ALL CASES Flashcards
(324 cards)
1
Q
R v Raheem-Ul-Nasir
A
Example of an aggravating factor
2
Q
R v Mason
A
The checking of criminal records is permitted in order to verify that a potential juror is not disqualified
3
Q
R v Taylor and Taylor
A
Media influence on jury
4
Q
R v Ponting
A
Juries
Jury refusing to convict despite evidence
5
Q
R V Randle and Pottle
A
Juries
Jury failing to convict the defendants due to time lapse
6
Q
R v Young
A
Jury tried to base decisions on Ouija board.
7
Q
Bushell’s case
A
A jury may make any decision it likes independent of the judge
8
Q
Sander v UK
A
Juries racial bias
9
Q
Hill v Baxter
A
Actus reus must be voluntary
10
Q
Leicester v Pearson
A
AR physical force
11
Q
R v Miller
A
Omission - creating a dangerous situation
12
Q
R v Stone and Dobinson
A
Omission- Voluntary assumption of responsibility
13
Q
R v Pittwood
A
Omission- Contractual duty
14
Q
R v Dytham
A
Omission- Duty through official position
15
Q
R v Gibbins and Proctor
A
Omission- Duty through relationship
16
Q
R v Winzar
A
State of affairs- Involuntary drunk on the highway leads to an arrest.
17
Q
R v Mohan
A
The purpose of the act/ what D wants to happen- Direct Intention “Decision to bring about the commission of an offence”.
18
Q
R v Moloney
A
Intention is a matter for the jury. “A true desire…”
19
Q
R v Chandler
A
Intention is not motive.
20
Q
R v Woollin
A
Death or serious harm is 1: a virtual certainty and 2: D appreciated that such was the case- Indirect Intention
21
Q
R v Cunningham
A
Test for recklessness for Mens Rea- Recklessness
22
Q
R v Latimer
A
No requirement the Mens Rea should relate to a named victim- Established the idea of transferred malice.
23
Q
R v Mitchell
A
Mens Rea transfers through the intended victim to the actual victim.
24
Q
R v Pembliton
A
MR for an offence and therefore the intention cannot be transferred across offences which are too different. e.g., Offence against the person and property offences.
25
Fagan v MPC
If the AR continues, and whilst it is still present the MR occurs, then they have coincided.
26
R v Church
Coincidence rule- MR occurred before AR.
Proves that actus reus must be dangerous and that all sober & reasonable people would recognise risk of some harm.
27
R v White
Established the 'But For' rule but doesn't show it in action. - But for Ds act would the outcome have occurred anyway.
28
R v Pagett
Shows the 'But For' rule in action.
29
R v Kimsey
There has to be more than a slight or trifling link between the cause and the outcome- De Minimis principle (You must be A cause NOT THE cause).
30
R v Jordan
Causation- third party acts- Is medical treatment 'palpably wrong'?
31
R v Williams
Victim's own act-Was Vs act so extreme, it was not reasonably foreseeable?
32
R v Cheshire
Legal causation- Cause of death not independent of the original act.
33
R v Malcherek
Legal causation- Turning off the life support does not break the chain.
34
R v Roberts
Victim's own act- An example of a NON-break in the chain due to the victim's own action because they WERE reasonably foreseeable.
35
R v Blaue
Personal characteristics which render the victim more susceptible to D's acts are immaterial- Shows the thin skull rule.
36
Harrow LBC v Shah
Even though there is no fault you can still find strict liability.
37
Sweet v Parsley
Strict liability- Starting point for judges is that MR is required.
38
B v DPP
Strict liability- The presumption is always stronger where the crime is 'truly criminal' (both legally and morally wrong) in nature.
39
Smedleys v Breed
Strict Liability shown in food production.
40
Alphacell v Woodward
Strict liability shown in pollution.
41
Atkinson v Sir Alfred McAlpine
Strict liability shown in health and safety.
42
Harrow LBC v Shah
Strict Liability shown in Licensing (Gambling and drinking regulations).
43
Ireland
Silence can be an assault
44
Constanza
Words alone can be an assault
45
Tuberville v Savage
Words can negate an assault
46
R v Lamb
V must apprehend violence
47
Smith v CSWPS
Assault must be immediate
48
R v Savage
Case which proves the mens rea for assault
49
Collins v Willcock
Any touching of another person, however slight may amount to battery. Must not be 'unavoidable, everyday touching'.
