Court Cases

Front 1

Bradford Corp v Pickles [1895] AC 587

Back 1

The defendant prevented underground waterfrom flowing to the claimant’s land because hewanted to force them to buy the land at aninflated price. The House of Lords held that a landownerwas entitled to take water from his lands even if hisneighbour’s land is deprived of water. This represent awrong without a remedy.

Hint 1

Not every wrongful act amounts to a tort for which thelaw provides a remedy.

Front 2

Arscott v The Coal Authority

Back 2

In 1972 the owner of a large recreation area, which was susceptible to flooding deposited coal waste on the site in order to raise the level. In October 1998 a river overflowed and caused damage to a neighbouring property, the owner of which claimed damages. It was accepted that the raised level of the site was a material cause to the damage.

However, the claim was dismissed by the judge primarily because he held, relying on a long line of authority going back to the 18th century, that a doctrine known as the common enemy rule applied to the case.

***The judge articulated this rule as follows: (paragraph 27):"an owner or occupier of land is entitled to use or develop his land so as to prevent flood waters coming on to his land. If in times of flood waters which would have entered his land in consequence damage another's land that does not provide a cause of action in nuisance."***

The decision was upheld on appeal. The principle was not in breach of Art 8 and Art 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Front 3

Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) AC 562

Back 3

Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

Her claim was successful. This case established the modern law of negligence and established the neighbour test.

Front 4

Ryland v Fletcher

Back 4

In Rylands, the defendants employed independent contractors to build a reservoir on their land. The contractors carelessly omitted to block up some disused shafts on the site which communicated with the plaintiffs’ coal mine beneath the reservoir, so that,when the reservoir was filled,water escaped down the shafts and flooded the plaintiffs’ mine.

However, they were held strictly liable for the damage onthebasisofthefollowingrulepropoundedbyBlackburnJ,whichisnowknown as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Front 5

Brown v. Thompson

Back 5

a newspaper article statedthat in Queenstown instructions were issued “by theRoman Catholic religious authorities that all Protestantshop assistants were to be discharged; and where sevenplaintiffs claimed that they were the sole persons whoexercised religious authority in name and on behalf ofthe Roman Catholic church in Queenstown, it was heldthat they were entitled to sue for defamation beingindividually defamed.

Front 6

O’Brian v.Eason 1913

Back 6

it washeld that where comments of an allegeddefamatory character were made upon anassociation called the Ancient Order ofHibernians, an individual member of the orderwho was not named or in any way referred tocould not maintain an action for defamation.

Front 7

Eastwood v. Holmes

Back 7

According to Willes J in (1858)175 ER 758 “if a man wrote that all lawyers werethieves, no particular lawyer could sue himunless there was something to point to theparticular individual.”

Front 8

Knupffer v.London Express Newspaper

Back 8

According to Lord Atkin in (1944]A.C. 166,122-“The reason why defamatory wordspublished of a large or indeterminate number of personsdescribed by some general name generally fails to beactionable is the difficulty of establishing that the plaintiffwas in fact included in the defamatory statement, for thehabit of making unfounded generalisations is ingrained inill-educated or vulgar minds or the words areoccasionally intended to be facetious exaggeration.”

Front 9

Bonnick v Morris & the Gleaner {2002}

Back 9

The Gleaner published an article about questionablecontracts made by a Company of which the Claimantwas Managing Director. The article stated that the"Claimant was dismissed after the 2nd contract wasagreed.” The Claimant contended that the words wereunderstood to mean that he was dismissed because ofquestionable contracts. The court agreed with him thatthe ordinary man would draw such a conclusion.

Front 10

Bonaby v. Nassau Guardian (1985) SupremeCourt of Bahamas

Back 10

D published that P, an RM, was involved in adrug investigation but had not accepted anypayoffs. The article clearly said P had not takenany bribes so the reasonable man would haveno reason to think so.

