Uk Tort - Case Law (G- J)

Front 1

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock [1993]

Back 1

The defendant had obtained planning permission to turn a disused dockyard into a commercial port operating 24 hours a day. Local residents brought an action in public nuisance in relation to the noise created by Heavy Goods Vehicles throughout the night. They were seeking an injunction to restrain the activities during the night. It was held that where planning permission is given for a development or change of use, the question of nuisance will thereafter fall to be decided by reference to a neighbourhood with that development or use and not as it was previously. The claimant’s actions therefore failed.

Front 2

Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2002]
The claimant, a 63 year old woman, was injured at a summer fair hosted by West Hertfordshire Hopsital. She was injured whilst using a ‘splat wall’ whereby participants would bounce off a trampette against a wall and become attached to the wall by means of Velcro material. The injury occurred as a result of negligent set up of the equipment. The equipment was provided by a business called ‘Club Entertainments’ who were an independent contractor engaged by the Hospital. Club Entertainment’s public liability insurance had expired four days before the incidence and thus they had no cover for the injury. They agreed to settle her claim for £5,000. Mrs Gwilliam brought an action against the hospital based on their failure to ensure that the entertainment arranged was covered by public liability insurance. She claimed the difference between the £5,000 and what she would have received had they been covered by insurance.

Back 2

Held:
The Hospital owed a duty of care Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 this duty did extend to checking whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent. However, there was no breach of duty since the Hospital had enquired and had been told by Club Entertainment that they had insurance cover. There was no duty to inspect the insurance documents to ensure that cover was adequate.

Front 3

Hadley v Baxendale [1854]

The crankshaft broke in the Claimant’s mill. He engaged the services of the Defendant to deliver the crankshaft to the place where it was to be repaired and to subsequently return it after it had been repaired. Due to neglect of the Defendant, the crankshaft was returned 7 days late. The Claimant was unable to use the mill during this time and claimed for loss of profit. The Defendant argued that he was unaware that the mill would have to be closed during the delay and therefore the loss of profit was too remote.

Back 3

Held:
The damages available for breach of contract include:

1. Those which may fairly and reasonably be considered arising naturally from the breach of contract or

2. Such damages as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both the parties at the time the contract was made.


If any special circumstances exists which were actually communicated to the Defendant, the Claimant may recover any damages which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under the special circumstances communicated.

Front 4

Hartley v Ponsonby [1857]
Half of a ship's crew deserted on a voyage. The captain promised the remaining crew members extra money if they worked the ship and completed the voyage. The captain then refused to pay up.

Back 4

Held:

The crew were entitled to the extra payment promised on the grounds that either they had gone beyond their existing contractual duty or that the voyage had become too dangerous frustrating the original contract and leaving the crew free to negotiate a new contract.

Front 5

Harvey v Facey [1893]
Harvey sent a Telegram to Facey which stated: -
"Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price-answer paid;"
Facey replied by telegram:-
"Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen £900."
Harvey then replied:-
"We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for the sum of nine hundred pounds asked by you. Please
send us your title deed in order that we may get early possession."

Back 5

Held:

The Privy Council held that there was no contract concluded between the parties. Facey had not directly answered the first question as to whether they would sell and the lowest price stated was merely responding to a request for information not an offer. There was thus no evidence of an intention that the telegram sent by Facey was to be an offer.

Front 6

Herne Bay Steam Boat v Hutton [1903]

The defendant hired out the claimant's steamship. The purpose of the contract was to take paying passengers to view the Naval Review which was part of King Edward VII's coronation celebrations. The defendants were also offering a day’s cruise for the passengers. The Naval Review was cancelled as the King was ill. The defendant did not use the steamship and the claimant brought an action for the agreed contract price. The defendant argued the contract had become frustrated due to the cancellation of the Naval Review.

Back 6

Held:

The contract was not frustrated. The contract had not been deprived of its sole commercial purpose as it was still possible to perform the days cruise. The Naval Review was not the only commercial purpose of the contract.

Front 7

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]

Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper). He had committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a five year period. Jacqueline' Mother made a claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detection and detention of Sutcliffe. The defendant applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that there was no cause of action since no duty of care was owed by the police in the detection of crime.

Back 7

Held:
No duty of care was owed.
Lord Keith said " ....The general sense of public duty which motivates police forces is unlikely to be appreciably reinforced by the imposition of such liability so far as concerns their function in the investigation and suppression of crime...."

Front 8

Holden v White [1982]

Back 8

The claimant, a milkman, was injured on the defendant’s land by a manhole cover which broke when he stepped on it. At the time he was delivering milk to the house of a third party who had a right of way across the defendant’s land. It was held that he was not entitled to claim against the defendant since he was exercising a right of way and was not therefore a lawful visitor of the defendant.

Front 9

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd [1970]

Some young offenders were doing some supervised work on Brown Sea Island under the Borstal regime. One night the Borstal officers retired for the evening leaving the boys unsupervised. Seven of them escaped and stole a boat which collided with a Yacht owned by the claimant.

Back 9

Held:

The Home Office owed a duty of care for their omission as they were in a position of control over the 3rd party who caused the damage and it was foreseeable that harm would result from their inaction.

Front 10

Hunter v Canary Wharf [1998]
690 claims were made against Canary Wharf ltd. The claimants lived in the Isle of Dogs and complained that the erection of the Canary Wharf Tower interfered with their television reception. In addition, a second action against London Docklands Development Corporation involved 513 claims for damages in respect of excessive amounts of dust created during the construction of the tower. Some of the claimants were owners or tenants of properties, but many of the claimants had no proprietary interest in lane at all. Some were children living with parents, some were relations or lodgers with use of a room and some were spouses of the tenant or owner of the property. The two issues the House of Lords were required to consider were:

1. Whether interference with television reception was capable of giving rise to an actionable nuisance

2. Whether an interest in property was required to bring an action in

Back 10

Held:

1. There is no right of action in nuisance for interference with the television reception.

2. An interest in property is required to bring an action in nuisance. Khorasanjian v Bush overruled in so far as it holds that a mere licensee can sue in private nuisance.

Front 11

Hyde v Wrench (1840)

The defendant offered to sell a farm to the claimant for £1,000. The claimant in reply offered £950 which the defendant refused. The claimant then sought to accept the original offer of £1,000. The defendant refused to sell to the claimant and the claimant brought an action for specific performance.

Back 11

Held:
There was no contract. Where a counter offer is made this destroys the original offer so that it is no longer open to the offeree to accept.

Front 12

Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto [1989] QB 433

The claimants ran a photo library the defendant was in advertising. The claimants advanced some transparencies to the defendant for his perusal and he was to get back to them as to which photos he would like to use. The package of the photos contained a document stating that if any transparencies were kept longer than 14 days a £5 +VAT holding fee would be charged per photo per day. The defendant had not read this document and then forgot about the transparencies and failed to return them for 6 weeks. The claimants brought an action claiming a holding fee of £23,783 as specified in the contract.

Back 12

Held:

The term was not incorporated into the contract. Where a term is particularly onerous the person seeking to rely on the term must take greater measures to bring it to the attention of the other party.