50
R v Thomas
Touching of a person's clothes is the same as touching the person themselves.
51
DPP v K
An object being used to apply force is indirect battery.
52
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
Applying force through another person is indirect battery.
53
R v Santana-Bermudez
Battery by omission
54
R v Venna
MR for battery is intention or recklessness as to whether unlawful force is applied.
55
T v DPP
Even momentary unconsciousness can be ABH
56
R v Smith
Cutting Hair counts as ABH
57
R v Miller
Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V- Must be more than 'transient or trifling'
58
R v Chan-Fook
Psychiatric Harm can be ABH, mere emotions such as panic, fear and distress will not suffice
59
R v Savage; Parmenter
The MR for the ABH is the MR for the underlying assault or battery- NOTHING MORE- No separate MR for the harm caused.
60
R v Saunders
GBH is "serious" harm
61
R v Burstow
GBH: Psychiatric harm can be GBH provided that it is "serious".
62
R v Bollam
GBH: Ruled that the victim being elderly or a young child can make injuries more serious
63
R v Brown and Stratton
GBH: If the victim suffers more than one injury which taken as a whole amount to serious harm, this can be a GBH.
64
R v Dica
GBH: Biological GBH
65
JCC v Eisenhower
Wounding is a "break in the continuity of the skin"
66
R v Mowatt
S20: Only need to FORESEE that SOME HARM may occur
67
R v Nedrick
S18: D must INTEND to cause SERIOUS HARM.
68
R v Lamb
Constructive manslaughter: Must be able to prove a criminal offence
69
R v Lowe
Constructive manslaughter: An omission is not enough
70
R v Church
Constructive manslaughter: Risk only needs to be of "some harm" not necessarily serious harm
71
R v Dawson
Constructive Manslaughter: Assault alone is not an act dangerous enough to warrant a conviction for manslaughter
72
R v Goodfellow
Constructive Manslaughter: Dangerous act may not be intended to cause harm to a person, can be property
73
R v Corion-Auguiste
Constructive Manslaughter: D's unlawful act must be the direct and substantial cause of V's death.
74
R v Shohid
Constructive Manslaughter: The unlawful and dangerous act need not be the sole cause of death so long as it was not trivial.
75
R v Carey
Constructive Manslaughter: The prior illegal act MUST link the physical harm, to the death.
76
A-G's Ref (No. 4 of 1980)
Constructive manslaughter: If the death of the victim is the result of a series of unlawful acts by the defendant, it is sufficient to show any of them have been the cause.
77
R v Newbury and Jones
Constructive manslaughter: Mens rea-Don't need to appreciate the risk being taken.
78
R v LeBrun
Constructive manslaughter: MR applies if the act and cause of death are in the same sequence of events
79
R v Adomako
AR for GNM 1: A duty of care (Decided by judge) 2: A breach of that duty that caused death (Jury decided, civil test- objective)...
80
Donoghue v Stevenson
GNM: You owe a duty of care to anyone closely and directly affected by your act.
81
Caparo v Dickman
GNM: In novel cases, judge can decide if it was 'Fair Just and Reasonable' to impose a duty of care.
82
R v Wacker
GNM: If you're complicit in the crime you cannot be civilly liable, but that doesn't prevent criminal liability.
83
R v Finlay
GNM: Was there a disregard for the life and safety of the victim?
84
R v Edwards
GNM: Took an "obvious and serious risk"
85
R v Singh
GNM: A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious risk of not only injury, or even serious injury but death.
86
R V Bateman
GNM: The negligence must be "gross"
87
R v Andrews
GNM needs a very high degree of negligence, or it is just civil liability.
88
R v Ibrams and Gregory
Planning will defeat the defence of loss of control
89
R v Bowyer
LoC: D breaking into V's house prevents them being able to claim a justifiable sense of being wronged.
90
R v Clinton
LoC: Sexual infidelity doesn't prevent the use of the defence, so long as there are other relevant, qualifying triggers.
91
R v Gregson
LoC: characteristics other than sex and age can only be taken into account when they are linked to the qualifying trigger
92
R v Byrne
DR: A state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would regard it as abnormal.
93
R v Wood
DR: Alcoholism is an RMC.
94
R v Golds
DR: Substantial is to have its everyday normal meaning.
95
R v Lloyd
DR: Substantial impairment means more than some trivial degree but less than total impairment.
96
R v Dietschmann
DR: Regardless of the Ds intoxication was their condition a significant contributor to the outcome.
