Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
MONSON V TUSSAUDS
|
permanence = libel
step 1 defamation |
|
|
defamation act 1952 s2
|
sets out exception of man in his office
step 2 defamation |
|
|
mcmanus v beckham
|
supports exception of man in his office
step 2 defamation |
|
|
sim v stretch
|
lower claimant to right thinking members
step 3 material defamatory |
|
|
berkoff v burchill
|
contempt, scorn or ridicule
|
|
|
false innuendo
|
words not construed in literal meaning
step 4 defamation |
|
|
lewis v daily telegraph
|
case to support false innuendo
step 4 defamation |
|
|
true innuendo
|
relies upon extra facts about the claimant
step 4 defamation |
|
|
cassidy v daily mirror
|
supports true innuendo. relies upon extraneous facts about the claimant + understood = defamatory
step 4 defamation |
|
|
byrne v deane
|
must refer to claimant. from facts clearly refers to claimant
step 5 defamation |
|
|
cairns v modi
|
publication of tweet frms new publication
step 6 defamation |
|
|
defence of justication
|
the truth
step 7 defamation |
|
|
sutherland v stopes
|
true in substance and fact. defence of justification
step 7 defamation |
|
|
offer to make amends
|
apology to claimant. must be followed by publication of correction
apology must be reasonable manner step 7 defamation |
|
|
private nuisance
|
unlawful interference with persons use/enjoyment of land
no personal injury step 1 nuisance |
|
|
who can sue under private nuisance?
|
must have an interest in the land
step 2 nuisance |
|
|
who can be sued under private nuisance?
|
person creating nuisance/who authorised nuisance
step 2 nuisance |
|
|
Matania
|
occupier of land who exercises control over creator can be sued under private nuisance
step 2 nuisance |
|
|
must be substantial interference
|
must prove damage not actionable per se
step 3 nuisance |
|
|
tangible damage
|
tangible: damage to paintwork from fumes, cracks in walls from vibrations. Intangible, noise and smells
step 3 nuisance |
|
|
st helens smelting v tipping
|
tangible damage. locality irrelevant where physical damage has been caused
step 3 nuisance |
|
|
what are the four steps to form intangible damage
|
locality, duration, sensitivity, motive
step 3 nuisance |
|
|
what is locality?
|
comfort and peace will naturally vary according to the location of his house or business
step 3 nuisance |
|
|
de keyser
|
the more persistent the duration, the more unreasonable
|
|
|
volenti non fit injuria
|
If the claimant makes use of the nuisance he will be deemed to have accepted the risk
step 4 nuisance |
|
|
public nuisance
|
common law crime, pure economic loss recoverable (ryeford homes)
|
|
|
rylands v fletcher
|
bring something onto property something not naturally there
|
|
|
r v f
|
purpose to do mischief, ie explosions
|
|
|
giles v walker
|
rylands v fletcher does not apply to natural occurences
|
|
|
default of claimant
|
no remedy where caused by act of claimant
|
|
|
consent
|
implied consent efficient defence to nuisance
|
|
|
damages apploied when...
|
physical damage (Hunter v canary wharf)
|
|
|
abatement
|
removal of nuisance by claimant
|
|
|
what is step 1 to VL/EL?
|
tort committed
|
|
|
step 2 VL?
|
committed by empployee
|
|
|
control test
|
can employer control not only when but how action is done?
|
|
|
intergration test
|
employed as part of business and is integral part
|
|
|
multiple test
|
ready mixed concentrate case:
a- for wage provides work b- sufficient degree of control |
|
|
what is step 3 VL?
|
who is employer?
effective contorol over employee (hawley v luminar leisure |
|
|
step 4?
|
was it committed in the course of employment
|
|
|
joel v morrison
|
on a frolic of his own
|
|
|
way home from work
|
usually no vic liability
may lead to defendant being sured in other tort such as negligence |
|
|
express prohibitions
|
can still make employer liabile
case of twine v beans, employer not liableq |
|
|
poland v parr
|
assault so much to be outside of relationship with work
|
|
|
lister v hesley hall
|
wrongful act and wrongful mode.
was the employee's act closely connected to his employment |
|
|
wilson & clyde v english
|
leading case in employers liability
1. Provision of competent staff. 2. Provision of adequate materials and plant/premises. 3. Provision of a proper system of work and effective supervision |
|
|
hudson v ridge
|
competent staff. made jokes
employers failed to supply competent staff for the job. should have removed not reprimanded |
|
|
can employers delegate from responsibilites
|
no still held liable
|
