Notesale: Turn your study into money

Document Preview

Extracts from the notes are below, to see the PDF you'll receive please use the links above

---

Delict
...
g
...
 
Private  law  –  governing  relationships  between  individuals  (N
...
 private  relationships  are  not  free  
from  state  interventions  due  to  being  in  the  public  interest)  e
...
 marriage,  minimum  wage,  child  
abuse
...
g
...
   
Real  rights  –  a  right  which  you  can  defend  against  the  world  at  large  i
...
 anyone  who  interfered  with  
your  rights
...
e
...
 
Stair’s  structure  of  obligations:  conventional  obligations  (obligations  entered  into  by  voluntary  
agreement  e
...
 contract)  and  obediential  obligations  (obligations  put  upon  men  not  by  their  own  will  
–  imposed  without  personal  agreement)
...
 
Intentional  delicts  –  deliberately  causes  harm  to  another  person,  their  property  or  their  economic  
status
...
 
Delict  deals  with,  who  is  liable?  For  what  are  they  liable?  Delict  looks  at  who  bears  the  liability
...
   
Civil  Liability
...
   
Delict  is  how  we  shift  responsibility  from  the  victim  to  the  wrongdoer  or  the  insurers  of  the  wrong  
doer
...
   In  Scotland  Delict  only  
covers  civil  law
...
   This  is  only  in  Scots  Law
...
   
In  English  law  it  is  called  the  law  of  ‘Tort’    
Delict  is  made  up  of  mainly  case  law
...
   
The  duty  to  compensate  arises  ‘Ex  Lege’  (as  a  matter  of  Law)    
The  wrongdoer’s  obligation  is  obediential  (arises  by  virtue  of  law),  not  conventional  (arising  by  virtue  
of  agreement  Primary  obligation  –  Don’t  cause  the  harm
...
 
Secondary  obligation  -­‐  make  right  if  you  do  compensation
...
g
...
   
Similarly  there  is  a  delictual  –  DUTY  OF  CARE
...
   Also  omissions  –  what  you  ought  to  have  done
...
gg  
failing  to  grit  the  roads,  failing  to  fence  a  hole,  there  is  not  a  claim  until  someone  falls  through  the  
hole
...
     

 
Damnum  Injuria  datum  –  a  loss  wrongfully  caused
...
   E
...
 driving  
wrecklessly  hit  a  student,  you  are  liable  in  the  law  of  Delict
...
 Culpa  required  for  the  negligent  person  to  be  negligent  –  this  can  evolve  from  the  
circumstances
...
 

Damnum  absque  Injuria  –  Loss  without  wrongful  conduct
...
   You  just  need  to  take  it  on  the  chin
...
g
...
   

Injuria  sine  damno  –  Where  there  is  wrongful  conduct  but  no  loss
...
   E
...
 an  unlit  hole,  there  is  no  liability  until  someone  hurts  themselves
...
 
In  Delict  we  always  refer  to  PURSUER
...
 
The  pursuer  must  show  that  he  will  be  the  ‘loser’  if  no  remedy  is  granted  

...
 

Personal  Liability    
The  person  at  fault  must  bear  the  consequences
...
   
Where  2  or  more  persons  have  contributed  to  the  same  Delict
...
   E
...
 
if  there  are  5  people  involved,  then  the  pursuer  can  claim  against  only  1
...
   
Several  Liability
...
   This  is  mostly  used  in  
employment
...
g
...
   
N
...
   

B)  Intentional  Delicts
...
     
Pursuer:  B,  the  person  whom  A  intended  to  harm
...
   
 
 
Delict  of  harassment
...
   This  was  introduced  to  deal  with  
stalking
...
K
...
   The  2nd  applies  to  
Scotland
...
   The  main  section  is  
section  8  (1)  Every  individual  has  a  right  to  be  free  from  harassment  and,  accordingly,  a  person  must  
not  pursue  a  course  of  conduct  which  amounts  to  the  harassment  of  another  and  –    
The  act  does  not  define  a  ‘course  of  conduct’  however  a  single  act  will  not  suffice  –  this  can  be  
implied  from  the  use  of  the  word  ‘course’  –  may  be  a  break  between  incidents  (Marinello  –  2year  
period  between  incidents)  
Section  1  (3)  ‘conduct  includes  speech,  harassment  of  another  includes  causing  the  person  alarm  or  
distress;  and  a  course  of  conduct  must  involve  conduct  on  at  least  two  occasions
...
   
Section  8  (1)  states  it  can  only  be  harassment  if  the  person  intended  the  behaviour  to  be  harassing
...
   
If  both  of  these  are  shown  then  what  can  the  victims  do?  See  Section  8  (5)  +  (6)
...
   The  interim  interdict  is  convenient  
and  also  it  can  be  granted  before  the  proceedings  and  before  the  final  judgement
...
   
There  is  also  Section  8  (5)  (b)  (ii)  a  non  harassment  order  can  be  granted
...
     
Liability  can  be  vicarious  or  attracted  by  commercial  entities  (Ferguson,  Roberts  –  bank  customer  
with  small  overdraft  and  exceeded  credit  card  limit  once
...
 547  attempted  calls,  
said  clearly  didn’t  want  to  talk  to  them
...
 
McGuire  v  Kidston  –  parties  were  both  in  their  60’s  and  had  met  through  a  dating  agency,  they  had  a    
sexual  relationship
...
   On  appeal  the  court  ruled  that  a  non  harassment  order  is  more  serious  than  an  interdict  and  
should  only  be  granted  where  an  interdict  is  insufficient
...
   Couple  were  divorcing,  and  there  was  already  an  
interdict  in  place  per  other  previous  proceedings
...
   On  appeal  
the  question  was  could  an  interdict  and  non  harassment  order  both  be  granted?  It  was  concluded  
that  it  was  not  competent  to  grant  both  at  the  same  time,  however  because  in  this  case  the  interdict  
was  concluded  from  a  previous  case  and  before  the  1997  act  came  into  place,  then  there  was  
nothing  stopping  it  being  granted
...
   Sisters  were  appealing  against  an  injunction  that  had  been  granted  against  them  
for  harassing  Jones  (verbal  abuse  in  Asda,  in  the  street  etc)
...
   High  Court  dismissed  
the  appeal
...
   The  court  ruled  that  this  was  enough  to  infer  a  course  of  conduct,  it  was  not  necessary  
to  show  it  was  planned
...
 Causing  alarm  and  distress
...
 