Front 11

Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd[1929] 2 KB 331

Back 11

A newspaper published a photograph of Mr. C and MissX with the caption, “Mr. C and Miss X whoseengagement has been announced.” These words werecompletely innocent on their face but were held to bedefamatory since persons who knew that she had beenliving with Mr. C might believe that she was not Mr. C’swife and had been immorally cohabiting with him.

Front 12

Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library

Back 12

In Vizetelly v. Mudie's Select Library,[3] a circulating library provided to subscribers a book on Stanley's search for Emir Pasha in Africa, which turned out to be defamatory. The issue was whether the library can claim protection under innocent dissemination.[4] Lord Justice Romer described the defence as follows:That [they were] innocent of any knowledge of the libel contained in the work disseminated by [them], that there was nothing in the work or the circumstances under which it came to [them] which ought to have led [them] to suppose that it contained a libel, and that, when the work was disseminated by [them], it was not by any negligence on [their] part that [they] did not know that it contained the libel, then, although the dissemination of the work by [them] was primâ facie publication of it, [they] may nevertheless, on proof of the before-mentioned facts, be held not to have published it.

Hint 12

innocent dissemination

Front 13

Hemming v. Newton

Back 13

In Hemming v Newton,[8] Hemming sued Newton for libel and defamation as a result of a posting and a story on a P2P website which was owned and moderated by Newton. The author of the posting was unknown, but Newton was the author of the story. Newton's statements of defence alleged he was an innocent disseminator as he did not see or authorize the posting before it occurred and removed it in good faith upon receipt of Hemming’s complaint. Hemming asserted that it would be an abuse of process for Newton's defence of innocent dissemination to stand. The judge held that Newton had pleaded sufficient facts to enable Hemming to know why he contends he was an innocent disseminator, and refused to strike out the defence.

Hint 13

innocent dissemination

Front 14

Cubby v CompuServe

Back 14

In the US caseof Cubby v CompuServe, the defendant ISP was held not liable for defamatoryinformation posted on the internet by a third party, since the defendant had noopportunity to review the material prior to publication. The court took the view thatthe defendant’s position was akin to that of a newsstand, bookstore or publiclibrary, and it would be unduly restrictive of the free flow of electronic information toimpose a higher standard on an ISP.

Hint 14

innocent dissemination

Front 15

Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services

Back 15

Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services,the defendant ISP was held liable for defamatory comments posted to a localdiscussion forum which it hosted, on the ground that the defendant had explicitlymarketed itself as ‘a family-oriented computer network’ which controlled andedited messages posted on its bulletin boards to prevent the publication ofinappropriate messages. The court in this case took the view that the defendantwas not a mere distributor but rather a publisher of the libels, and was more akin toconventional hard-copy publishers, or TV or radio broadcasters who have controlover what they publish and a corresponding duty to check for defamatorymaterial.

Hint 15

plead innocent dissemination and lost

Front 16

Godfrey v Demon Internet [1999] 4 All ER 343

Back 16

Laurence Godfrey, a physics lecturer, learned that someone had posted a message to the Usenet discussion group soc.culture.thai. That message, sent by an unknown source, had been forged to appear to have been sent by Dr. Godfrey.On January 17, 1997, Godfrey contacted Demon Internet, one of the major Internet Service Providers in the UK to inform them of the forged message and ask that it be deleted from Demon Internet's Usenet news server.Demon Internet declined to remove the message, which remained on its servers for ten additional days, at which time it was automatically deleted along with all other old messages.Godfrey sued for libel, citing Demon's failure to remove the forged message at the time of his initial complaint.

Hint 16

plead innocent dissemination and lost

Front 17

Alexander v North Eastern Rly Co. (1865) 122 All E.R. 1221

Back 17

Here the D published a notice that P had been sentenced to a fine of £1.00 or 3 weeksimprisonment in default of payment because he traveled on a train without theappropriate ticket. The alternative was in fact 2 weeks imprisonment and not 3.Held:that the defence of justification could succeed because the statement wassubstantially true.

