Negligence After Murphy: Time to Re-Think

1991 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Howarth
Keyword(s):  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Law

After a decade of adventure, Anns v. Merton Borough Council has been killed off. The case that seemed to many to be the most important statement of the law of negligence in England since Donoghue v. Stevenson has been finally done to death by a specially augmented House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council?For the House of Lords openly to overrule one of its own previous decisions is itself an event rare enough to deserve comment. But when the Law Lords, by 7–0, declare unsound a case that has been cited in 189 English cases in only 13 years (and until recently mostly with approval), we know that something extraordinary has happened.

Governmental Liability after Francovich

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Caranta
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Community Law ◽  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Governmental liability used to be on the retreat, especially but not only in the field of negligence liability. In Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the majority of the Court of Appeal flatly stated that not every infringement of Community law was a tort. Moreover, in the recent decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council the House of Lords, departing from Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, dramatically curtailed any hope—or fear, it depends on the point of view—of development of governmental liability in the field of economic loss.

scholarly journals What Has Become of Anns

1969 ◽  
pp. 673
Author(s):  
W. S. Schlosser
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
District Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Prima Facie Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

The author examines the effects on Canadian law of a recent House of Lords decision overruling the case of Anns v. Merton London Borough. The author begins by tracing the development of the law of negligence from its beginnings in Donoghue v. Stevenson, through the Rivtow Marine decision in Canada, to the House of Lords decision in Anns, its treatment of the concept of economic loss, and the subsequent Canadian decisions in this area. The author then considers the building criticism of the Anns case and it ultimate downfall in the Murphy v. Brentwood District Council decision. The author highlights several results of this decision including: (1) the fallacy of ignoring the type of loss involved and beginning with a prima facie duty based on the mere foreseeability of damage; (2) the much higher degree of proximity required if damage is economic; and (3) the necessity of having regard to the statutory framework where the liability of public bodies is in issue. The author finally considers the Canadian jurisprudence in this area and concludes that, for the most part, the Canadian position will not be affected by the demise of Anns.

The House of Lords on the Law of Trespass to Realty and Children as Trespassers

1910 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 491
Author(s):  
F. M. B. ◽  
Thomas Beven
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

Consent after the House of Lords: Taking and leading astray the Law of Theft

Legal Studies ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-322
Author(s):  
Mitchell C. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Specific Definition

The objectives of the Criminal Law Revision Committee when drafting the radical reforms proposed by the 1966 Theft Bill were described by a contemporary commentator2 as being: ‘. . . to do away with the more embarrassing and restrictive technicalities of the existing law . . .’In the same place it was observed that the Committee faced a choice between creating a specific definition of the various theft offences and their elements, or one whose generality would allow it to evolve to meet the challenges presented by ever more complex and sophisticated dishonest dealing.

scholarly journals Culpability, Kingston and the Law Commission

2010 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 434-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cath Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Character Theory ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Do So

This article considers the basis upon which a person should be held to be criminally liable, and to do so, it is necessary to examine the leading theories of character and choice that underpin the State holding a person to be culpable of a criminal offence, i.e. the link between culpability and fault. The case of R v Kingston1 is used to examine the application of these leading theories and it is observed that choice theorists would not excuse such a defendant from criminal liability even though his capacity to make a choice to refrain from law breaking was made extremely difficult by external factors beyond his control. Only character theory could possibly offer exculpation in such circumstances on the basis that the defendant acted ‘out of character’ and his deed did not deserve the full censure and punishment of the criminal law. The Court of Appeal in R v Kingston would have been prepared to excuse, but the House of Lords, and most recently the Law Commission have adopted a pragmatic approach to the involuntarily intoxicated offender. This case serves as a reminder that while justice is the aim of the criminal justice system, it is not an absolute standard.

Criminal Responsibility of the Insane

1894 ◽  
Vol 40 (171) ◽  
pp. 609-621
Author(s):  
Oscar Woods
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

Many of those now present will probably agree with me that the law of criminal responsibility, as at present laid prisoners is not the same in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The existing law is ruled by the answers of the judges to certain questions put to them by the House of Lords in reference to the case of the “Queen v. McNaghten,” tried in 1843.

The house of lords and the law of contract

1968 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11
Author(s):  
A.G. Guest
Keyword(s):  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

Exclusive possession or the intention of the parties? The relation of landlord and tenant in Northern Ireland

2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-223
Author(s):  
Mark Hayward
Keyword(s):  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law

The seminal House of Lords judgment in Street v Mountford established that the test for distinguishing between a lease and a licence is whether the occupant has been granted exclusive possession of the premises. The test is objective: the relation of landlord and tenant exists where exclusive possession has been granted, regardless of the intention of the parties. However, this stands at odds with the law in both parts of Ireland, where s 3 of Deasy's Act states that the relation of landlord and tenant 'shall be deemed to be founded on the . . . contract of the parties'. This article analyses the historical background that led to Deasy's Act, surveys contemporary case law in both parts of Ireland on leases vs licences and argues that the law in this area in Northern Ireland differs from that in England and Wales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document