Tort Cases

Contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 cannot be used to reduce damages for intentional torts of assault and battery. The court also held that a judge must engage consistently with a preferred expert's causation findings.

A booking agency's website post criticising performers' professionalism was held sufficient to support a fair comment defence, as the comment need only indicate in general terms the facts on which it is based.

A prosecution witness was murdered before trial after reporting suspicious calls to police. The House of Lords held the Osman 'real and immediate risk' threshold was not satisfied, finding no breach of Article 2 ECHR.

A surgeon's failure to warn of a 1–2% paralysis risk was held sufficient to establish causation, even though the risk would have been identical had surgery been performed later — patient autonomy justified departure from orthodox but-for causation.

A mother and her disabled son were unlawfully strip-searched in prison. The House of Lords held English common law recognises no general tort of invasion of privacy, and the Wilkinson v Downton claim failed for lack of intent.

A former Irish Taoiseach sued The Sunday Times for defamation. The House of Lords rejected a blanket qualified privilege for political information, instead applying a responsible journalism test under the duty-interest framework.

Repeated silent telephone calls causing psychiatric injury can constitute assault occasioning actual bodily harm — psychiatric illness falls within 'bodily harm' under ss 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

A blanket rule barring negligence claims against the police violated Article 6(1) ECHR as disproportionate. The case also established the 'Osman test' for Article 2 positive obligations — requiring a real and immediate risk to an identified individual.

A defamatory headline or photograph cannot found a libel claim if the accompanying article, read as a whole, negates any defamatory meaning — the 'whole publication' principle.

Despite police awareness of escalating harassment by a schoolteacher, public policy barred imposing a duty of care on police for failing to apprehend him before he shot the Osman family.

A newspaper letter responding to an article was held to be assessable as a standalone publication. Words in the letter were capable of being read as statements of fact, not mere comment, so the fair comment defence could not be withdrawn from the jury.

A doctor may lawfully treat an incapacitated adult patient without consent, provided the treatment is in their best interests — assessed by the Bolam standard. Court authorisation via declaration is strongly recommended for proposed sterilisation.

Police investigating a serial killer owed no duty of care to his final victim. Established the Hill immunity: no proximity between police and general public in crime investigation.

A schoolboy pulling another's bag in a corridor raised the question of whether battery requires hostile intent — the Court of Appeal held that intentional touching must be shown to be hostile, though hostility is a question of fact.

A sliding tackle in a local football match broke the claimant's leg, establishing that sport participants owe each other a duty of care in negligence — assessed objectively but adjusted to the level of competition.

Where a patient understands the general nature of a medical procedure and consents, that consent is real and defeats any trespass claim — inadequate risk disclosure sounds only in negligence.

A theatrical producer's press letter alleging a 'plot' by four artists to end his play's run was held to be an unproven statement of fact, not fair comment — defeating the defence even on a matter of public interest.

A savage retaliatory punch causing serious eye injury does not entitle the defendant to reduce damages on grounds of provocation, volenti, or contributory negligence in a trespass to the person claim.

A sunbather injured by a car establishes that unintentional personal injury claims must be brought in negligence, not trespass to the person, and the three-year limitation period cannot be circumvented by reframing the cause of action.

A patient suffered severe fractures during ECT treatment, establishing the Bolam Test: a doctor is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of skilled medical opinion.

A telegram asking for money 'borrowed' from a housemaid was held incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning, establishing the right-thinking members of society test for defamation.

A statement is defamatory if it causes a person to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking society, even where the claimant bears no moral fault — and a cinematographic film constitutes libel, not slander.

A defendant falsely told a woman her husband had been badly injured in an accident. The court held that wilfully causing physical harm — including nervous shock — constitutes an actionable wrong even without physical impact.

A landowner who diverts percolating underground water beneath his own land commits no wrong, even if his dominant motive is to coerce a neighbour into buying his water rights.

A gate-keeper negligently invited travellers across a level crossing into the path of a train. The Privy Council held that nervous shock unaccompanied by physical injury is too remote to found a negligence claim.

A conditional threat — 'leave or I'll break your neck' — combined with workmen surrounding the claimant in a menacing posture was held to constitute assault in tort, even without physical contact.

Establishes the foundational common law definition of libel and confirms that judges define libel in law while juries decide whether the publication meets that definition as fact.

Calling someone a 'swindler' in print is actionable libel. A plea of justification must particularise the persons deceived, the transactions, and the time and place of each alleged fraud — vague general allegations are insufficient.

A defendant who responds to a minor blow with a maiming injury cannot rely on the plea of son assault demesne — self-defence requires proportionality between the initial assault and the retaliatory force used.

An occupier cannot immediately use physical force against a trespasser who enters by mere legal trespass — a prior request to leave is required. Only actual force (e.g. breaking a door) justifies an immediate physical response.

Placing a hand on a sword while stating no intent to attack does not constitute assault — both the act and the intention must be present simultaneously.