Hint 17

truth (justification)

Front 18

Halliday vBaronville (1977) 2 OECSLR 138

Back 18

the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was travelling without the correct train ticket and that would account for a fine for one pound or imprisonment for 3 weeks, the defendant tried to sue saying it was a fine for one pound and 2 weeks imprisonment. the claim failed because the information given by the defendant was materially true so he could rely on the defense of truth which was successful.

Hint 18

truth (justification)

Front 19

London Artists Ltd v Littler

Back 19

he defendant published a letter suggesting that the plaintiffs had taken part in what appeared to be a plot to force the end of the run of a successful play. It was held in the Court of Appeal that, although the comment was on a matter of public interest, the defendant having alleged a plot which he failed to substantiate, the defence of fair comment failed. In the event, the plaintiffs were held to be entitled to the modest sums awarded them by way of damages.

Hint 19

fair comment failed

Front 20

Christie vRobertson (1889) 19 N.S.W.L.R. 157

Back 20

“[to] state accurately what a man has done and then to say that such conduct isdishonourable or disgraceful, is comment which may do no harm, as everyonecan judge for himself whether the opinion expressed is well- founded or not.”

Hint 20

fair comment

Front 21

Clapham v Daily Chronicle 1944 LRBG 41

Back 21

A review in a concert in D’s newspaper entitled “London Pianistdisappointing” commented that the pianist made several mistakeswhich had the audience sulking. On being sued by the P, D argued faircomment.

Held:that the defence of fair comment was proved since members ofthe audience had expected P to be a good musician and were in factdisappointed as seen in the visible signs of disappointment and ‘hardlyany applause.’

Hint 21

fair comment

Front 22

Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 A.C. 343

Back 22

the House ofLords held that in an action for defamation where the defence of faircomment was pleaded in relation to a letter written in response to an articlein an article published in a newspaper, the Court was confined to the wordsstated in the letter and could not look at extrinsic evidence such as the initialarticle, to determine whether the letter was in fact a comment or assertionof fact.

Hint 22

fair comment

Front 23

Forde v Shah [1990] 1TTLR 73

Back 23

An article alleged that a member of the TT government was trembling in hisboots as he had an affair with one Mrs. S who was romantically linked with aperson who previously died of AIDS. The statement was in fact untrue as theindividual did not die of AIDS and there was no affair. Held: the statement onwhich the comment was premised being untrue the defence of fair commentfailed.

Hint 23

fair comment lost

Front 24

McQuire v Western Morning News Co. Ltd.

Back 24

The paper had carried an article with a swingeing condemnation of a musical. It defended the defamation action claiming fair comment. Held: Collins MR said that there was no evidence of actual malice, no personal imputations and no allegations of fact. In these circumstances, if comment was to be ‘fair’ it had to be relevant and not such as to disclose in itself actual malice.

a critiquethat a play was “dull, vulgar and degrading” was one that could be capable ofbeing a fair comment.

Hint 24

fair comment

Front 25

Barrow v Caribbean Publishing Co. Ltd.

Back 25

The defendant’s newspaper contained an article entitled ‘The White Lie’, which was a commentary upon a government White Paper on The Federal Negotiations, 1962–65, and Constitutional Proposals for Barbados. The article was highly critical of the approach of the Barbados Government and, in particular, of the Prime Minister, Errol Barrow, towards the negotiations. The Prime Minister brought an action, complaining that the article was defamatory of him, in that it asserted that he was not entitled to any reputation for honesty and integrity. The defendant pleaded fair comment on a matter of public interest. Held, by using the words ‘truth and honesty are irrelevant considerations, if considerations at all’ in relation to the plaintiff, the writer had stepped outside the bounds of fair comment, as these words constituted an attack on the personal character of the plaintiff.

Hint 25

fair comment failed

Front 26

Thomas v Bradbury Agnew & Co. Ltd.

Back 26

the Court held that a book reviewer was infact actuated by malice and his review of P’s book “Punch” was not a faircomment, given his review, his demeanour in the witness box and elsewhere all ofwhich demonstrated clear hostility towards P.

