Clerk & Lindsell On Torts, 22nd Edition

Clerk & Lindsell On Torts, 22nd Edition

  • RM3,134.00 MYR
    Unit price per 
Shipping calculated at checkout.

Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, part of the Common Law Library series, is one of our flagship titles. It is the definitive work and market leader in this area of law; it offers the most comprehensive coverage of the subject, providing the end user with indispensable access to current, frequent and unrivalled authoritative information on all aspects of tort law. An essential reference tool, Clerk & Lindsell is widely referred to by practitioners and cited the judiciary.

The new edition brings the work completely up-to-date with the changes in the law since the last edition in 2014, including those arising from the Defamation Act 2013 and the developments in all of the key case law, including relevant decisions from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court decisions included in the 22nd edition:

  • 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.
  • Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc dealt with the question of what level of goodwill a foreign company must have in the UK in order to bring a claim in the tort of passing off.
  • In Knauer v Ministry of Justice the Supreme Court overruled Cookson v Knowles and Graham v Dodds on the date from which the multiplier should run when assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act.
  • In BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland the Supreme Court gave guidance on the important distinction between a professional person providing advice to a client and merely providing information, a distinction which has ramifications for the correct assessment of a client’s loss.
  • Coventry v Lawrence (No.2) on the liability of landlords for a noise nuisance caused by their tenants. Fish & Fish Ltd v Sea Shepherd UK on the requirements for liability as a joint tortfeasor as an accessory to the commission of a tort.
  • Jackson v Murray where the principles to be applied to apportionment in cases of contributory negligence, and the circumstances in which an appellate court can overturn such an assessment, were reviewed
  • Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc holding that the Water Industry Act 1991 carries an implied right on the part of a sewerage undertaker to discharge surface water and certain treated effluents into private watercourses where the duties imposed under the Act could not be performed without continuing to discharge from existing outfalls
  • Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd on the scope of protection afforded by registered designs
  • Re JR38’s Application for Judicial Review on the requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy when considering whether a minor’s art.8 ECHR rights have been breached by publishing a photograph
  • In Williams v The Bermuda Hospitals Board (Bermuda) the judicial committee of the Privy Council considered the material contribution to damage test of causation in a clinical negligence action.