97
AG Ref (No.3) (1994)
Murder: Must be born and not dead.
98
R v Vickers
Murder: An intention to cause GBH is sufficient.
99
R v Morris
Theft: The defendant's assumption of any one right of the owner is sufficient to be an appropriation.
100
R v Lawrence
Theft: Appropriation can happen with consent.
101
R v Hinks
Theft: It is possible to steal gifts
102
R v Kelly and Lindsay
Theft: Personal property
103
Oxford v Moss
Theft: Confidential information is not regarded as property.
104
R v Akbar
Theft - Property: Information (intangible property) can be stolen if the item it is written on is stolen
105
R v Turner (No. 2)
Theft: A person can appropriate his own property if it is in the possession or control of another.
106
R v Wain
Theft: Charity fund raising money collected must be handed to the charity as it already belongs to them.
107
R v Shadrockh-Cigari
Theft: Money received by mistake
108
R v Rostron
Taking lost property is theft
109
R v Williams and Phillips
Theft: Property in rubbish bins belongs to the council.
110
R v Woodman
Still theft even if the victim does not know that they own the property.
111
R v Barton and Booth
Theft: Criminal case which showed the test for dishonesty. Would the defendant's behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
112
Ivey v Genting Casinos
Theft: Civil case which showed the test for dishonesty. Would the defendant's behaviour be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people?
113
R v Velumyl
Theft - Intention to Permanently Deprive
Intention to permanently deprive can be fulfilled even if the equivalent of the item is returned, but it is not the exact same item
114
R v Lloyd and Others
Theft: Provided the item is returned in the same state and not depreciated in value, there is no intention to permanently deprive.
115
DPP v J and Others
Theft: If you give something back and it's damaged, or its state is diminished then it is an intention to permanently deprive.
116
Corcoran v Anderton
The robbery need not be successful, for it to be completed.
117
R v Dawson and James
Robbery: Force does not require violence, simply to be noticeable.
118
R v Clouden
Robbery: The force need not be applied to the victim, just to the property.
119
R v Bentham
Robbery: If D intends to create fear, that is sufficient.
120
B & R v DPP
Robbery: V need not be fearful, provided D's intention was to cause them fear.
121
R v Hale
Robbery: The force and the theft need not happen simultaneously, just during the same causal event.
122
R v Atakpu
Robbery: Theft will come to an end and will not continue indefinitely
123
R v Collins
Burglary: Established that effective and substantial entry is required.
124
R v Ryan
Burglary: Entry must only be effective, not substantial.
125
R v Walkington
Burglary: Entering part of a building as a trespasser.
126
R v Jones and Smith
Burglary: A person is a trespasser if he enters the premises of another knowing he is entering in excess of the permission to enter that has been given to him or is being reckless as to whether he is in excess of that permission.
127
R v M'Naghten
Established the rules on insanity
128
R v Clarke
Insanity: Shows us that confusion or absent mindedness will not suffice.
129
R v Kemp
Insanity: Can be a physical condition, such as arteriosclerosis.
130
R v Burgess
Insanity: Sleepwalking is a disease of the mind.
131
R v Hennessy
Insanity: hyperglycaemia is insanity as internal.
132
R v Quick
Hypoglycaemia was caused by an external factor aand is automatism.
133
R v Coley
Insanity: Gives example of Voluntary intoxication, which causes a temporary psychotic episode not being sufficient.
134
R v Oye
Insanity: Gives example of not understanding the nature of their conduct due to a psychotic episode being sufficient.
135
R v Windle
Insanity: Must not understand that the act is legally wrong.
136
R v Beard
Intoxication can negate the MR for specific intent crimes
137
R v Majewski
Intoxication: If D voluntarily gets into an intoxicated state, this is sufficient to form the MR, for basic intent crimes.
138
R v Allen
Intoxication: Not knowing the strength of something, will not suffice as involuntary intoxication.
139
R v Kingston
Intoxication: Only a viable defence if the MR isn't formed by the D.
140
A-G for N. Ireland V Gallagher
Intoxication: Dutch courage. "A drunken intent is still an intent."
141
R v Bratty
Automatism: "An involuntary act is an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind"- Lord Denning.
142
Attorney-General's Reference (No.2 of 1992)
Automatism: There must be a total destruction of voluntary control.
143
R v T
Automatism: PTSD can be the external factor.
