Remoteness of damage in negligence: a rotten structure collapses

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Janet O'Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
London Borough ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

INThe Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] A.C. 388, Viscount Simmonds expressed the hope that, by replacing directness (and its attendant “insoluble” problem, the search for breaks in the chain of causation) with reasonable foreseeability as the test for remoteness of damage in negligence, “the law will be simplified and . . . palpable injustice will be avoided”. Lawyers have long recognised that the first of these aspirations has failed dismally. Regrettably, the Court of Appeal decision in Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1546 provides a stark example of failure on both counts.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 22 Settling Differences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Significant Case ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines some of the other legal uncertainty issues, principally in relation to set-off and netting, that were troubling various sectors of the financial markets at around the time of the Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council and Re Charge Card Services Ltd cases. It first looks at a number of general, but very important, concerns that lawyers in the market had in relation to the operation of set-off and netting. Second, it considers a particular form of transaction that featured many of those (and other) concerns. Finally, it examines some of the more significant case law and legislative developments. In reviewing these issues, readers should bear in mind the huge importance that ‘certainty’ in this area of the law has now assumed.

THE LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS FOR BULLYING

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294
Author(s):  
Jesse Elvin
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
County Council ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Sussex County ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Court Of Appeal

InBradford-Smart v. West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 07, Leah Bradford-Smart, a former pupil of a school maintained by West Sussex County Council, based her claim for damages for psychiatric injury and consequent loss on the school’s failure to prevent fellow pupils bullying her outside the school. It is clear that “a school is under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of the pupils in its charge” (Van Oppen v. Clerk to Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 W.L.R. 235, 250), and that it also assumes responsibility for a pupil’s educational needs (X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 A.C. 633, 766, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 2 A.C. 619). In Bradford-Smart, the Court of Appeal held that a school is generally responsible for its pupils only when they are inside the school, but that exceptional circumstances might arise when failing to take reasonable steps to combat bullying occurring outside the school would give rise to a breach of its duty of care to a pupil.

The Licensee's Period of Grace: Bellotti Reconsidered

1996 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-240
Author(s):  
Tamara Kerbel
Keyword(s):  
Privy Council ◽  
Railway Company ◽  
Short Notice ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Canadian Pacific Railway ◽  
Court Of Appeal

At present the law fails to provide an adequate balance between the interests of licensor and licensee when a licensor revokes a licence but gives an unreasonably short notice. The prevailing orthodoxy has followed the Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Health v. Bellotti. This article will argue that the consequences of this decision have proved disastrous for both licensors and licensees. In direct conflict with Bellotti is the Privy Council authority of Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The King.

scholarly journals There is no Such Thing as a Sham Trust

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
BoHao (Steven) Li
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Bilateral Transaction ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Law Commission

The Court of Appeal decision in Official Assignee v Wilson is the leading New Zealand case on "sham trusts". Obiter, O'Regan and Robertson JJ held that for a sham trust to exist, the settlor and trustee must have a common intention to not create a trust. Post-Wilson, debate continues over the precise elements that render a trust a sham. The Law Commission suggested that the sham doctrine, as a means of analysing the validity of an express trust, may not be the best approach. A better starting point would be a return to the certainty of intention requirement. In arguing that the Law Commission's recommendation is correct, this article will discuss three legal issues: whether an express trust is a unilateral or bilateral transaction; whether the excluded evidence has always been part of the objective intention requirement; and whether the legislative and policy factors have made foreign trust law distinct from New Zealand trust law. Finally, this article will expand on the test proposed by the Law Commission.

scholarly journals Should Pension Savings Be a Protected Property at Bankruptcy?

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Trish Keeper
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Discussion Document ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In 2015, the New Zealand Court of Appeal held, in Trustee Executors Ltd v The Official Assignee,[1] a test case brought by the Official Assignee (OA), that the OA could not access the KiwiSaver balances of a bankrupt. In response, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released a Discussion Document in July 2016, proposing a law change to make some, or all, of a bankrupt’s pension savings available to the OA for the benefit of a bankrupt’s creditors. This article outlines the Court of Appeal decision and its implications within the context of both the New Zealand Insolvency Act 2006 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006. It then critically discusses the law change proposed in the Discussion Document and suggests that, given the significant difficulties with this proposal, more limited reforms be implemented to prevent bankrupts unfairly using the inalienability of pension savings to defeat the interests of creditors. [1] [2015] NZCA 118.

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.

Electronic eavesdropping and anomalies in the law of evidence

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
J.R. Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

THERE is nothing wrong with the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Aujla [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. 16. Almost everything is wrong, however, with the law that the court was called on to interpret, and the decision is interesting because it shows this up.

Larke v Nugus: practical points in an unsettled environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-153
Author(s):  
Stephen Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract The Court of Appeal decision in Larke v Nugus was handed down in 1979. Practitioners thought that the process of disclosing information from a Will Preparation File once a Will was in dispute was well established – but there have recently been considerable changes. The Law Society produced a new version of its Practice Note in December 2018. There are disagreements between stakeholders about the steps to be taken upon receipt of a Larke v Nugus letter. Some practices must cease forthwith. This article discusses these issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document