Clerk & Lindsell On Torts, 22nd Edition

Clerk & Lindsell On Torts, 22nd Edition By Michael A

One of our most popular books is Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, which is part of the Common Law Library series. It is the definitive book and market leader in this field of law, providing the end user with necessary access to current, frequent, and unrivalled authoritative information on all elements of tort law. Clerk & Lindsell is an important reference tool that is often referred to by practitioners and mentioned by the court.

The new version brings the book totally up to date with changes in the law since the last edition in 2014, including those deriving from the Defamation Act 2013, as well as developments in all major case law, including relevant Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judgments.

Supreme Court decisions included in the 22nd edition of Cleark & lindsell on Torts:

• In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board the Supreme Court held that the Bolam test should no longer apply to the duty owed by a doctor to disclose information about the risks of proposed medical treatment and its alternatives, adopting in its place the “prudent patient” test.
• Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales dealt with whether the police owe a duty of care to victims of violence when they are aware of immediate and credible threats to the victim but fail to act on that knowledge (and the difference in this context between a tort action and a claim under art.2 ECHR).
• In International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc UK it was held that the common law rule for apportioning liability based on a defendant’s contribution to the risk of developing mesothelioma established by the House of Lords in Barker v Corus is still good law, and that its previous decision in Durham v BAI (Run Off) Ltd had not had the effect of reversing Barker.
• In Hayward v Zurich Insurance Co Plc the Supreme Court dealt with the test for causation in an action for deceit, holding that it was not necessary, as a matter of law, to prove that the representee believed that the representation was true; rather it was only necessary for the claimant to have been influenced by the misrepresentation.
• In Rhodes v OPO it was held that the intention required as part of the mental element for the tort of intentional infringement of the right to personal safety established in Wilkinson v Downton cannot be imputed as a matter of law, though it may be inferred as a question of fact.
• Mohamud v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Ltd dealt with the meaning of the “close connection” test for vicarious liability where the employee commits an assault, and Cox v Ministry of Justice addressed the question of what types of relationship are sufficiently akin to an employment contract for vicarious liability to apply.
• In Patel v Mirza the Supreme Court laid down, by a bare majority, the correct basis on which to approach the defence of ex turpi causa settling, at least for now, the judicial difference of opinion evident in the earlier cases of Hounga v Allen, Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd, and Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc.
• In Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP the Supreme Court held that employers have a duty to conduct risk assessments as part of their common law duty of care owed to employees, a ruling that could have important consequences for claims by employees in respect of injuries sustained at work.
• In Campbell v Peter Gordon Joiners Ltd it was held that a failure by an employer to take out insurance against liability to an employee, in breach of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, does not give rise to an action for breach of statutory duty against the directors of the insolvent employer, thus leaving an injured employee with no effective remedy.
• In Willers v Joyce the Supreme Court reached the, perhaps, surprising conclusion that the tort of malicious prosecution extends to the malicious prosecution of civil actions, thus giving new life to the action of malicious prosecution.
• PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd is an important decision on privacy injunctions, confirming that art.8 ECHR claims protect not only secrecy and information but also unjustified intrusion.

MORE like Clerk & Lindsell On Torts, 22nd Edition: COMMON LAW LIBRARY