144
R v Lipman
Automatism: Voluntary intoxication cannot be the external factor.
145
R v Bailey
Automatism: Shows that the defence can be used for specific but not basic intent as the conduct shows recklessness.
146
R v Gladstone Williams
Self-defence: A mistake as to the need to use force. Necessity of force depends on the situation which exists, or the defendant believes to exist.
147
R v Bird
Self-defence can be pre-emptive
148
Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1983)
Self-defence: You can prepare for an attack.
149
R v Martin
Self-defence: Force was not reasonable, so defence wasn't applicable
150
R v Hussain
Self-defence: In Householder cases the degree of force will not be regarded as reasonable if the intruders have already left the premises.
151
Collins v Secretary of State for Justice
Self-defence: Doesn't justify householder using any degree of force, just what is needed for the situation they believe they're in.
152
Attorney-General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980)
Consent: Cannot consent to an injury of ABH or higher in an ordinary fight.
153
R v Slingsby
Consent: The activity causing death was consented to, and death was not considered a risk.
154
R v Barnes
Consent: Causing injuries that are common to the sport, isn't criminal.
155
R v Wilson
Consent: Consensually branding someone is considered cosmetic, akin to tattooing.
156
Airdale NHS Trust v Bland
Consent: If discontinuance of medical treatment is in the best interests of the patient, then the failure to act will not be a guilty act.
157
R v Pretty
Consent: Cannot consent to being killed.
158
R v Jones
Consent: Horseplay is considered consensual unless it goes too far.
159
R v Brown and Others
Consent: People cannot consent to very extreme sexual activities.
160
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority
Consent: Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
161
Burrell v Harmer
Consent: age is not an automatic barrier to consent. Lack of understanding negates consent.
162
R v Olugboja
Consent: Are the threats sufficient to warrant the consent when the victim agrees through fear.
163
R v Tabbassum
Consent: Consent must be genuine, and not received through deceit.
164
R v Williams
Consent: If the Fraud is the nature of the action, then the consent will not be genuine.
165
R v Richardson and Irwin
Consent: Subjective test of what the D would have known if they'd have been sober.
166
Wilson v Pringle
Consent: Consent can be implied.
167
R v Gotts
Duress is not a defence for attempted murder.
168
R v Howe
Duress is not a defence for murder
169
R v Cairns
Duress: Confirmed that there does not have to be a threat or risk of serious injury, if the defendant believes reasonably that it exists.
170
R v Conway
Duress: Action that is only taken given the serious nature of the circumstance.
171
R v Graham
The test for duress by threats
172
R v Baker and Wilkins
Duress: Threat can't be to psychiatric harm.
173
R v Quayle
Duress: Cannot be a threat as to pain without injury.
174
R v Valderrama-Vega
Threats can be made to D or someone who D feels responsible for. Threats which are not sufficient for duress can be mitigating factors in sentencing.
175
R v Cole
Duress: The threat must be specific.
176
R v Bowen
Duress: Some characteristics of the defendant must be considered such as: Age; Sex; Physical Health or Disability; Pregnancy and Recognised Medical Disorders. But would not include: Timidity; Low IQ; Homosexuality and Drug/ Alcohol addictions.
177
R v Bowen
Duress: Voluntary intoxication is not relevant to the defence however involuntary may be if it makes D more vulnerable.
178
R v Hudson & Taylor
Duress: The fear of death or serious harm must be imminent.
179
R v Abdul-Hussain
Duress: threat may be overwhelming on the mind of D.
180
R v Gill
Duress: Defence will usually not be available if D had the opportunity to contact the police.
181
R v Sharp
Duress: If D puts himself in a situation where they are likely to be subject to threats, duress is less likely to be applicable.
182
R v Shepherd
Duress: Self-induced duress. Defence is available if D did not know of gang's propensity for violence.
183
R v Dudley and Stephens
Necessity, cannot be a complete defence to murder, though it can be a big mitigating factor.
184
Re A
Approves the 4 elements of the Necessity defence
185
A-G's Ref (No. 1 of 1992)
Attempts: The D 'need not have performed the last act before the crime proper', nor have reached the 'point of no return'.
186
R v Guellefer
Attempts: You must have at least embarked on the crime proper, for it to be an attempt.
187
R v Geddes
Attempts: Outlines the test for attempts, 1: Had the D moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation. 2: Had the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence?
188
R v Tosti and White
Attempts: Example of going beyond what is merely preparatory.
