 554 · Court of Appeal · 1978
A developer owes a duty of care to purchasers in respect of the fitness of the site for building, even where the actual construction work is carried out by independent contractors.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
[1991] 1 AC 398 · House of Lords · 1991
A local authority is not liable in negligence for approving defective building plans where the defect causes pure economic loss. The loss from a defective building that has not caused physical injury to person or other property is pure economic loss.
Abbey Developments Ltd v PP Brickwork Ltd
[2003] EWHC 1987 (TCC) · High Court (TCC) · 2003
The adjudication enforcement regime under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 requires compliance with an adjudicator's decision pending any final determination, even where there are arguable grounds for challenge.
Manchester City Council v Pinnock
[2010] UKSC 45 · Supreme Court · 2010
Article 8 ECHR requires that any person at risk of being dispossessed of their home by a public authority should be able to have the proportionality of the eviction determined by an independent tribunal.
Knowsley Housing Trust v White
[2008] UKHL 70 · House of Lords · 2008
Anti-social behaviour by a tenant or a person residing with or visiting the tenant can constitute a ground for possession even if the tenant did not personally engage in the behaviour.
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council
[2015] UKSC 22 · Supreme Court · 2015
When a local authority places a homeless household in accommodation outside its district, it must explain its decision-making process and the efforts made to secure accommodation within or as close to the district as possible.
Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2015] UKSC 34 · Supreme Court · 2015
A person who has been provided with accommodation under the homelessness provisions does not cease to be homeless if that accommodation is not suitable or reasonable to continue to occupy.
R (Poshteh) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC
[2017] UKSC 36 · Supreme Court · 2017
Whether a person is vulnerable for the purposes of priority need under the homelessness legislation requires comparison with an ordinary person if made homeless, not with an ordinary person generally.
FCA v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd
[2021] UKSC 1 · Supreme Court · 2021
Business interruption insurance policies that cover losses arising from notifiable diseases or government-mandated closures may cover losses caused by COVID-19, depending on the policy wording. The 'but for' test of causation is not appropriate for disease clause policies.
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd
[2014] UKSC 61 · Supreme Court · 2014
The non-disclosure of a large commission on a PPI policy can make the relationship between lender and borrower unfair under s.140A Consumer Credit Act 1974, without the need to establish a common law or fiduciary duty to disclose.
Patel v Mirza
[2016] UKSC 42 · Supreme Court · 2016
The defence of illegality does not automatically bar a claim for unjust enrichment where money was paid pursuant to an illegal agreement that was not performed. The court should consider the policies underlying the illegality defence.
Barclays Bank plc v UniCredit Bank AG
[2014] EWCA Civ 302 · Court of Appeal · 2014
A demand guarantee is an autonomous instrument, independent of the underlying transaction. The bank must pay on a compliant demand unless there is clear evidence of fraud.
Spread Trustee Company Ltd v Hutcheson
[2011] UKPC 13 · Privy Council · 2011
A trustee exemption clause that excludes liability for gross negligence is not contrary to public policy and is enforceable, though the court should construe such clauses strictly.
R v Connors
[2013] EWCA Crim 324 · Court of Appeal · 2013
Holding another person in servitude or requiring forced labour is a serious criminal offence. The vulnerability of victims and the coercive control exercised by perpetrators are central to establishing the offence.
VDA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] UKSC 34 · Supreme Court · 2024
Potential victims of trafficking who receive a positive reasonable grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism are entitled to support and assistance, and removal during the reflection period would be unlawful.
R v K (Modern Slavery)
[2018] EWCA Crim 1432 · Court of Appeal · 2018
The statutory defence under s.45 Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides that a person is not guilty of an offence if they committed it because they were compelled to do so as a direct consequence of being a victim of slavery or exploitation.
Siliadin v France
(2005) 43 EHRR 16 · European Court of Human Rights · 2005
Article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) imposes positive obligations on states to penalise and prosecute effectively any act aimed at maintaining a person in a situation of slavery, servitude, or forced labour.