Recent  Scottish  Cases
...
   Workplace  bullying,  R  was  a  prison  officer  who  sued  for  alleged  
bullying  due  to  trade  union  activity,  she  claimed  she  was  victimised  by  the  trade  union  rep
...
   

N
...
   
Dickie  v  Flexcon  Glenrothes  Ltd
...
   
Claims  he  was  ridiculed  and  abused  and  sued  his  employer  for  £500,000  for  psychiatric  illness
...
   If  reading  the  judgment  
the  main  points  are  Para  65  –  81
...
   Thereafter  she  still  remained  to  receive  paperwork,  bills,  and  
threats  of  litigation  from  BG
...
   Ms  
Ferguson  funded  the  legal  costs  herself
...
   Ferguson  succeeded
...
   It  is  also  used  in  
England  against  animal  rights  activists,  for  example  we  know  it  must  be  a  course  of  conduct  and  if  
animal  rights  activists  attack  Cambridge  Uni,  then  Oxford,  the  individuals  Uni’s  cannot  take  action  
but  when  it  is  shown  as  a  course  of  conduct  –  however  it  is  worth  noting  that  this  applies  in  England  
only,  it  does  not  apply  here  as  our  legislations  is  for  ‘individuals’  to  take  actions  and  not  corporate  
envisagement
...
 
The  threat  of  or  use  of  force  against  another  person
...
 
Ewing  v  Earl  of  Mar  –  spat  at  pursuer
...
 
Reid  v  Mitchell  –  no  need  for  malice
...
 M  
knocked  R  off  sty  trying  to  involve  him  in  the  romping  
Intentional  wrongs  relating  to  persons  –  Assault
...
 Bell  Principals
...
   Assault  can  also  constitute  a  
civil  wrong
...
     
If  the  assault  does  not  result  in  physical  harm,  the  damages  awarded  will  not  be  large  despite  the  
insult  caused  to  the  victim
...
   English  authority  
but  likely  to  be  followed  by  the  Scottish  Courts
...
   This  is  particularly  important  
in  the  cases  of  doctors  and  dentists
...
   Mainly  
reasonably  conducted  games  and  sporting  activities
...
 
Medical  and  Dental  Injuries
...
   A  doctor  need  only  disclose  to  patients  the  risks  that  are  main  to  the  procedure  and  
which  are  regarded  by  a  responsible  body  of  medical  opinion  as  proper  to  disclose
...
   Secondly  if  the  
doctor  or  dentist  does  not  disclose  important  details  that  a  responsible  body  of  medical  opinion  
would  have  disclosed  and  a  patient  comes  to  harm  then  the  patient  can  sue  the  doctor
...
     
Patients  should  sign  a  general  consent  form  however  this  is  not  clear  of  when  a  doctor  should  inform  
a  patient  of  particular  risks
...
     
Bolton  Hospitals  NHS  Trust  v  O  -­‐  The  trust  sought  a  declaration  that  O,  a  woman  who  was  39  weeks  
pregnant,  temporarily  did  not  have  capacity  to  consent  to  a  caesarean  section  and  that  it  would  be  
lawful  to  carry  out  the  operation  even  if  O  again  withdrew  consent  at  the  point  when  she  was  about  
to  be  given  anaesthetic  for  the  operation
...
 There  was  a  greater  than  95  per  cent  chance  of  a  failure  if  a  
vaginal  delivery  were  to  take  place,  with  a  serious  risk  that  O  and  the  baby  would  die
...
   It  was  held  that  a  patient  was  entitled  to  refuse  treatment  even  if  there  were  no  
good  reasons  for  so  doing
...
 
Moyes  v  Lothian  Health  Board  –  do  all  potential  risks  need  to  be  notified  before  consent?  Have  you  
been  given  enough  info  to  consent?  Patient  suffered  stroke  during  vein/artery  exam,  should’ve  been  
warned  of  risks  due  to  previous  reactions,  no  requirement  to  be  informed  of  every  risk
...
 
In  general  consent  from  the  victim  prevents  the  claim  of  delictual  liability  for  assault
...
 

Marco  v  Merrans  –  2  young  men  liked  1  lady,  fight  outside  her  house,  1  cut  forehead  from  bottle,  
not  reasonable
...
 
3  possibilities  for  self-­‐defence  (set  out  in  Ashley  v  Chief  Constable  of  Sussex  Police  –  relative  of  man  
shot  by  police  where  he  lived)  
1
...
 
2
...
 
3
...
   
Lewis  v  Buckpool  Golf  Club  –  2  men  on  golf  course,  not  good  golfers,  S  drove  off  from  the  fifth  tee  
when  L  was  putting  on  the  fourth  green
...
 The  question  which  had  to  be  answered  was  whether  there  was  a  real  risk,  of  which  S  
ought  to  have  been  aware,  that  he  would  mis-­‐hit  the  ball  and  not  drive  it  straight  down  the  fairway
...
 He  therefore  held  that  L  was  entitled  to  recover  damages  in  the  sum  of  15,500  pounds  from  S
...
   
If  an  assault  takes  place  as  the  victim  provoked  it  then  damages  will  be  reduced
...
   
Validity  of  Consent    
See  blue  book  –  cover  later  on
...
   
Assaults  on  Children
...
     
A  v  United  Kingdom  –  ECHR  held  that  the  parents’  reasonable  chastisement  defence  was  a  breach  of  
the  child’s  rights  under  Article  3  to  be  protected  from  ‘inhumane  or  degrading  treatment  or  
punishment’    
Reasonable  chastisement  of  children  

1937  Act  s12  –  any  attack  is  reasonable
...
 
A  v  UK  –  girl  hit  by  cane  by  friend,  incompatible  with  Art  3?  And  inconsistent?  
ECHR  Art  3  –  no  one  shall  be  subjected  to  torture  or  to  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  
punishment
...
 At  his  trial  there  was  evidence  the  boy's  behaviour  had  been  of  
concern  to  his  parents  for  some  time  and  that  the  boy's  father  had  expressed  to  the  headmaster  'it  is  
about  time  he  was  taught  a  lesson  by  some  authority
...
 The  
situation  being  tense,  the  headmaster  decided  to  deal  with  the  boy  at  his  own  home  and  took  him  
there  with  the  approval  of  his  parents
...
 He  smacked  him  about  four  
times
...
 After  summary  trial  the  accused  was  acquitted
...
   