Where C proves D's comment was motivated by malice, despite that in all other aspects the comment may be fair, this would defeat the defence of fair comment.The question is: Were the comments made only to harm the claimant?A publication made 'maliciously' (spitefully, or with ill-will or recklessness as to whether it was true or false) will destroy the defence of fair comment.

Hint 26

fair comment failed

Front 27

Bodden v Brandon

Back 27

Thus in Bodden v Brandon, though the words spoken by the Attorney at Law tothe juror were in fact defamatory, “I challenge you because you are one of thedeceased’s girlfriend’s” - where the juror was a married woman - because theywere said during the course of judicial proceedings they were protectedprivilege.

Hint 27

absolute privilege

Front 28

Chatterton v Secretary of State for India

Back 28

A letter from the UK Secretary of State for India to his ParliamentaryUnder-Secretary contained information regarding the removal of P’s namefrom a list of half-pay officers. This information was provided as an answer toa questions raised in parliament. P brought an action for defamation whichwas dismissed on the ground that the communication was absolutelyprivileged.

Hint 28

absolute privilege between officers of the state

Front 29

Watt v Longsdon [1930] 1 K.B. 130

Back 29

D a company director, made a report to the chairman of the company tothe effect that one of the company’s employees sent to Sri Lanka hadnumerous affairs there and was participating in other immoral and illicitconduct. D made the same report to the employee’s wife. The allegationsagainst the employee were false and he sued for defamation. D pleadedqualified privilege.

Held:D’s report to the chairman was privileged as the duty to make thereport about P arose from the fact of employment at the same companyand that the chairman might in the future be asked to give a testimonialregarding P’s conduct and the information would be relevant. However, D’scommunication of the report to the wife was not privileged as even thoughthere are situations where friends may owe a duty or have an interest ininforming a wife about statements about her husband, in this case wherethe information came from doubtful sources, D had no interest or duty indoing so.

Hint 29

qualified privilege worked for one party

Front 30

Seaga v Harper [2008] UKPC 9

Back 30

D was at the time the Leader of the Opposition of Jamaica. At a publicmeeting D made statements about P to the effect that P was not a suitablereplacement for the outgoing Commissioner of Police because he was thetype of Commissioner who turned a blind eye to everything. This statementwas widely reported in the press and audiovisual media. D pleaded trutharguing that it was his duty as the Opposition Leader to communicatedirectly with the people his objection to P becoming Commissioner.

That the defendant could not plead qualified privilege in this case since onthe traditional common law rules, the element of reciprocity of duty andinterest had been lacking when the defendant knowingly made thestatement to the public at large and the extended principles of qualifiedprivilege as found under the principles of responsible journalism was notopen to the defendant since he had failed to take sufficient care to checkthe reliability of the information which he disseminated.

Hint 30

qualified privilege did not work

Front 31

Osborn v Boulter [1930] 2 K.B.

Back 31

In Osborn v Boulter [1930] 2 K.B. 226 the Court held that a statement that P had watered down his beer though defamatory was protected, to repel an allegation that D supplied P with beer of poor quality.

Hint 31

qualified privilege

Front 32

Stein v Gonzales (1985)

Back 32

one view is that the plaintiffmust show that he has suffered damage which is different in kind, and notmerely in degree, from that suffered by the general public

Hint 32

particular damage in nuisance

Front 33

Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 All ER 561,

Back 33

The defendant’s oil tanker ran aground in an estuary partly due to weather conditions and partly due to carrying a heavy load and a fault in the steering. The master discharged 400 tons of oil in order to free the tanker. The oil drifted onto the claimant’s land including a marine lake which it had to close until it had been cleaned at a substantial cost to the claimant. The claimant brought an action in negligence and nuisance. The trial judge found for the defendant and the claimant appealed.Held:Appeal allowed (Morris LJ dissenting) the defendant was liable in negligence and public nuisance.

the plaintiff showed that he has suffered damagewhich is appreciably greater in degree than any suffered by the generalpublic.

Hint 33

particular damage in public nuisance

Front 34

Walsh v Ervin

Back 34

D blocked off public road so that it could be used for agriculture. Held:public nuisance. P (adjoining neighbour) succeeded in private action forparticular damage.