Chowdury v Greece
(2017) ECHR 300 · European Court of Human Rights · 2017
The state has positive obligations under Article 4 ECHR to investigate situations of potential human trafficking and forced labour, even where the victims did not initially raise formal complaints.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · 1969
An ouster clause purporting to exclude judicial review of a statutory body's decisions cannot protect a decision that is a nullity due to error of law. Any error of law renders the decision ultra vires.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1985] AC 374 · House of Lords · 1985
The exercise of prerogative powers is subject to judicial review on the same grounds as statutory powers (illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety), unless the subject matter is non-justiciable.
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor
[2017] UKSC 51 · Supreme Court · 2017
Fees for employment tribunals that effectively prevent access to justice are unlawful. The right of access to the courts is inherent in the rule of law.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
[2019] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2019
The prorogation of Parliament is justiciable. An advice to prorogue Parliament which has the effect of frustrating Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification is unlawful.
R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
[2008] UKHL 60 · House of Lords · 2008
The Director of the SFO's decision to discontinue a criminal investigation on grounds of national security was lawful and within his statutory discretion under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
R (Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2021] UKSC 7 · Supreme Court · 2021
The Secretary of State's decision to deprive a person of British citizenship on national security grounds is lawful where it is assessed that the person's return would pose a risk. The right to a fair hearing does not require that the person be allowed to enter the UK.
R (Pham) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2015] UKSC 19 · Supreme Court · 2015
Deprivation of citizenship must not render a person stateless, but the question of statelessness depends on the law of the other country of nationality, and the Secretary of State is entitled to make her own assessment of foreign law.
Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2016] UKSC 56 · Supreme Court · 2016
The historical bar on British citizenship by descent through unmarried fathers was discriminatory, and the common law should be developed to remove the discrimination where possible.
Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2013] UKSC 62 · Supreme Court · 2013
The Secretary of State cannot deprive a person of British citizenship if the effect would be to render them stateless, unless they are able to acquire another nationality.
R (Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2017] UKSC 11 · Supreme Court · 2017
The immigration rules and Article 8 ECHR require a proper assessment of proportionality when considering whether to grant leave to remain on the basis of a private or family life established in the UK.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board
[2013] UKSC 61 · Supreme Court · 2013
Common law fairness requires the Parole Board to hold an oral hearing whenever fairness to the prisoner requires one. The Board must not adopt an unduly restrictive approach to directing oral hearings.
R (Haney) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2014] UKSC 66 · Supreme Court · 2014
Prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) have a right to have access to rehabilitative courses that would enable the Parole Board to assess whether they can safely be released. Systemic failure to provide such courses may violate Article 5 ECHR.
R (James) v Secretary of State for Justice
[2009] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2009
The detention of a prisoner beyond their tariff period is only justified under Article 5(1)(a) ECHR if there remains a causal connection between the original conviction and the continued detention. The state must provide reasonable opportunities for rehabilitation.
Raymond v Honey
[1983] 1 AC 1 · House of Lords · 1983
A convicted prisoner retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication. A prison governor has no authority to impede a prisoner's right of access to the courts.
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2001] UKHL 26 · House of Lords · 2001
A blanket policy requiring prisoners to be absent from their cells during searches of legally privileged correspondence is unlawful. Proportionality requires a more nuanced approach than Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Campbell v MGN Ltd
[2004] UKHL 22 · House of Lords · 2004
The tort of misuse of private information protects information in respect of which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court must balance Article 8 (privacy) against Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Attorney General v BBC
[1981] AC 303 · House of Lords · 1981
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 strict liability rule applies only to publications creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings. A mere incidental risk is insufficient.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) · High Court · 2008
A person's sexual activities in private are protected by Article 8 and cannot be published without justification. There is no general public interest in knowing how celebrities conduct their private lives.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd
[1987] AC 460 · House of Lords · 1987
A stay of proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens should be granted where there is another forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action.
Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co
[1984] AC 50 · House of Lords · 1984
The proper law of a contract is the system of law with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection, determined objectively where the parties have not made an express choice.
Boys v Chaplin
[1971] AC 356 · House of Lords · 1971
In tort claims with a foreign element, the English court may apply the law of the place where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti), but flexibility exists to apply English law where justice requires.
R (Daniel Thwaites plc) v Wirral Magistrates' Court
[2008] EWHC 838 (Admin) · High Court · 2008
Licensing decisions must be based on evidence relating to the licensing objectives. Personal prejudice against alcohol or a general desire to reduce the number of premises is not a legitimate basis for refusal.
R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
[2011] EWCA Civ 31 · Court of Appeal · 2011
On appeal from a licensing committee's decision, the magistrates should give appropriate weight to the decision of the committee as the specialist body, while conducting a rehearing.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd
[2005] UKHL 41 · House of Lords · 2005
A charge over book debts is a floating charge (not a fixed charge) if the chargor is free to collect and use the proceeds of the debts in the ordinary course of business without the chargee's consent.
Re BCCI (No 8)
[1998] AC 214 · House of Lords · 1998
A bank has a valid charge over a customer's deposits with the bank itself as security for the customer's liabilities. This is not inconsistent with the principle that a person cannot owe a debt to themselves.
West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodd
[1988] BCLC 250 · Court of Appeal · 1988
When a company is insolvent or nearing insolvency, the directors' duty to act in the interests of the company shifts to include the interests of creditors.
Banks v Goodfellow
(1870) LR 5 QB 549 · Court of Queen's Bench · 1870
Testamentary capacity requires that the testator understands the nature of making a will, the extent of property being disposed of, the claims of persons who might expect to benefit, and is not affected by any disorder of the mind.
Ilott v The Blue Cross
[2017] UKSC 17 · Supreme Court · 2017
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows an adult child to claim reasonable financial provision from a deceased parent's estate, but the court should not override the testator's wishes without good reason.
R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner
[2004] UKHL 10 · House of Lords · 2004
Where Article 2 ECHR is engaged (deaths in state custody or involving state responsibility), an inquest must examine not just how (by what means) the deceased died, but in what circumstances, including the broader question of systemic failings.
R v Coroner for North Humberside, ex parte Jamieson
[1995] QB 1 · Court of Appeal · 1995
An inquest is an inquisitorial fact-finding process and not a means of determining criminal or civil liability. The verdict must not appear to determine any such liability.
R v Gul
[2013] UKSC 64 · Supreme Court · 2013
The definition of terrorism in s.1 Terrorism Act 2000 is broad and includes action taken against the military forces of a state, even where the state is oppressive. The breadth of the definition is a matter for Parliament.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3)
[2009] UKHL 28 · House of Lords · 2009
In control order (now TPIM) proceedings, the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against them to enable them to give effective instructions to their special advocate.
Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2021] UKSC 7 · Supreme Court · 2021
The deprivation of citizenship on national security grounds is lawful where the person's return poses a security risk. The right to an effective appeal does not require that the person be allowed to enter the UK.
RSPCA v Johnson
[2009] EWHC 2702 (Admin) · High Court · 2009
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 imposes a duty on any person responsible for an animal to ensure its needs are met. The RSPCA has standing to bring private prosecutions for welfare offences.
DPP v Wright
[2009] EWHC 105 (Admin) · High Court · 2009
The Hunting Act 2004 does not require proof that the hunt intended to chase the quarry. It is sufficient that hunting took place — the offence focuses on the activity of hunting, not the subjective intention.
Huzar v Jet2.com Ltd
[2014] EWCA Civ 791 · Court of Appeal · 2014
A technical fault with an aircraft is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' within the meaning of EU Regulation 261/2004 that would exempt the airline from paying compensation for flight delays.