189
Millard v Vernon
Attempts: The D must have had the same intention as for the 'offence proper' but cannot be proven entirely with recklessness.
190
R v Whybrow
Attempts: For attempted murder the prosecution must prove an intention to kill, intention for GBH will not suffice.
191
R v Shivpuri
You can attempt to commit a crime, if it was impossible, provided you weren't aware it was impossible.
192
Whiteley v Chappell
The D was charged with 'impersonating a person entitled to vote', the court found him not guilty as a dead person is not entitled to vote. Example of the literal rule.
193
LNER v Berriman
Railway company did not provide a lookout which the statute stated must be provided when "repairing or relaying track." Example of the literal rule.
194
Cheeseman v DPP
Police officers who are stationed in a place are not 'passengers'. Example of the literal rule.
195
R v Allen
The judges may choose the meaning of a word that has multiple to get a more sensible outcome. Narrow interpretation of the golden rule.
196
Re. SIgsworth
Wider interpretation of the golden rule.
197
Heydon's Case
Defines the Mischief Rule.
198
Smith v Hughes
Case law fixed a gap in the act, that women soliciting from balconies were also guilty. Example of the mischief rule.
199
Eastbourne BC v Stirling
A taxi driver was available to hire from a taxi rank so not "plying for hire in the street without a licence to do so". Example of the mischief rule.
200
R v Registrar General ex parte Smith
Purposive approach: Decided that the purpose of the Adoption Act 1976 was not to enable serious crime to happen.
201
Quintavalle
Purposive approach: Cloned Embryos are considered in the act, despite not being mentioned, example of Statutory interpretation.
202
Cheeseman v DPP
Intrinsic aids: To define a word you have to use a dictionary that was used at the time the act was written.
203
Davis v Johnson
Statutory interpretation: Lord Denning challenged the ban on the use of Hansard.
204
Pepper v Hart
Statutory interpretation: the House of Lords relaxed the ban on Hansard
205
Black Clawson Case
Law reform reports can be used as extrinsic aids.
206
R v Home Secretary, ex Parte Fire Brigades Union
Delegated legislation: Substantive ultra vires
207
Aylesbury Mushroom case
Delegated legislation: Procedural ultra vires
208
R (Rogers) v Swindon
DL is ultra vires if it is unreasonable.
209
Conway v Rimmer
Judicial precedent: First use of the Practice Statement in 1968.
210
R v Shivpuri
Judicial precedent: First use of the Practice Statement in criminal law.
211
Young v Bristol Aeroplane
Outlined three principles where the Court of Appeal could avoid its own precedents.
212
Donoghue v Stevenson
An example of original precedent/ ratio decidendi
213
R v R
An example of persuasive precedent from the Scottish courts
214
The Wagon Mound
Persuasive precedent- Privy Council.
215
R v Gotts or Brown and Others
Judicial precedent: An example of Obiter dicta.
216
Balfour v Balfour and Merritt v Merritt
Judicial precedent: Example of distinguishing.
217
Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association
Judicial precedent: Example of reversing.
218
Rickards v Lothian
Disadvantages of precedent- Complexity- Case with two ratios.
219
Dodd's case
Disadvantages of precedent- Complexity- Case where no ratio could be found
220
R v Pretty
Disadvantages of precedent- Rigidity- Courts don't feel that they can make law on controversial topics.
221
Donoghue v Stevenson
"The Neighbour Principle: Persons who are so close and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question"- Lord Atkin
222
Robinson v CCWY
If there is precedent on point, it should be followed, and the duty of care is established automatically
223
Kent v Griffiths
Negligence: Was the damage foreseeable? First part of Caparo test
224
Bourhill v Young
Negligence: Proximity by time and space.
225
McLoughlin v O'Brian
Negligence: Proximity through relationship.
226
Hill v CCWY
Negligence: Is it fair, just and reasonable? Consider the floodgates of litigation.
227
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Negligence: "The reasonable man is the ordinary person performing the particular task, reasonably competently".
228
Nettleship v Weston
Negligence: Learners are judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person.
229
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Negligence: Where the defendant is professional, the standards are that of the defendant's profession or that of the reasonably competent professional in the circumstance.
230
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
Negligence: A doctor must take reasonable care to ensure the patient is aware of the risks of the recommended treatment and of any reasonable alternative treatments.
231
Mullin v Richards
Negligence: The standard of a reasonable person of the D's age at the time of the incident.