Hint 34

particular damage in public nuisance

Front 35

Chandat v Reynolds Guyana Mines Ltd (1973)

Back 35

In Chandat v Reynolds Guyana Mines Ltd,6 the plaintiff farmers adducedevidence that their crops had been damaged by dust escaping from thedefendants’ bauxite works, but they were unable to recover damagesunder public nuisance individually, because none could show ‘particulardamage’.

Hint 35

particular damage in public nuisance (no proof)

Front 36

Benjamin v Storr

Back 36

The plaintiff’s coffee house was badly affected by the defendant’s wagons standing for long periods in the narrow street outside for the purposes of loading and unloading goods. The wagons blocked his light and the frequent stabling of the horses detracted from his enjoyment of his dwelling.

Hint 36

nuisance lost

Front 37

Rose v Miles (1815) 105 ER 773.

Back 37

where the defendant wrongfully obstructed a public navigable creek bymooring his barge there, thus compelling the plaintiff to unload his boats andtransport his cargo by land at great expense

Hint 37

particular damage

Front 38

Campbell v Paddington Corp [1911] 1 KB 869.

Back 38

where the plaintiff intended to let rooms in her house to persons wishing towatch a procession, and the defendants unlawfully created a structure in thepublic street which obstructed the view from the rooms, thus reducing theirletting value;9

Hint 38

particular damage

Front 39

Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 2 All ER 145.

Back 39

where the plaintiff’s sleep was disturbed by the noise of thedefendant’s vehicles, and the paintwork of his car, which was parked inthe street, was damaged by acid smuts from the defendant’s factory

Hint 39

particular damage

Front 40

Castle v St Augustine’s Links Ltd (1922)

Back 40

where the plaintiff, a taxi driver, was struck and blinded in oneeye by a golf ball driven from the defendant’s golf course situatednext to the highway

Hint 40

particular damage

Front 41

Norman v Telecommunication Services of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd (1996)

Back 41

where a telecommunications company allowed a broken telegraph pole,with cable attached, to overhang a public road, with the result that amotorist collided with it and sustained damage.12

Hint 41

particular damage

Front 42

Winterbottom v Derby (1867)

Back 42

On the other hand, no particular damage was proved where, in an actionfor obstructing a public way, the plaintiff proved no damage peculiar tohimself other than being delayed on several occasions in passing alongthe way and being obliged, in common with everyone else whoattempted to use it, either to take another route or to remove theobstruction.13

Hint 42

particular damage failed

Front 43

Malone v Laskey [1907]

Back 43

A company’s manager resided in a house as its licensee. His wife was injured when a bracket fell from a wall in the house. She claimed damages from the defendants in nuisance and negligence. The claim in nuisance alleged that the fall of the bracket had been caused by vibrations from an engine operating on the defendants’ adjoining premises. Held: Her claim in nuisance failed.

Hint 43

private nuisance failed

Front 44

Khorasandjian v. Bush 1993

Back 44

A man could not accept the break-up. He threatened his wife with telephone calls and damaged her car, for which he was prosecuted (conditional discharge). He did not stop and threatened to kill her (six weeks of imprisonment). The telephone calls continued, also her mother, her new boyfriend and his mother (injunction to stop all these things).Being sued, he claimed there was no such tort.

Injunction to prevent and to stop mental stress.

Hint 44

private nuisance

Front 45

St HelensSmelting Co v Tipping

Back 45

where the plaintiff, who lived in an industrialarea, proved that his trees and shrubs had been damaged by fumes fromthe defendant’s copper-smelting works. It was held by the House of Lordsthat the plaintiff’s action in nuisance succeeded, since there had beensensible material damage to his property.

Hint 45

sensible material damage

Front 46

Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Broderick (1996)

Back 46

(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that the cost had quadrupled.