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd
[2014] UKSC 15 · Supreme Court · 2014
Article 12 of EU Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights does not prevent passengers from claiming supplementary damages beyond the standard compensation amounts.
R v Gold and Schifreen
[1988] AC 1063 · House of Lords · 1988
The existing criminal law (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981) was inadequate to deal with computer hacking. This case directly led to the enactment of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Google Inc v Vidal-Hall
[2015] EWCA Civ 311 · Court of Appeal · 2015
Compensation for distress caused by data protection breaches can be claimed without proof of pecuniary loss. The DPA 1998 must be interpreted consistently with the EU Data Protection Directive.
Sugar v BBC
[2012] UKSC 4 · Supreme Court · 2012
Information held by the BBC for purposes of journalism, art, or literature is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The exemption is absolute and applies to all information held for those purposes.
Kennedy v Charity Commission
[2014] UKSC 20 · Supreme Court · 2014
The qualified exemption under s.32 FOIA for information held by courts and inquiries continues to apply after proceedings have ended. Common law rights of access to information may supplement FOIA.
Jones v Ministry of the Interior of Saudi Arabia
[2006] UKHL 26 · House of Lords · 2006
State immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 applies even where allegations of torture are made. International law does not currently recognise an exception to state immunity for civil claims based on torture.
Al-Adsani v United Kingdom
(2001) 34 EHRR 11 · European Court of Human Rights · 2001
The grant of state immunity in civil proceedings for acts of torture does not violate Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial). State immunity serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate.
R (Weaver) v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
[2009] EWCA Civ 587 · Court of Appeal · 2009
A registered social landlord exercising public functions (allocation and management of social housing) can be a public authority under s.6 Human Rights Act 1998 for those functions.
Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners Ltd
[2011] UKSC 7 · Supreme Court · 2011
Local authorities had no power to enter into mutual insurance arrangements before the Localism Act 2011 general power of competence. The incidental powers under s.111 Local Government Act 1972 did not extend to establishing a mutual insurance company.
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire DC
[2014] EWCA Civ 137 · Court of Appeal · 2014
When deciding planning applications affecting the setting of a listed building, the decision-maker must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting, as required by s.66 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990.
R v Shimizu (UK) Ltd
[2014] EWCA Crim 1896 · Court of Appeal · 2014
Carrying out unauthorised works to a listed building is a criminal offence of strict liability under s.9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
[2003] UKHL 66 · House of Lords · 2003
A sewerage undertaker's failure to prevent flooding is not actionable in nuisance or under the HRA where the statutory scheme (Water Industry Act 1991) provides its own enforcement mechanism through Ofwat.
Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority
[1999] 2 AC 22 · House of Lords · 1999
The offence of causing polluting matter to enter controlled waters under the Water Resources Act 1991 is one of strict liability. A person 'causes' pollution if they maintain something which, combined with a foreseeable act of a third party or natural event, results in pollution.
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass
[1972] AC 153 · House of Lords · 1972
A company can rely on the due diligence defence where the offence was committed by a store manager (another person) and the company had set up a proper system of training and supervision. The manager is not the alter ego of the company.
Smedleys Ltd v Breed
[1974] AC 839 · House of Lords · 1974
Food safety offences are strict liability. The presence of extraneous matter (a caterpillar in a tin of peas) constitutes an offence regardless of the manufacturer's care, subject to the statutory defences.
Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland
[2013] UKSC 2 · Supreme Court · 2013
An extradition warrant can be challenged on the basis that it contains an error that is misleading, but only where the error is material — not every inaccuracy justifies discharge.
Love v Government of the United States of America
[2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) · High Court · 2018
The forum bar under s.19B Extradition Act 2003 can prevent extradition where a substantial measure of the criminal activity occurred in the UK and extradition would not be in the interests of justice.
Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2001] 1 AC 489 · House of Lords · 2001
The test for sufficiency of protection in asylum cases is whether the state provides a reasonable level of protection — not a guarantee of safety. A functioning system of criminal law and a willingness to enforce it is sufficient.