Guest  v  Annan  -­‐  The  appellant  was  charged  with  assaulting  his  8  yr  old  year-­‐old  daughter  by  
repeatedly  striking  her  on  the  buttocks  with  his  hand,  to  her  injury
...
 She  was  
found  to  have  a  bruise  on  one  buttock
...
 Held,  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  justify  the  sheriff  in  concluding  
beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  appellant  had  acted  with  the  necessary  evil  intent;  and  appeal  
allowed  and  conviction  quashed
...
 Parting  buttocks  by  guard
...
 
Seduction  and  entrapment  
In  the  case  of  seduction,  the  woman  would  give  consent  to  sexual  intercourse  but  her  consent  may  
be  reduced  because  it  was  obtained  by  the  man  as  a  result  of  deception  or  abuse  of  position
...
 By  use  of  fraud/deceit  or  use  of  dominating  
influence
...
 P  trusted  D
...
 
Murray  v  Fraser  -­‐  a  young  naive  girl  was  duped  into  having  intercourse  by  a  trusted  family  member  
who  told  her  nothing  would  happen,  she  became  pregnant,  the  defender  was  held  liable  in  
seduction
...
   Cathcart  had  sex  with  Brown  on  two  occasions
...
   She  brought  a  claim  to  court  and  was  awarded  £300  damages
...
 The  most  common  
example  is  bigamy
...
g
...
 Burke  v  Burke  –  
understood  D  was  divorced  even  though  lived  with  ex  wife
...
   
‘Next  to  life  there  is  liberty
...
 The  loss  suffered  is  both  the  loss  of  liberty  and  the  affront  caused  by  the  pursuer
...
 This  is  a  fundamental  right
...
   
Mackenzie  v  Cluny  Hill  Hyropathic  Co  –  woman  guest  at  a  hotel,  who  was  detained  by  the  manager  
for  15  mins,  awarded  £400
...
 Hotel  vicariously  liable  for  manager
...
 The  defender  pleaded  that  her  averments  were  irrelevant
...
 Authorities  on  wrongful  arrest  reviewed
...
 Police  called,  women  kept  in  
room,  required  to  remove  clothes  then  released
...
   
 
Misuse  of  private  information  
Something  with  a  commercial  value  e
...
 famous  people  
A  reasonable  expectation  of  privacy  –  takes  account  of  all  circumstances
...
 
Murray  v  Newspaper  
 
Justifying  publication  of  private  information  
Von  Hannover  –  photographs  out  with  family
...
 Court  agreed  justified  to  see  how  she  reacted  when  
father  was  ill
...
general  interest  
2
...
prior  conduct  

4
...
circumstances  
Von  Hannover  3  –  princess  Caroline  and  husband  in  Africa  holiday  home
...
   
 
 
 
 
 
Intentional  Delicts  relating  to  property
...
     A  person  who  deliberately  enters  another’s  land,  may  be  interdicted  from  doing  so  again  
and  is  liable  to  pay  damages  if  he  has  caused  any  harm  to  the  property
...
 Complained  a  sheep  belonging  to  W  strolled  onto  
road  and  into  his  garden
...
 
 
Dumbreck  v  Robert  Addie  &  Sons  (Collieries)  Ltd  –  Definition  of  trespass  ‘a  temporary  intrusion  into  
property  owned  by  another  without  the  permission  of  the  owner’  
 
Heritable  property  is  owned  from  the  heavens  to  the  centre  of  the  earth  (a  coelo  usque  ad  centrum)  
however,  because  of  this  there  is  statute  which  provides  that  it  is  ok    for  aircraft  to  fly  over  a  
person’s  house  without  liability  for  trespass  –  Civil  Aviation  Act  1972  Section  76
...
   Interim  interdict  was  granted
...
   There  is  no  liability  in  damages  for  simply  entering  property
...
       Generally  trespass  will  not  give  rise  to  damages  unless  there  has  
been  actual  damage  done,  it  will  mainly  result  in  interdict
...
   R  was  awarded  damages  as  N  was  negligent  in  using  
this  much  force,  N  tried  to  appeal  and  appeal  dismissed
...
 Sheriff  =  
aemulatio  vincini  exists,  but  was  he  acting  in  harm  or  ‘out  of  spite’?  

Tresspass  
Only  where  moveable  property  can  be  occupied  
Phestos  Shipping  v  Kurmiawan  –  protest  over  not  paid  wages  
 
Passing  Off  
Goodwill;  passing  off:  There  is  a  common  law  remedy  against  piracy/copy  cats
...
   It  will  include  the  name  of  the  business,  if  it  is  a  
product  then  it  can  be  the  name  of  the  product,  the  shape,  or  the  colour  (e
...
 Heinz,  distinctive  
turquoise  colour)  these  distinctions  are  sometimes  called  the  get  up’
...
   
Passing  off  emerges  when  a  person  uses  the  ideas  of  these  successful  products  to  manufacture  a  
product  of  their  own
...
     Generally  the  product  is  also  inferior
...
   
 
Sometimes,  lookalike  products  will  be  manufactured  by  the  same  companies,  e
...
 tissues,  so  there  
would  be  no  litigation,  where  this  is  not  the  case  then  there  can  be  a  delictual  claim
...
   
 
What  do  you  need  to  prove  for  an  action  in  this  area?    It needs to be shown that the defenders
conduct was done in fact to harm the pursuers business
...
existence of goodwill in ‘get up’ of goods/services
2
...
damage or likelihood of damage (to goodwill) *normally assumed if 1 & 2 are satisfied
...
(Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grovesnor Street) Ltd – hotel sued for
restaurant passing off
...
) (Société case – casino couldn’t prove UK
clientele)
Goodwill in descriptive terms (Cellular clothing co case – goodwill in clothing? Provided
person using descriptive term can establish a secondary meaning (brand & description) it can
have goodwill) (Salon services v Direct salon services – descriptive name, but a small change
in name is sufficient to distinguish)
Continuation of goodwill (after stopped) (Sutherland v V2 music Ltd – previous band called
liberty
...
g
...