Held: The right level of damages payable was the cost at the time when he became able to carry out the work. The general rule that damages were to be assessed as at the date of the breach, was subject to exceptions, including particularly where it would cause injustice. The duty to mitigate his damages was overridden by his impecuniosity

Hint 46

sensible material damage ruling of St. Helen's

Front 47

Vanderpant v May fair Hotel Co Ltd [1929]

Back 47

The plaintiff complained in nuisance that the access to his home had been obstructed by people seeking to use the defendant hotel.

Held: The claim failed.

Luxmoore: it is necessary todetermine whether the act complained of is an inconvenience materially interfering withthe ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not merely according to elegant ordainty modes and habits of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notionsobtaining among the English people.

Hint 47

Substantial interference with enjoyment of land

Front 48

Sedleigh-Denfield v O’Callaghan

Back 48

A trespasser laid a drain along a ditch on the defendant’s land. Later the defendants came to use the drain themselves. A grate was misplaced by them so that in a heavy rainstorm, it became clogged with leaves, and water flowed over into the plaintiff’s neighbouring land. Held: The defendants were liable. Though the drain had been placed by a trespasser, they had adopted it. An occupier of land is liable for the continuance of a nuisance created by others if he continues or adopts it.

Front 49

Bellew v Cement Co Ltd [1948] IR 61.

Back 49

aninjunction was granted in a nuisance action against a cement company, theeffect of which was to close down its cement factory for three months. Thecourt was unmoved by the defendants’ argument that their production of cementwas vital to the public interest at a time of expansion in house building, andthat they were the only producers of cement in the country

Hint 49

utility of defendants conduct

Front 50

Miller v Jackson

Back 50

itwas held that the playing of cricket on a particular ground had for many yearsbeen a benefit to the whole community, but that it had become a nuisance to theowners of houses built close to the ground because it interfered substantiallywith the use and enjoyment of the houses.Yl.6q!

Hint 50

utility of defendants conduct

Front 51

Robinson v Kilvert

Back 51

Here, the defendant,the occupant of acellar, heated the cellar to a temperature of about 27°C. The heatdamaged someunusually sensitive paper which was being stored by the plaintiffin adjoiningpremises. The plaintiff’s claim in nuisance failed, because ordinarypaper would have beenunaffected by the heat.

Hint 51

Plaintiff’s abnormal sensitivity

Front 52

McKinnon Industries vWalker

Back 52

where a crop of delicate orchids was damaged by smoke fromneighbouring premises, the plaintiff succeeded in a nuisance action, despite thefact that the flowers were unusually delicate, because ordinary flowers wouldhave been similarly affected.

Hint 52

Plaintiff’s abnormal sensitivity

Front 53

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468.

Back 53

Thus, where, out of spite, the defendant fired guns on his land closeto the boundary of the plaintiff’s land during breeding time in order to cause theplaintiff’s silver foxes to miscarry, he was held liable in nuisance for the damage tothe foxes, since harmful conduct cannot be reasonable where it is motivated bymalice.

Hint 53

malice

Front 54

Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316.

Back 54

in retaliation for the noise made by the plaintiff’s music lessonsin an adjoining house, the defendant persistently whistled, shouted and beat traysagainst the party wall, it was held that the conduct of the defendant was an actionable nuisance and would be restrained by an injunction, since its purpose was malicious, whereas the plaintiff’s conduct was reasonable and, therefore, not actionable.

Hint 54

malice

Front 55

Bolton v Stone

Back 55

Plaintiff was struck in the head by a cricket ball from Defendant’s cricket club. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence.

In its ruling in favor of Defendant, the court uses a negligence theory. In the application of its negligence theory, the court held that Defendant took reasonable care to prevent the accident to Plaintiff.

Hint 55

Duration of the harm

public nuisance failed

Front 56

Spicer v Smee

Back 56

The actual damage to the plaintiff’s property may arise from a single isolated occurrence (such as where, owing to defective electrical wiring in the defendant’s house, a fire broke out which destroyed the plaintiff’s neighbouring house),35 but the essence of the nuisance is the continuing state of affairs (in this latter example, the faulty wiring).

Hint 56

Duration of the harm