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2010] UKSC 31 · Supreme Court · 2010
A gay asylum seeker cannot be refused refugee status on the ground that they could avoid persecution by concealing their sexual orientation. To require concealment is itself a form of persecution.
R v Marriott
[1971] 1 WLR 187 · Court of Appeal · 1971
Possession of a controlled drug requires proof that the defendant had a substance in their possession and knew it was a controlled drug, or was wilfully blind to that fact.
R v Lambert
[2001] UKHL 37 · House of Lords · 2001
The reverse burden of proof in s.28 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (defence of lack of knowledge) should be read as imposing an evidential burden, not a legal burden, to comply with Article 6(2) ECHR (presumption of innocence).
Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd
[2022] UKSC 18 · Supreme Court · 2022
Under the Electronic Communications Code (Schedule 3A Communications Act 2003), the consideration (rent) for an agreement to install telecoms apparatus should be assessed on a 'no-network' basis — excluding the value attributable to the telecommunications use.
R v Zezev
[2002] Crim LR 648 · Court of Appeal · 2002
Denial-of-service attacks against electronic communications systems constitute criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and can be prosecuted even where the attack originates from abroad.
Ali v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School
[2006] UKHL 14 · House of Lords · 2006
Unlawful exclusion from school does not necessarily amount to a denial of the right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR, provided alternative educational provision is made available.
R (GB) v Hampshire County Council
[2019] EWHC 3572 (Admin) · High Court · 2019
Local authorities must assess and make provision for children with special educational needs within statutory timeframes; failure to do so is unlawful.
Cowan v Scargill
[1985] Ch 270 · High Court (Chancery Division) · 1985
Pension fund trustees must exercise their investment powers in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries. They must not allow their personal views (including political or moral beliefs) to influence investment decisions to the detriment of the fund.
Imperial Group Pension Trust Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd
[1991] 1 WLR 589 · High Court (Chancery Division) · 1991
An employer exercising powers under a pension scheme is subject to an implied duty of good faith — it must not exercise its powers for an improper purpose or perversely.
Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust
[2004] EWCA Civ 576 · Court of Appeal · 2004
The court cannot compel parties to mediate, as that would be contrary to Article 6 ECHR. However, unreasonable refusal to mediate may be penalised in costs.
Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb
[2020] UKSC 38 · Supreme Court · 2020
The law applicable to an arbitration agreement is determined by: (1) express choice; (2) implied choice; or (3) the system of law most closely connected. Where the main contract contains a choice of law clause, there is a rebuttable presumption that this governs the arbitration agreement too.
Smith v Ministry of Defence
[2013] UKSC 41 · Supreme Court · 2013
The ECHR Article 2 (right to life) obligation applies to military operations. The UK owes a duty to take reasonable measures to protect soldiers' lives, including providing adequate equipment and training.
R v Sergeant Alexander Blackman (Marine A)
[2017] EWCA Crim 190 · Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) · 2017
A murder conviction by court martial can be reduced to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility where fresh evidence shows an abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired the defendant's ability to exercise self-control.
Eastham v Newcastle United FC
[1964] Ch 413 · High Court (Chancery Division) · 1964
The football retain-and-transfer system constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. A player could not be indefinitely retained by a club after his contract expired, preventing him from joining another club.
Modahl v British Athletic Federation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1447 · Court of Appeal · 2001
A contractual relationship exists between an athlete and the governing body through membership. Disciplinary decisions of governing bodies are subject to the rules of natural justice.
Brent LBC v Risk Management Partners Ltd
[2011] UKSC 7 · Supreme Court · 2011
Local authorities' powers to enter into insurance arrangements are limited by statute. The general power of competence must be exercised within statutory constraints, including procurement rules.
Norris v Government of the United States of America
[2010] UKSC 9 · Supreme Court · 2010
Extradition will not be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time unless the delay has caused serious prejudice to the requested person that makes a fair trial impossible or extradition oppressive.
Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
[2012] UKSC 22 · Supreme Court · 2012
A public prosecutor can constitute a 'judicial authority' for the purposes of issuing a European Arrest Warrant under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
R v Offen
[2001] 1 WLR 253 · Court of Appeal · 2001
The automatic life sentence provisions must be read compatibly with Article 5 ECHR. The court should not impose a life sentence where the offender does not pose a significant risk to the public.
R v Caird
[1970] 54 Cr App R 499 · Court of Appeal · 1970
Those who take part in mob violence must expect severe sentences. The courts must impose deterrent sentences where group disorder threatens public order.
R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings
[1995] 1 All ER 513 · Court of Appeal · 1995
Local authorities can only do what they are statutorily authorised to do. Unlike private individuals, they cannot rely on a general freedom to act; each action must be traced back to a specific power.
Winterwerp v Netherlands
(1979) 2 EHRR 387 · European Court of Human Rights · 1979
Detention on grounds of unsoundness of mind under Article 5(1)(e) ECHR requires that the individual has a true mental disorder established by objective medical expertise, the disorder is of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, and continued confinement depends on the persistence of the disorder.
HL v United Kingdom (Bournewood)
(2004) 40 EHRR 32 · European Court of Human Rights · 2004
The informal admission of a compliant but incapacitated patient to a psychiatric hospital amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, and the lack of procedural safeguards violated Article 5(4).
Essop v Home Office
[2017] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2017
In an indirect discrimination claim, the claimant need not establish why a particular provision, criterion, or practice puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a disadvantage — only that it does so.
Bull v Hall
[2013] UKSC 73 · Supreme Court · 2013
Refusing to provide a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple in civil partnership constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, not indirect discrimination.
R v Samuel
[1988] QB 615 · Court of Appeal · 1988
The right to legal advice under s.58 PACE is a fundamental right. Denial of access to a solicitor can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and the grounds for delay must be based on specific facts, not mere suspicion.
Rice v Connolly
[1966] 2 QB 414 · Queen's Bench Division · 1966
A citizen has no legal obligation to answer police questions or to assist the police with their enquiries. While it may be a moral or social duty, refusal to answer questions does not amount to wilful obstruction of a constable.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd
[2019] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2019
The 'serious harm' test under s.1 Defamation Act 2013 requires proof of actual serious harm to reputation, or a probability of serious harm. It raised the threshold above the previous common law test of a tendency to cause substantial harm.
Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council
[2014] EWCA Civ 137 · Court of Appeal · 2014
When considering planning applications that may affect the setting of listed buildings, the decision-maker must give 'considerable importance and weight' to any harm identified, reflecting the statutory presumption in s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Re B (Children)
[2008] UKHL 35 · House of Lords · 2008
In care proceedings, the standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard — the balance of probabilities. There is no heightened standard for serious allegations. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor its consequences should affect the standard of proof.
Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)
[1996] AC 563 · House of Lords · 1996
In care proceedings, the threshold conditions must be established on the balance of probabilities. Suspicion alone, however strong, is not enough — there must be facts proved to the requisite standard that give rise to a real possibility of future harm.
Buchanan v Milton
[1999] 2 FLR 844 · High Court · 1999
There is no property in a dead body. The person with the highest claim to administer the estate has the right and duty to arrange for the disposal of the body.
R (Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2016] UKSC 58 · Supreme Court · 2016
The removal of the spare room subsidy ('bedroom tax') for disabled persons who required an additional bedroom for care purposes constituted unjustified discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read with Article 8.
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc
[2009] UKSC 6 · Supreme Court · 2009
Bank overdraft charges are part of the price or remuneration for banking services and therefore fall within the exclusion from the unfairness assessment under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (now Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (The DC Merwestone)
[2016] UKSC 45 · Supreme Court · 2016
The fraudulent claims rule does not extend to 'collateral lies' — lies told in support of a claim that is otherwise genuine. A policyholder who tells a lie that is not material to the claim does not forfeit the entire claim.
Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd
[2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC) · Technology and Construction Court · 2015
An adjudicator's decision is temporarily binding and enforceable, even if arguably wrong, unless the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction or there was a serious breach of natural justice.
Argos Ltd v Office of Fair Trading
[2006] EWCA Civ 1318 · Court of Appeal · 2006
Price-fixing through indirect information exchange (hub and spoke) constitutes an anti-competitive agreement under the Competition Act 1998. A retailer who communicates pricing information through a common supplier participates in a concerted practice.
W T Ramsay Ltd v IRC
[1982] AC 300 · House of Lords · 1982
Where a transaction is carried out as a series of pre-ordained steps with no commercial purpose other than tax avoidance, the court should look at the composite transaction as a whole rather than each step in isolation.
Google Inc v Vidal-Hall
[2015] EWCA Civ 311 · Court of Appeal · 2015
Misuse of private information constitutes a tort. Damages for distress can be awarded under the Data Protection Act without the need to prove financial loss.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
[2015] UKSC 11 · Supreme Court · 2015
A doctor must take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of any material risks involved in proposed treatment and of reasonable alternatives. A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient's position would attach significance to it.
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd
[2000] 1 WLR 2416 · House of Lords · 2000
Copyright infringement requires proof of copying of a substantial part of the work. 'Substantial' is judged qualitatively, not merely quantitatively.
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd
[2014] UKSC 61 · Supreme Court · 2014
The non-disclosure of a large commission on a PPI policy created an unfair relationship between the creditor and debtor under s.140A Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1995] 1 WLR 759 · House of Lords · 1995
Planning obligations (s.106 agreements) are material considerations in determining planning applications. However, the weight to be given to such obligations is a matter for the decision-maker, and they must be fairly and reasonably related to the development.
Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
[2003] UKHL 66 · House of Lords · 2003
A sewerage undertaker's failure to prevent flooding caused by inadequate sewerage capacity cannot give rise to a claim in nuisance or under the Human Rights Act, because the statutory scheme (Water Industry Act 1991) provides a complete code with its own enforcement mechanism through Ofwat.
Environment Agency v Empress Car Co (Abertillery) Ltd
[1999] 2 AC 22 · House of Lords · 1999
A person 'causes' water pollution for the purposes of s.85 Water Resources Act 1991 if they maintain something which, if interfered with by a third party or natural event, could result in pollution. The chain of causation is not broken by a foreseeable intervening act.
R v Mackinlay
[2018] UKSC 42 · Supreme Court · 2018
Election expenses incurred by a political party's national campaign (such as the 'battle bus') that promote a particular candidate must be included in the candidate's return of election expenses. The statutory distinction between party spending and candidate spending depends on whether the expenditure promotes or procures the election of a specific candidate.
Watkins v Woolas
[2010] EWHC 2702 (QB) · Election Court · 2010
Making false statements of fact about the personal character or conduct of a candidate in an election is an illegal practice under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If proved, the election may be declared void.
Huzar v Jet2.com Ltd
[2014] EWCA Civ 791 · Court of Appeal · 2014
A technical fault in an aircraft is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that exempts an airline from paying compensation for flight cancellations or long delays. Technical problems are inherent in the normal exercise of an airline's activity.
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd
[2014] UKSC 15 · Supreme Court · 2014
A passenger may claim damages for mental distress under the Montreal Convention 1999 (given domestic effect by the Carriage by Air Act 1961) where an airline's failure to provide assistance to a disabled passenger amounts to a breach of Article 17 of the Convention.
R v Goldstein; R v Rimmington
[2005] UKHL 63 · House of Lords · 2005
The common law offence of public nuisance requires that the nuisance materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public. It is relevant to gambling law where unlicensed gambling activities create public nuisance.