Quality of goods – ‘extended passing off’ (Diago – Vodkat, alcohol content significantly less
than vodka – passing off
...
Agreed confusion
...
Also, labels frequently come off and
goods are infrequently used
...
   
The  claimant  manufactured  it  in  Holland  and  had  a  large  export  to  England
...
   The  claimant  was  successful
...

Gleneagles  Hotels  Ltd  v  Quillico  –  An  action  was  brought  in  passing  off
...
   They  wanted  to  use  the  word  Glen  
Eagles  and  the  picture  of  an  eagle,  the  same  as  the  Gleneagles  hotel
...
   The  court  ruled  this  was  intended  to  damage
...
   
 
Irvine  v  Talksport  Ltd  –  Involved  Eddie  Irvine,  the  radio  produced  promo  leaflets  with  Eddie  holding  a  
portable  radio  emblazoned  with  Talksport  on  it
...
   This  was  an  
unethical  use  of  product  placement;  the  image  had  a  commercial  value  in  the  sporting  world
...
   The  claim  was  
successful
...
   Both  companies  dealt  with  dry  rot,  wet  rot  etc
...
   

Hotel  Cipriani  Slr  v  Cipriani  (Grosvenor  Street)  Ltd  –  The  well  known  luxury  hotel  chain  brought  an  
action  against  a  restaurant  in  London  as  the  public  would  assume  that  the  restaurant  was  linked  
with  the  chain
...
   
 
If  these  remedies  are  established  then  what  is  the  applicant  generally  seeking?  –  An  Interdict
...
   
Breach  of  Confidence
...
   
The  essence  of  this  is  where  A  provides  info  to  B,  and  there  exists  a  confidential  relationship  
between  them,  B  is  under  an  obligation  not  to  divulge  that  info
...
     It  will  generally  arise  where  a  ‘reasonable  person’  would  
have  deemed  the  information  confidential
...
information  must  have  necessary  quality  or  confidence  about  it  
2
...
must  be  an  unauthorised  use  of  that  info  to  the  detriment  of  the  party  communicating  it  
Second  criteria  was  difficult  to  satisfy  (e
...
 if  drop  a  diary  and  someone  finds  it,  no  confidentiality)  so  
LA  v  Scotsman  Publications  LTD  extended  it  to  protect  information  in  absence  of  direct  relationship  
where  it  is  clear  that  it  was  confidential
...
   

A  –  The  nature  of  the  information    
Must  be  specific  –  Bailey  v  Graham  –  levi  roots  sued  by  employee/er  for  using  recipe  disclosed  in  
confidence
...
 
Can  it  be  embodied  in  property?  Waste  systems  case  –  Scottish  company  purchased  machinery  from  
American  company
...
 Scottish  company  went  into  liquidation  and  company  sold  machine
...
   

Maccaba  v  Lichtenstein  –  Maccaba  was  an  orthodox  Jew  and  he  claimed  for  misuse  of  private  
information
...
   L  had  extracts  of  letters  that  M  was  sending  to  a  married  woman,  
declaring  his  love  and  intentions  for  her;  he  also  offered  the  husband  money  to  release  the  woman  
so  he  could  be  with  her
...
   The  court  favoured  with  L,  saying  it  was  not  private  info  ‘as  a  general  rule  correspondence  
is  private,  however  unsolicited  contents  of  these  letters  including  the  offer  of  the  payment  for  
money  was  shocking  and  immoral  and  he  couldn’t  expect  this  to  be  kept  private
...
 Wasn’t  a  subscriber,  deal  with  other  
shop  to  stream  results
...
   
Duke  of  Argyll  v  Duchess  of  Argyll  -­‐  There  was  a  private  handwritten  diary  that  was  revealed  to  the  
press  by  an  employee
...
     
Privacy  issues    
Murray  v  Express  Newspapers;  J  K  Rowling,  succeeded  in  an  action,  a  photo  of  her  child  appeared  in  
a  newspaper
...
   This  claim  also  included  the  beach  of  Article  8  of  the  ECHR  ‘the  right  to  a  private  
family  life’  It  was  discussed  in  this  case  whether  the  claimant  should  have  expected  this  e
...
 given  
that  they  are  a  celebrity,  it  was  also  taken  into  consideration  where  they  were,  the  absence  of  
consent  and  how  the  info  got  into  the  hands  of  the  publisher
...
during  course  of  employment,  duty  of  good  faith  and  fidelity  of  employer
...
Protection  of  trade  secrets  after  employment  =  implied  term  in  contract  to  not  disclose  
trade  secrets
...
Terms  in  contract  about  what  happens  after  employee  leaves  =  post  employment  
contractual  protection
...
   The  paper  
had  published  a  paper  with  the  headline  ‘F1  boss  had  sick  Nazi  orgy  with  German  Hookers’  it  was  
also  placed  on  their  website,  with  a  Nazi  theme
...
   There  was  a  follow  up  about  a  week  later  which  the  headline  stated  
‘Nazi  hooker  tells  all’
...
   Mosley  stated  that  this  was  private  and  personal
...
   The  newspaper  claimed  that  Mosley  had  no  reasonable  
explanation  to  privacy  and  even  if  he  did  have  then  the  info  was  of  public  interest  because  he  was  
president  of  F1
...
   His  claim  was  successful  and  he  was  

awarded  £60,000
...
   
