Blackburn J in Fletcher v. Rylands

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

Social value of the defendants action is took into consideration in certain cases. If the purpose of the actions took by the defendant is of value to society, abnormal risk is justified. In Watt vs Hertfordshire 1954, a victim was trapped under a vehicle at the scene of a road accident, A heavy duty jack was needed to lift the vehicle but the vehicle used to transport it was unavailable. Whilst holding the jack on place on a vehicle unsuitable for the transportation, a fireman injured his back. The fireman sued his employers for negligence but failed in his actions because the social values of the defendants’ action were valuable as lives were at risk.

Case Comment: John Michael Malins v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 835 (Admin) 2017 WL 01339062

The second issue is the tort of nuisance, which could be compared to the tort of trespass to land. “Nuisance occurs when the defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its own land.” (McInnes, 112) Once Maldini recognized who Smiley was, his enjoyment of land was interfered with. Maldini was worried that Smiley

Hedley Byrne & Co LTD v Heller and Partners LTD [1963] 2 All ER 5

Whether Sherman, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, will likely prevail against Carlisle for multiple injuries he sustained in a fall from wooden steps of a tree house in disrepair while trespassing upon Carlisle’s property when: (1) Carlisle was aware that the neighborhood surrounding his property was populated with children; (2) a severe storm had damaged Carlisle’s property and exposed the previously concealed tree house; (3) Sherman was six years of age at the time of his injury; (4) Carlisle had little incentive to make repairs to the tree house prior to the storm because of its concealment; (5) immediately following the storm, Carlisle made arrangements with a contractor at a higher than average rate to make

Instead of confining itself simply to the mischief which the statute was intended to correct, the court resolves ambiguities by reference to the statute’s overall purpose. Indeed, many modern statutes are not simply intended to correct mischiefs in the common law but have a wider social agenda. Under the purposive approach the courts should try to give effect to this wider statutory purpose in interpreting ambiguous provisions in statutes. For the purposive approach the example case can be Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993). Knowles was employed by the Council and was injured at work whilst handling a defective flagstone. He claimed damages from them under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969. The Council claimed that they were not liable as a flagstone could not be “equipment” within the Act. The House of Lords held that it could. The purpose of the statute was to protect employees from exposure to dangerous materials. The words “equipment” should be interpreted in this context. The Council were therefore liable for Knowles’ injuries (Paul, 2002).

Christie, N (1977) Conflicts as Property. Britis Journal of Criminology. Vol 17 No 1. London

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

In Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police , there is also the issue regarding the cost of deterring beneficial activities. As the ‘Hillsborough disaster’ was broadcasted live, many

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson created a definition of a ‘neighbour’ towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect causal link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. This provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,