Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992) - Psychiatric Damage – Secondary Victims
Facts:
- Claimants were relatives and friends of victims of the Hillsborough disaster (1989).
- They suffered psychiatric illness after watching events unfold on television or hearing news of deaths later.
- None were exposed to physical danger themselves.
Legal Issue:
- Under what circumstances does a defendant owe a duty of care for psychiatric harm to secondary victims?
Decision:
- The House of Lords held that no duty of care was owed to the claimants.
Reasoning
- The court was concerned about floodgates and indeterminate liability.
- It therefore imposed strict control mechanisms to limit claims for psychiatric harm.
Legal Principle
- Secondary victims must satisfy all four control tests:
- Close tie of love and affection
- Proximity in time and space
- Direct perception of the event
- Psychiatric injury caused by sudden shock
Vardy v Rooney (2020) - Defamation
Facts:
- Coleen Rooney publicly accused Rebekah Vardy of leaking private Instagram stories to the press.
- Vardy sued for libel, claiming the allegation damaged her reputation.
Legal Issue:
- Was the statement defamatory, or was it protected by a defence?
Decision:
- The High Court ruled in favour of Rooney.
Reasoning:
- The court found that the allegation was substantially true.
- Evidence showed information had been leaked by Vardy’s agent.
Legal Principle:
- Truth is a complete defence to defamation, even if reputational damage occurs.
Depp v News Group Newspapers (2020) - Defamation
Facts:
- Johnny Depp sued The Sun newspaper after it described him as a “wife beater” in relation to allegations made by his ex-wife.
Legal Issue:
- Could the newspaper rely on the defence of truth?
Decision:
- The claim failed; the newspaper succeeded.
Reasoning:
- The judge found that the allegations were substantially true on the balance of probabilities, based on evidence of multiple violent incidents.
Legal Principle:
- Reaffirms the truth defence and shows the high evidential burden on claimants.
Vision Gold Ltd v Weightmans (2005)
Facts:
- A law firm negligently prepared documents during a property transaction.
- A third party suffered pure economic loss and sought to claim in negligence.
Legal Issue:
- Was a duty of care owed for pure economic loss?
Decision:
- No duty of care was owed.
Reasoning
- There was insufficient proximity and no assumption of responsibility by the solicitors towards the claimant.
Legal Principle:
- Pure economic loss is generally not recoverable unless special circumstances exist.
Barker v Corus (2006)
Facts:
- The claimant contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while working for multiple employers over time.
Legal Issue:
- Should each employer be fully liable despite uncertainty over causation?
Decision:
- Each employer was liable only for their proportion of risk.
Reasoning:
- Scientific uncertainty meant causation could not be proven against one defendant alone.
Legal Principle:
- Modified Fairchild approach; later reversed by statute.
Ferguson v John Dawson (1976)
Facts:
- A worker was labelled as self-employed but worked under close supervision and control.
Legal Issue:
- Was the claimant an employee despite contractual wording?
Decision:
- He was held to be an employee.
Reasoning:
- The court prioritised the reality of the relationship over contractual labels.
Legal Principle:
- Employment status depends on substance, not form.
Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald & Evans (1952)
Facts:
- An engineer worked regularly for a company but retained professional autonomy.
Legal Issue:
- Employee or independent contractor?
Decision:
- Independent contractor.
Reasoning:
- He was highly skilled, worked independently, and was not integrated into the business.
Legal Principle:
- Introduced the integration test.
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions (1968)
Facts:
- Drivers owned their lorries but worked almost exclusively for one company.
Legal Issue:
- Employment or contractor status?
Decision:
- They were not employees.
Reasoning:
- Lack of mutuality of obligation and significant independence.
Established the three stage test:
- Mutuality
- Control
- Other factors
Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security (1969)
Facts:
- An interviewer worked mainly for one organisation but could refuse work.
Legal Issue:
- Employee or independent contractor?
Decision:
- Held to be an employee.
Reasoning:
- The claimant was not truly in business on her own account.
Legal Principle:
- Established the economic reality test.
- The court examines:
- Who provides equipment
- Who takes financial risk
- Who controls investment and management
If the worker runs their own business they are an independent contractor.
Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012)
Facts:
- Children were abused by members of a religious order teaching at a school.
Legal Issue:
- Could liability exist without a formal employment contract?
Decision:
- Yes – vicarious liability imposed.
Reasoning:
- The relationship was akin to employment, and the organisation created the risk.
Legal Principle
- Expanded vicarious liability beyond contracts.
Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)
Facts:
- A prisoner injured a catering manager while working in prison kitchens.
Legal Issue:
- Could the MoJ be vicariously liable?
Decision: Yes,
Reasoning:
- The prisoner’s work furthered the aims of the prison service.
Legal Principle:
- Reaffirmed and expanded Catholic Child Welfare.
It showed relationships “akin to employment” can still attract liability.