Campbell  v  MGM  –  Action  brought  by  Naomi  Campbell
...
   Newspaper  published  an  
article  which  disclosed  her  drug  addiction  and  also  that  she  was  getting  therapy
...
   She  sued  for  breach  of  confidentiality  and  it  was  a  long  running  
litigation
...
 Then  HoL  held  
in  NC  favour  –  it  was  quoted  for  breach  of  confidentiality  ‘the  threshold  test  is  whether  information  
is  that  of  a  private  nature  of  a  reasonable  person  of  reasonable  sensibility,  placed  in  the  same  
situation  as  the  celebrity  –  if  they  would  find  the  breach  offensive’  in  Naomi  case  the  answer  was  
yes,  this  could  set  back  her  recovery  –  yes  she  had  lied  about  her  addiction  but  the  publication  went  
beyond  this
...
g
...
   Breach  of  public  interest  will  sometimes  
succeed
...
 Sold  chickens  out  of  vans,  Fowler  was  a  van  
driver,  left  business  to  set  up  competitor
...
 
1
...
nature  of  information  –  is  it  obviously  confidential?  
3
...
Can  the  information  be  readily  isolated  from  information  which  employee  is  free  to  use?  –  
can  you  separate  confidential  information  from  skills  used  from  employee  development?  
Duke  of  Argyll  v  Duchess  of  Argyll  –  divorce  on  Duchess’  adultery
...
 Duchess  sued  Duke  for  selling  information  to  newspapers
...
   
McKennit  v  Ash  –  Ash  wrote  book  including  details  about  McK,  relied  on  friendship  –  relied  on  
breach  of  confidence
...
g
...
 Sunday  times  published  information  but  meant  some  of  public  were  wrongly  
convicted  –  public  interest
...
   
Common  law  will  support  the  unregulated  competition  between  companies
...
 Difference  
between  normal  competition  of  business’  and  behaviour  leading  to  delicts
...
   
For  example;  supermarket  pricing  wars
...
   
There  were  three  important  cases  here;  all  three  appeals  were  heard  at  the  same  time  to  allow  the  
law  lords  to  make  a  consideration  on  the  area  of  the  law  and  make  a  clear  ruling  to  provide  clear  
guidance
...
 
Mainstream  Properties  v  Young  –  MP  were  developers  who  claimed  that  Y  had  been  interfering  with  
MP  employees  contracts
...
   
The  two  main  principals    
1) Inducement  of  breach  of  contract  
2) Inflicting  harm/causing  loss  by  unlawful  means  
1
...
 C  approaches  B  and  induces  them  
to  enter  contract  –  B  breached  contract  with  A,  A  can  sue  B
...
   
Requirements  set  out  in  Global  resources  Group:  
1
...
 Implies  there  is  a  continuing  contract  between  A  &  
B
...
C  must  know  their  actions  have  the  effect  of  inducing  breach  of  contract
...
g
...
 CL  transferred  stock  –  breach?  Court  held  no  inducement  
3
...
 
Not  enough  to  say  it  is  a  foreseeable  consequence  (Millar  v  Bassey  –  contract  with  recording  
company  to  make  album,  so  recording  company  breached  contract  with  musicians
...
 OBG  case  changed  this  saying  you  need  to  set  out  to  
intend  to  breach)  

4
...
g
...
 BMT  put  into  standard  contract,  a  specific  term  
that  customers  could  not  sell  for  6months  unless  agree  with  trader  association
...
There  may  be  a  defence  of  justification  (e
...
 Brimelow  v  Casson  –  touring  theatre  company)  
2
...
 
 
Conspiracy  
Involves  more  than  one  actor
...
 
e
...
 Harris  Tweed  case  –  breach  by  V  was  lawful
...
 
 
Unlawful  means:  people  get  together  and  act  in  unlawful  way  to  cause  harm  to  the  pursuer
...
 
e
...
 Constantin  Media  case  –  E  bribed  officer  of  bank  to  secure  sales
...
 Wasn’t  clear  and  struggled  to  establish  loss  suffered
...
 
Unintentional  harm  is  actionable  in  Delict  only  if  it  is  done  in  breach  of  a  legal  duty  owed  by  the  
defender  to  the  Pursuer
...
     
In  order  to  understand  if  there  can  be  a  claim,  the  following  need  to  be  shown
...

b
...

d
...
   

Firstly  we  need  to  establish  if  there  is  a  duty  of  care  owed
...
 These  were  set  out  in  
the  following  cases
...
   REASONABLE  FORSEEABILITY  –  
Who  in  law  is  my  neighbour  –  those  who  would  be  so  closely  and  directly  affected  by  my  act  that  I  
ought  to  reasonably  have  them  in  my  contemplation
...
   In  the  heavy  rains  of  1994,  the  Kelvin  flooded  and  caused  
the  bridge  to  collapse
...
   
The  police  positioned  their  car  facing  North  over  the  bridge  with  the  lights  on  to  draw  attention  to  
the  hazard
...
     Mr  Gibson  was  a  passenger  in  a  
car  and  they  came  from  the  south  and  went  into  the  Kelvin
...
   Orr  was  the  police  chief  constable  of  Strathclyde  Police  at  the  time  and  he  was  vicariously  
liable  for  the  negligence  of  the  other  two  police  officers
...
   
Did  Mr  Orr  owe  a  duty  of  care  to  Mr  G?    The  decision  in  this  personal  injury  action  was  added  for  the  
first  time?  WAS  IT  FAIR  JUST  AND  REASONABLE  TO  IMPOSE  A  DUTY  OF  CARE  
Mitchell  v  GCC  –  Problem  arising  from  neighbourhood  dispute
...
   Mr  Mitchell  was  assaulted  and  killed  by  his  neighbour  ‘X’
...
   Mitchell  had  complained  to  the  house  and  a  
meeting  between  Mr  Mitchell,  X  and  a  housing  representative  was  agreed
...
   The  private  law  element  was  that  GCC  had  breached  their  duty  of  
care  as  a  Land  Lord
...
     
Also  Duty  of  Care  in  relation  to  Nervous  Shock
...
   The  law  has  tried  to  control  
this  area
...
     Alcock  v  Chief  Police  blah  blah
...
   The  court  said  –  no  you  just  got  a  fright
...
 
The  courts  are  looking  for  something  more  than  beyond  a  normal  human  reaction
...
   A  defender  owes  a  primary  
victim  a  duty  of  care  not  to  cause  psychiatric  injury  or  nervous  shock  where  it  is  reasonably  
foreseeable  that  the  primary  victim  will  suffer  physical  injury
...
e
...
   