232
Paris v Stepney BC
Negligence: Special Characteristics need to be accounted for and could create a higher standard of care.
233
Bolton v Stone
Negligence: Low risk of harm.
234
Haley v LEB
Negligence: High risk of harm.
235
Latimer v AEC
Negligence: The cost of precaution needs to be relative to the size of the risk.
236
Roe v Minister of Health
Negligence: If the risk of harm was unknown then there can't be a claim of Breach.
237
Watt v Hertfordshire/ Day v High Performance Sports
Negligence: In an emergency, if there is no time for the appropriate precautions, then you aren't breaching your duty by not doing them.
238
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
Negligence: 'But For' test- But for the Defendant's act or omission would then injury or damage have occurred anyway?
239
The Wagon Mound
Negligence: Type of damage has to be foreseeable.
240
Hughes v Lord Advocate
Negligence: It is not necessary to foresee the precise way in which the harm is caused, provided the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable.
241
Smith v Leech Brain
Eggshell skull rule
242
Doughty v Turner Asbestos
Negligence: Consequence not known so injury not foreseeable
243
Sayers v Harlow UDC
Example of contributory negligence. Taking foolish steps.
244
Jayes v IMI
Contributory Negligence - It is possible for the C to be completely responsible, reducing the costs by 100%
245
O'Connell v Jackson
Contributory negligence: Not wearing a helmet is an estimated 15% reduction.
246
Froom v Butcher
Contributory negligence: Not wearing a seatbelt is an estimated 20% reduction.
247
Stinton v Stinton
If the reasonable passenger would be aware that the person driving is intoxicated, this will be contributory negligence.
248
Newbury v Revill
If you're committing a criminal act and get injured this is contributory negligence.
249
Smith v Baker
Volenti: Defence won't succeed if C has no other choice but to accept the risk.
250
Ogwu v Taylor or Haynes v Harwood
Volenti: Cannot be used where C has a duty to act, due to their job, in an emergency
251
ICI v Shatwell
If C acts against employer's orders or statutory rules then 'Volenti' defence (voluntarily accepting the risk of harm, creating a full defence) is likely to succeed.
252
Wheat v Lacon
OL: You can have more than one occupier.
253
Harris v Birenhead
OL: You can be the owner even if you haven't taken possession yet.
254
Bailey v Armes
OL: Sometimes there isn't an occupier.
255
Laverton v Kiapasha
OL: Occupiers only need to take reasonable care.
256
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
OL: 1: Things cannot be kept in constantly pristine condition, only reasonably good condition and 2: Only real sources of danger need remediation.
257
Cole v Davis-Gilbert, The Royal British Legion and others
OL: Duty cannot last indefinitely.
258
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
OL: More care must be taken for a child, rising even higher the younger they are, and the occupier should guard against any kind of allurement.
259
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
OL: Occupier is entitled to expect parents to supervise children
260
Jolley v Sutton
OL: The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, but not the way that it happens.
261
Roles v Nathan
OL: Occupational hazards aren't the occupiers fault.
262
Haseldine v Daw
OL: If the work is specialist, it is reasonable to give it to a specialist firm.
263
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
OL: Occupier must take reasonable care to check that the person they're hiring is competent.
264
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
OL: Occupier must have taken reasonable steps to check that the work is done to an acceptable standard.
265
BRB v Herrington
OL: Created a duty of 'common humanity'- a limited duty where the occupier knows of the danger and the likelihood of trespass.
266
Ratcliffe v McConnell
OL: The occupier is not liable if an adult trespasser injured by an obvious danger.
267
Donoghue v Folkstone
OL: The time of day/ year can be a relevant factor.
268
Tomlinson v Congleton BC
OL: If the danger would cost too much to make safe, they cannot be expected to secure it.
269
Higgs v Foster
OL: There is no liability if there is no reason to suspect the presence of trespassers.
270
Rhind v Astbury Water Park
OL: If D doesn't know of/ have any reason to believe there is, a danger they aren't liable.
271
Rae v Mars
Warnings: Extreme danger requires specific notice of the danger.
272
Staples v West Dorset District Council
Warnings: Obvious dangers require no warning.
273
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Nuisance: C must have an interest in land so can be an owner or tenant but not a member of the owner or tenant's own family.
274
Tetley v Chitty
Nuisance: A short-term tenant can be the defendant.