R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
[2021] EWCA Civ 43 · Court of Appeal · 2021
The Secretary of State's net zero strategy must contain policies that are sufficient to enable the legally binding carbon budgets to be met. The court can review whether the Government's climate policies are adequate to meet the statutory targets under the Climate Change Act 2008.
Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
[2017] UKSC 27 · Supreme Court · 2017
In an indirect discrimination claim, the claimant does not need to establish the reason why a provision, criterion, or practice puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage. It is sufficient to show group disadvantage by statistical evidence.
Bull v Hall
[2013] UKSC 73 · Supreme Court · 2013
A hotel owner who refused to provide a double room to a same-sex couple in a civil partnership committed direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The hotel's policy of restricting double rooms to married couples amounted to less favourable treatment of civil partners.
Banks v Goodfellow
(1870) LR 5 QB 549 · Queen's Bench · 1870
To have testamentary capacity, the testator must: (1) understand the nature of making a will and its effects; (2) understand the extent of the property of which they are disposing; (3) comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect; and (4) not be subject to any disorder of the mind that poisons their affections, perverts their sense of right, or prevents the exercise of their natural faculties.
Ilott v The Blue Cross
[2017] UKSC 17 · Supreme Court · 2017
When assessing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court should give weight to the testator's wishes and reasons for the disposition, while also considering the applicant's needs. The Act does not impose a general obligation to leave property to adult children.
Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust
[2000] 1 AC 406 · House of Lords · 2000
A tenancy can exist as a contractual relationship between the parties even where the landlord does not have a legal estate capable of granting a tenancy. The grant of exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a tenancy regardless of the landlord's own title.
Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues
[2013] EWCA Civ 669 · Court of Appeal · 2013
A landlord who fails to comply with the statutory requirements for protecting a tenancy deposit within 30 days of receiving it cannot serve a valid section 21 notice under the Housing Act 1988 until the deposit has been returned or properly protected.
Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank
[2003] UKHL 37 · House of Lords · 2003
A parochial church council (PCC) is not a 'public authority' within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, section 6. Chancel repair liability (an ancient obligation on certain landowners to repair the chancel of the parish church) is enforceable as a property right and does not engage Convention rights.
Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
[2006] UKHL 26 · House of Lords · 2006
State immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 applies even to claims of torture. The prohibition of torture in international law, while a jus cogens norm, does not override state immunity, which is a procedural bar rather than a substantive defence.
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
[2017] UKSC 67 · Supreme Court · 2017
The test for dishonesty is objective: the court must first ascertain the actual state of the defendant's knowledge or belief as to the facts, then determine whether the conduct was honest or dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The subjective limb of the R v Ghosh test (whether the defendant realised their conduct was dishonest) is no longer good law.
R v SK
[2011] EWCA Crim 1691 · Court of Appeal · 2011
Where a defendant in criminal proceedings is or may be a victim of trafficking, the court must consider the extent to which their criminal conduct was compelled by their traffickers. The CPS should not prosecute victims of trafficking for offences committed as a direct consequence of their trafficking.
Sugar v BBC
[2012] UKSC 4 · Supreme Court · 2012
Information held by the BBC is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if it is held for purposes of journalism, art, or literature. The BBC's 'derogation' under the Act is broadly construed to protect editorial independence.
Lloyd v Google LLC
[2021] UKSC 50 · Supreme Court · 2021
Damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 require proof of material damage or distress suffered by each individual claimant. 'Loss of control' over personal data does not, without more, give rise to a claim for damages. Representative actions under CPR 19.6 require that each represented person has 'the same interest' — this is not satisfied where individual assessment of damage is needed.
Stack v Dowden
[2007] UKHL 17 · House of Lords · 2007
Where a family home is purchased in joint names, the starting point is that the beneficial interests are equal (joint tenancy). The onus is on the person claiming a different share to establish this by showing the parties' common intention, actual, inferred, or imputed. Relevant factors include financial contributions, advice received, reasons for joint purchase, purpose of relationship, nature of children, and how finances were managed.