Until  1983  the  position  was  that  no  duty  of  care  was  owed  to  secondary  victims  per  Bourhill  v  Young
...
 Then  Alock  v  Chief  Police  of  blah  blah  blah  (dearness,  nearness  and  hearness!)    
Alcock  v  Chief  Constable  of  South  Yorkshire  Police  –  hillsborugh  disaster,  vicarious  liability,  various  
claimants  cousins  fiancés  etc,  various  situations,  supported  the  three  points  and  that  parents,  child  
and  spouses  ok  as  close  ties  of  love  and  affection
...
     Set  out  the  3  part  test    
1
...
Must  be  close  proximity  to  the  accident  or  at  its  immediate  aftermath
...
Must  be  direct  perception
...
   
White  v  Chief  Constable  –  Police  officers  who  were  involved  at  Hillsbourgh
...
   
Greater  X  v  Greater  X  –  Fireman  assisting  in  road  accident  was  father  of  victim  but  he  failed  on  
another  ground
...
     
Derivative  Economic  Loss  –  Economic  lost  to  the  pursuer  which  derives  from  physical  injury  to  
pursuer  person  or  property
...
e
...
   The  employers  loss  is  secondary  economic  loss-­‐  NOT  
RECOVERABLE
...
   
Caparo  Industries  Plc  v  Dickman,  brought  in  the  tripartite  test
...
 
Where  there  is  close  proximity  between  the  pursuer  and  the  defender    
Where  it  is  fair  just  and  reasonable  to  impose  a  duty  of  care
...
   

NOW,  ONCE  THE  DUTY  OF  CARE  HAS  BEEN  ESTABLISHED  NEED  TO  ESTABLISH  
THE  BREACH  OF  THE  DUTY  OF  CARE
...
 

•

(2)  Injury  to  P’s  person  or  property  must  be  a  reasonable  and  foreseeable  consequence  of  
D’s  conduct
...
 

Firstly  the  defender  must  have  acted  voluntarily  –  Waugh  v  James  Allan  –  didn’t  act  voluntarily
...
 This  always  depends  on  the  circumstances
...
   Court  ruled  it  was  not  reasonably  
foreseeable  that  this  would  happen
...
     The  defender  will  be  judged  
against  the  ‘reasonable  person’  in  that  position  i
...
 reasonable  blind  person
...
   The  parents  got  
permission  from  all  the  guests  and  supervised  the  party
...
   The  11  year  old  boy  brought  the  action  against  the  supervising  parent  claiming  they  
had  failed  to  provide  reasonable  care,  in  the  first  instance  he  was  successful  and  then  on  appeal  the  
parent  was  held  not  liable  and  had  not  breached  the  duty  of  care,  it  was  no  reasonable  it  would  be  
that  serious
...
   O  collided  with  
L  and  L  sued  as  a  result
...
   For  a  child  to  be  culpable  then  it  has  to  be  of  a  
very  high  degree
...
   
-­‐

Probability  of  injury  to  P  –    

McIntosh  v  City  of  Edinburgh  Council  2003  SLT  827  –  Employee  asked  to  hold  a  50k  weight  whilst  
on  a  ladder  –  probable  this  would  happen!    
Bolton  v  Stone  –  cricket  ground  where  the  pursuer  was  hit  by  a  ball
...
   
-­‐

Gravity  of  injury  to  P  –    

Bollito  v  Arriva  London  [2008]  EWHC  48  –  Running  to  catch  a  bus  and  pushed  the  doors  to  stop  
them  from  closing,  bus  driver  was  having  none  of  it  and  began  to  drive  off
...
   
-­‐

Value/utility  of  D’s  conduct  –    

Gilfillan  v  Barbour  2003  SLT  1127  –  Mr  Barbour  had  left  the  concert  hall  on  a  wet  rainy  night,  he  
was  driving  a  punto,  at  the  junction  at  the  Gallowgate  he  was  waiting  to  turn  right
...
   There  was  a  terrible  collision  and  Mrs  Barbour  died
...
   Mr  G’s  conduct  may  
be  reasonable  in  an  emergency  but  on  counterclaim  Mr  G  failed  to  drive  responsibly  and  Mr  B  
was  inattentive  to  the  situation
...
   
-­‐

Practicality  of  taking  precautions  (availability  of  precautions  etc)  –    

Piccolo  v  Larkstock  Ltd  2007,  unreported  QBD
...
   What  precautions  did  the  florist  have  in  place  to  look  after  the  water  
–  she  just  mopped  up  when  needed,  so  therefore  liable
...
   Collins  sued  her  employer  (Victoria  Wine)  She  
was  a  manager  in  a  shop  in  Edinburgh
...
   she  asked  for  
security  meshing,  the  employer  said  no  this  gave  the  wrong  impression  and  then  she  asked  for  2  
members  of  staff  this  was  not  allowed  either
...
 
-­‐

‘Normal’  practice  (trade/professional/business)  

Hutchison  v  North  Lanarkshire  Council  2007  GWD  04-­‐65  –  Fell  into  pot  hole
...
e  as  a  reasonable  man  in  these  situations  would  have  acted  or  did  the  defenders  
actions  fall  below  the  standard  of  the  reasonable  man?    

ONCE  IT’S  ESTABLISHED  THAT  THE  DUTY  OF  CARE  HAS  BEEN  BREACHED  WE  
MUST  SHOW  THAT  THE  BREACH  CAUSED  THE  INJURY  COMPLAINED  OF  BY  
THE  PURSUER  (CAUSATION)  
The  pursuer  must  show  that  the  negligence  of  the  defender  resulted  in  the  harm  that  the  pursuer  is  
complaining  about  and  THE  PURSUER  MUST  SHOW  THE  CASUAL  CONNECTION  BETWEEN  THE  
DEFENDERS  BREACH  OF  DUTY  AND  THE  HARM  SUFFERED  TO  THEM
...
 
FACTUAL  CAUSATION  –  causa  sine  qua  non
...
   This  is  a  question  
of  fact
...
   
To  use  latin  terminology,  The  defenders  breach  of  duty  must  be  a  ‘causa  sine  qua  non’  of  the  
pursuers  harm
...
   It  must  be  shown  that  but  for  the  defenders  conduct  the  pursuer  would  not  have  
suffered  any  harm
...
   