Poland v Parr (1927)
Facts
- A contractor’s employee was, in the course of his employment, following close behind his employer’s waggon carrying sugar bags.
- Seeing a boy with a hand on one of the bags, the employee believed the boy to be stealing sugar and hit him.
- This caused the boy to fall and the waggon to run over his foot, leading to the loss of his leg.
- The boy had not, in fact, been stealing the sugar although the employee had believed so.
Legal Issue
- Was the act within the course of employment?
Decision: No liability for employee, employer liable.
Reasoning:
- Employer was liable because the worker believed he was protecting property, which was part of his job role.
Legal Principle:
- Scope of Employment: The employer becomes liable if the tortious act, even if unauthorized, is closely connected to the employee’s duties, such as protecting the master’s goods, rather than a personal act.
Lister v Hesley Hall (2001)
Facts
- A boarding house warden sexually abused children in his care.
Legal Issue
- Could employer be liable for intentional criminal acts?
Decision: Yes.
Reasoning
- There was a close connection between the job and the abuse.
Legal Principle
- Introduced the close connection test:
Purpose: To decide if an employer should be held liable for an employee’s intentional wrongs or torts.
Two Stages:
- Relationship: Is the wrongdoer an employee or in a relationship “akin to employment” (e.g., a volunteer, or someone in a similar position of authority).
- Close Connection: Was the wrongful act so closely connected to the authorized work that it can be seen as done in the course of employment, even if it was unauthorized.
- Considers: Where? Enaged in work? Employment provided opportunity for misconduct?
- This replaced the Salmond test for intentional wrongdoing
Mohamud v Morrisons (2016)
Facts:
- A petrol station employee assaulted a customer after a dispute.
Legal Issue:
- Was the assault within the course of employment?
Decision: Employer liable, outward facing job role.
Reasoning
- The employee was acting within his field of activities, and the incident formed a continuous sequence.
Legal Principle
- Confirmed expansive interpretation of course of employment.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - Negligence
Facts:
- Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer bought by a friend.
- The opaque bottle contained a decomposed snail, causing illness.
- There was no contract between Mrs Donoghue and the manufacturer.
Outcome:
- The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the consumer.
Legal Lesson:
- Established the Neighbour Principle.
- A duty owed to those closely and directly affected by one’s actions.
Created modern negligence as a distinct tort.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978) - Negligence
Facts:
- Tenants sued the local authority for failing to inspect building foundations properly, leading to structural defects.
Outcome:
- The council was held to owe a duty of care.
Created the two-stage test:
- Proximity meant duty presumed
- Policy considerations may negate duty
Criticised for making duties too easy to establish.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1990) - Negligence
Facts:
- A house had defective foundations due to negligent inspection by the council.
- The owner sold the house at a loss.
Outcome:
- No duty of care owed by the council.
Legal Lesson:
- Overruled Anns.
- Confirmed courts should avoid broad duties and instead use incremental development based on precedent.
Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) - Negligence
Facts:
- Caparo relied on inaccurate audit accounts to buy shares and later took over a company that was worth less than expected.
Outcome:
- Auditors did not owe a duty of care to Caparo.
Established the three-stage Caparo test:
- Foreseeability
- Proximity
- Fair, just and reasonable
Key case for novel duty situations.
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018) - Negligence
Facts:
- An elderly woman was injured during police arrest of a suspect.
Outcome:
- Police owed a duty of care and were liable.
Legal Lesson:
- Caparo should not automatically be applied.
Courts should first ask:
- Is this case covered by existing precedent?
- Reaffirmed incremental approach.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) - Negligence
Facts:
- Mother of the final Yorkshire Ripper victim sued police for negligent investigation.
Outcome:
- No duty of care owed.
Legal Lesson:
- Police generally owe no duty for failures in investigation.
Policy reasons:
- Defensive policing
- Diversion of resources
- Floodgates
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) - Negligence
Facts:
- Police failed to respond promptly to a 999 call. Caller was later murdered by her ex-partner.
Outcome:
- No duty of care owed.
Legal Lesson:
- Reaffirmed Hill.
Police are not liable for omissions, unless:
- They create the danger, or
- They assume responsibility
Hall v Simons (2000) - Negligence
Facts:
- A client sued a barrister for negligent advocacy.
Outcome:
- Barristers no longer immune from negligence claims.
Courts can distinguish between:
- Negligence
- Legitimate professional judgment
Shows policy can evolve.
X v Bedfordshire County Council (1995) - Negligence
Facts:
- Children suffered abuse after social services failed to intervene.
Decision: No duty owed.
Legal Principle:
- No duty where policy decisions dominate
- Fear of defensive practice
Supports limitation of public body liability
D v East Berkshire NHS Trust (2005) - Negligence
Facts:
- Parents wrongly accused of abusing children due to negligent investigations.
Decision: Duty owed to children, not parents.
Legal Principle:
- Child welfare prioritised
- Fair, just and reasonable limits
Excellent for Caparo evaluation
