White V Jones Case

The case Jonah v White (2011) 45 Fam LR 460, was first brought forward by Ms Jonah, seeking her relationship with Mr White be recognised as de-facto in order to apply for a property

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

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

"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in the law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are

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

* Where both the parties seem to have been negligent, it is important to determine who is more at fault and for this purpose we need to use the ‘but for’ test as in the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402.

In most courts, if the defendant violates the statutory provisions of duty of care, the violation of laws and regulations will be considered negligence just as a car ran a red light is a violation of traffic rules. If a statute does not specify the duty of care, the court may determine relevant duty of care implicitly established in the legislature through the judicial interpretation. At the same time, even if a statute does not expressly or impliedly reflect legislative intent of the standard of care with certainty, the court can still invoke the provisions of the law to determine the standard of conduct of a reasonable person.

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

A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram, which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’, a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had been rejected by the tramway authorities because it was felt that it could cause drivers to become tired, irritated and

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.

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.

In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.

The common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.