Kay’s  tutor  v  Arran  and  Ayrshire  Health  Board  –  a  young  child  suffering  from  meningitis  was  brought  
to  the  hospital  was  given  a  massive  overdose  of  penicillin,  and  as  a  result  was  left  deaf
...
   The  House  of  Lords  stated  that  the  onus  was  on  the  father  (the  pursuer)  to  prove  that  but  
for  the  overdose  the  child  would  not  have  been  made  deaf
...
   
Bolithio  v  City  and  Hackney  Council  –  A  doctor  failed  to  attend  a  child  and  the  child  died
...
   Although  the  doctor  
breached  her  duty  of  care  for  not  attending  her,  a  panel  of  expert  doctors  stated  even  if  the  doctor  
did  attend  to  her  she  would  not  have  intubated  her  in  the  circumstances  and  the  child  would  still  
have  died
...
   
Clough  v  First  Choice  Holidays  –  Mr  C  was  drunk  and  slipped  of  a  wall  that  divided  two  pools,  he  fell  
into  to  the  paddling  pool  and  broke  his  neck,  he  claimed  that  the  defenders  should  have  painted  the  
wall  with  non  slip  paint
...
   

When  there  are  more  than  2  causing  factors  THE  EFFECTIVE  CAUSE;  
The  defenders  breach  of  duty  must  also  be  the  causa  causans,  the  real  and  effective  cause  (the  ‘legal  
cause’)  of  Pursuers  injury  or  loss  
Wardlaw  v  Bonnington  Castings  Ltd  –  Worker  contracted  illness  from  dust  in  the  factory
...
   Mr  McGhee  contracted  dermatitis  
and  sued  his  employer  stating  they  failed  to  provide  washing  facilities
...
   Defenders  should  bear  some  liability  but  
they  materially  increased  the  risk  of  Mr  McGhee  contracting  dermatitis
...
   The  defender  only  contributed  to  one  part  of  the  
danger  the  dust
...
 The  house  of  lords  stated  
that  in  a  situation  like  this,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  defenders  breach  materially  contributed  or  
materially  increased  the  danger  they  would  still  be  liable
...
   
Fairchild  v  Glenhaven  Funeral  Services  –  three  conjoined  appeals,  all  employees  exposed  to  asbestos  
dust,  and  contracted  a  kind  of  lung  cancer  so  could  no  longer  work
...
       House  of  Lords  the  claims  were  successful,  
causation  was  modified  that  if  there  was  more  than  one  source  and  you  could  identify  the  exact  
source  then  this  was  ok,  if  you  can’t  prove  the  exact  source  then  this  materially  adds  to  the  risk  of  
harm  then  this  will  be  sufficient  to  establish  factual  causation
...
       
Think  about  A  dropping  a  brick  on  B’s  foot  and  breaking  his  toes,  B  has  to  go  to  hospital  in  an  
Ambulance,  but  the  Ambulance  driver  is  a  maniac  and  causes  an  accident  in  which  B  dies
...
 BUT  he  has  not  been  the  causa  causans  –  the  direct  
cause
...
   The  act  that  breaks  this  chain  is  called  the  novus  actus  
interveniens
...
   
A  third  party    

However  the  onus  rests  on  the  defender  to  prove  this  novus  actus  interveniens
...
   
Is  the  act  reasonably  foreseeable?    If  it  was  this  will  not  break  the  chain  of  causation
...
   She  
stood  on  the  toilet  and  put  her  foot  on  the  toilet  roll  holder  then  subsequently  fell  and  hurt  herself
...
   **  nb  she  was  contributory  negligent  for  putting  
that  weight  on  the  toilet  roll  holder!  **    
McKew  v  Holland  and  Hannen  and  Cubbits  (Scotland)  Ltd  –  Mr  McKew  had  an  accident  at  work  and  
due  to  this  he  had  a  weak  leg  which  was  prone  to  giving  way
...
   He  claimed  his  employers  were  negligent
...
   The  defenders  were  liable  for  the  first  injury  but  were  not  liable  for  the  second
...
   Injured  head  and  was  off  work,  his  skin  condition  flared  up  
and  he  developed  depression
...
 Lord  
ordinary  awarded  £3500,  skin  and  depression  was  not  caused  by  the  accident  it  was  caused  by  anger  
at  the  accident
...
   British  Steel  tried  to  appeal  to  
House  of  Lords  appeal  unsuccessful,  the  aggravation  of  the  skin  and  depression  could  both  fall  within  
the  scope  of  British  steels  liability  -­‐  casual  connection
...
   
Corr  v  IBC  Vehicles  –  Mr  C  was  employed  by  IBC
...
   After  the  surgery  he  suffered  from  PTSD
...
   Before  the  accident  he  was  a  general  all  round  good  guy,  married
...
   3  days  later  he  
jumped  to  his  death
...
   Chain  not  broken
...
   
Leyland  Ship  v  Norwich  –  1st  World  War,  torpedoed  by  Germans  on  English  channel,  ship  taken  to  
English  port  by  tug
...
     Gale  was  due  in  with  bad  weather  and  harbour  was  concered  
that  the  vessel  may  sink  and  cause  an  obstruction,  Port  authority  arranged  for  it  to  be  moved  
outside  the  harbour  and  the  ship  sank
...
   

DEFENCES  
Volenti  non  fit  Injuria  –  to  one  consenting  no  wrong  can  be  done,  ‘voluntarily  assumption  of  risk’    
Based  on  this  if  you  consent  then  you  are  waiving  your  right  to  sue
...
   The  pursuers  consent  may  be  
express  or  implied  e
...
 Hockey  or  Rugby
...
   Sued  the  railway  but  she  said  while  on  the  stand  ‘it  was  just  a  chance  that  I  
took’  –  She  accepted  the  risk
...
   Appeal  court  upheld  the  defence  of  
volenti,  there  was  an  obvious  risk  and  Mr  P  must  have  known  and  accepted  the  risk
...
   Mr  Q  was  a  construction  worker  who  damaged  his  lower  back
...
   He  was  put  to  work  on  a  roof  of  a  block  
of  flats,  and  then  put  to  paving  and  excavating
...
   Sued  his  
employer
...
   They  
were  a  firm  of  builders  and  heavy  work  is  all  they  do,  if  the  pursuer  knew  and  accepted  the  risk  then  
the  defenders  were  not  liable
...
 