275
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan
Nuisance: If it's your property, even if you didn't cause the interreference, you are still liable for it, provided you knew of the potential dangers and did nothing.
276
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC
Nuisance: Measured duty of care
277
Fearn v Tate Gallery
Visual intrusion can be a nuisance.
278
Miller and Jackson
Nuisance: You need to either have a case of: Encroachment, Physical damage to property or reducing the enjoyment of your property, or a combination of them to claim.
279
Thompson-Schwab v Costaki
Nuisance: Emotional distress.
280
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
Nuisance: Duration
281
Network Rail v Morris
Nuisance: Shows the creation of the "test of foreseeability".
282
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
Nuisance: Malice
283
Miller v Jackson
Nuisance: Social benefit
284
Giles v Walker
R v F: If the thing is naturally present then there is no liability.
285
Ellison v MoD
R v F: If the thing naturally accumulates on the land there is no liability.
286
Hale v Jennings
R v F: The type of damage has to be foreseeable, not the escape.
287
Transco v Stockport
R v F: The damage cannot be personal injury.
288
Stannard v Gore
R v F: Fire cases are rare because 1: It is the thing which had been brought onto the land which must escape not the fire which was started or increased by the thing, 2: The fire must have been deliberately or negligently started by the occupier or one whom he is responsible for and 3: Starting a fire on one's land may be an ordinary use of land.
289
Rickards v Lothian
R v F: "It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely by the ordinary use of land or such as is proper for the general benefit of the community"- Lord Moulton.
290
Musgrove V Pandelis
R v F: Technological and social changes need to be considered.
291
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
R v F: Storage of chemicals at a factory is non-natural if they are not the type of chemicals which you would expect to be in that factory.
292
Mason v Levy Autoparts
R v F: Storage of things in large quantities can be non-natural.
293
British Celanase v Hunt
R v F: Social utility.
294
Read v Lyons
R v F: D can only be liable if it escapes from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.
295
Perry v Kendricks
Rylands v Fletcher defences: Act of a stranger.
296
Nichols v Marsland
Rylands v Fletcher defences: Act of God.
297
Yewens v Noakes
VL: Did the master have the right to control what the employee did and how they did it?
298
Performing Rights Society v Mitchell and Booker
VL: The nature and degree of detailed control.
299
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison v Mcdonald and Evans
VL: Someone's work must be fully integrated into the business to be an employee.
300
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
VL: Established the Economic Reality Test.
301
Lister v Hesley Hall
VL: 1: Is the employer/employee relationship "akin to employment"? 2: Is the alleged tort "closely connected" to employment?
302
Catholic Child Welfare case
VL: If the nature of the relationship is so close that they can dictate the actions of another institute's employees, they may be liable. Five criteria.
303
Cox v Ministry of Justice
VL: You don't need a contract of employment to be an employee.
304
Barclays Bank v Various Claimants
VL does not apply to independent contractors.
305
Viasystems v Thermal Transfer
VL: You can have more than one employer and depending on their control, depends on how liable they are for the damages.
306
Limpus v London General Omnibus
VL: Acting against orders.
307
Beard v London General Omnibus
VL: If the employee causes injury doing something outside his employment, the employer will not be liable.
308
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
VL: Negligence of emloyee.
309
Hilton v Thomas Burton
VL: Employee on a frolic.
310
Smith v Stages
VL: Employee not on a frolic.
311
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
An offer can be made through a machine.
312
Fisher v Bell
A display is an invitation to treat, not an offer of sale.
313
Pharmaceutical Society of GB V Boots Chemist
Items displayed on shop shelves are offers.
314
Partridge v Crittenden
An advert is an ITT not an offer of sale.
315
Payne v Cave
An auctioneer's request for bids is an ITT, the bidder is who makes the offer, and the acceptance is the hammer falling.
316
Harvey v Facey
A request for information is not an offer.
317
Gibson v Manchester City Council
Terms of an offer must be certain.
318
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Unilateral offer.
319
Dickinson v Dodds
The offeror or a reliable person must communicate the revocation to the offeree.
320
Byrne v Van Tienhoven
You cannot revoke an offer that has already been accepted.
321
Routledge v Grant
Revocation can offer can happen at any time before acceptance.
322
Stevenson v McLean
An offer ends when the offeree rejects it, but the rejection must be clear and decisive.
323
Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore
Offers: Lapse of time.
324
Hyde v Wrench
If a counter-offer is made then the original officer is voided.