Contributory  Negligence  signifies  that  to  some  extent  the  Pursuer  was  responsible  for  the  harm  in  
question
...
   
The  defender  must  have  suffered  part  of  the  damage  through  their  own  fault
...
     
The  onus  of  proving  Contributory  Negligence  rests  on  the  defender
...
   It  will  not  defeat  the  claim    
Main  Case  –  Cork  v  Curby  McLean  –  ‘the  damages  fall  to  be  apportioned  between  the  pursuer  and  
the  defender  according  to  the  causative  potency  and  blameworthiness  of  the  respectful  faults
...
   
Gawler  v  Raetting    -­‐  serious  injury  in  RTA  front  seat  passenger,  the  defender  admitted  liability  but  G  
was  CN  for  not  wearing  a  seatbelt  and  was  25%  reduction  in  the  award  for  damages
...
   Drunk  driver
...
   Gleeson  offered  to  get  into  the  boot  of  the  car,  there  was  
a  serious  accident
...
   
Pace  v  Cully  –  taxi  driver  had  been  told  by  the  police  not  to  wear  a  seatbelt  in  case  passengers  tried  
to  attack  him
...
   
McKay  v  Borthwick  –  no  seatbelt
...
   
Badger  v  MOD  –  Mr  B  died  of  lung  cancer  and  had  been  exposed  to  asbestos
...
   
Anderson  v  Lyotier  and  Porejoie  –  Skiing  in  France  in  2004
...
     
He  sustained  injuries  and  was  left  tetraplegic
...
   On  the  last  day  Mr  A  was  
pressured  into  joining  a  different  party  for  ‘off  piste  skiing’  The  trip  was  booked  via  Snowbiz  (Mr  
Lyotier  –  vicarious  liability)  Mr  A  was  very  anxious  about  it  but  decided  to  join,  took  the  stiff  upper  
lip  and  thought  if  he  didn’t  do  it  then  this  could  affect  the  rest  of  the  group
...
   Defence  ran  CN
...
   There  was  a  heavy  onus  on  adult  skiers  to  admit  if  they  did  not  feel  about  for  the  task  
even  in  instruction  class,  wrong  to  hold  adult  to  abdicate  all  personal  responsibility
...
   If  this  happened  to  a  child  
it  would  have  been  different  –  ‘A  reasonable  adult  cannot  abdicate  responsibility’
...
   
Forbes  v  Ferguson  –  Claimant  run  over  by  a  van,  the  claimant  was  very  drunk  and  stumbled  into  the  
van,  driver  seen  the  man  and  the  man  banged  on  the  side  of  the  van  so  he  reversed
...
   
St  George  v  Home  Office  –  Prisoner  was  alcohol  and  drug  addict
...
     The  court  held  that  he  may  have  been  at  fault  for  becoming  addicted  to  drugs,  but  
the  Home  Office  were  negligent  in  putting  him  on  the  top  bunk
...
 

An  employer  may  be  liable  to  his  employee  for  injuries  sustained  by  them  during  the  course  of  their  
employment
...
e
...
   

Common  Law  duties    
1) Duty  on  employer  to  employ  competent  employees,  adequately  qualified  and  experienced    
Smith  v  Crosby
...
   It  
was  unofficial
...
   Employer  
was  not  liable  –  he  didn’t  know  about  the  initiation  right
...
   Employee  ‘X’  for  4  years  taunted  plaintiff,  employer  was  toald  
about  it,  reprimanded  X    but  never  done  anything  about  it
...
   Court  held  that  the  employer  breached  his  duty  of  care  as  was  aware  of  the  behaviour
...
   
Brisco  v  Sect  of  State  –  B  was  a  prison  officer  and  was  involved  in  riot  training  exercise
...
 Court  ruled  
the  duty  of  the  employer  was  to  balance  the  risk  of  accident  with  the  need  to  take  precautions
...
   
3) To  provide  adequate  supervision  and  direction  of  employees
...
   The  set  about  
him  with  a  football  and  he  was  injured
...
   
4) To  provide  and  maintain  proper  equipment/machinery/clothing  
Given  v  James  Watt  College
...
   
Paris  v  Stephney  Bros
...
 Mr  P  was  blind  in  one  eye  –  employers  have  
to  have  concern  to  special  employees
...
   
McGuiness  v  Endeva  –  Service  engineer  for  t
...
 company,  called  to  Easterhouse,  deprived  area
...
   Sued  his  employer  as  he  couldn’t  return  to  work
...
   Sued  under  failure  to  devise  and  maintain  a  safe  
working  system,  he  thought  there  should  have  been  double  manning
...
   
Vicarious  Liability    

Qui  facit  per  ailum  facit  per  se’  He  who  acts  through  another  acts  thro  himself
...
   
How  do  you  prove  vicarious  liability?    
1
...
   
e
...
 Personal  chauffeur  to  get  from  house  to  train,  drives  recklessly  –  Vicarious  Liability
...
   Then  no  liability,  it’s  just  a  one  
off  service
...
   
2
...
   
3
...
Method  of  payment  –  salary  or  one  off  payment,  tax  paid?    
5
...
     
Having  established  that  there  is  a  relationship  then  move  on
...
   During  a  break,  he  went  over  to  waste  ground  to  have  a  fly  smoke
...
   When  he  lit  a  match  it  caused  an  explosion
...
   Ques  here  was  –  was  this  done  during  the  course  
of  employment?  EMPLOYER  NOT  LIABLE
...
     
If  work  was  authorised  then  LIABLE      
If  authorised  work  done  in  an  unauthorised  manner  –  LIABLE  
If  unauthorised  work  done  in  an  unauthorised  manner  –  NOT  LIABLE  
Employer’s  time,  premises,  equipment  used  for  the  employees  own  purposes  –  NOT  LIABLE  
Century  Insurance  Co  v  Northern  Ireland
...
   His  act  was  negligent  –  AUTHORISED  WORK  DONE  IN  AN  UNAUTHORISED  MANNER  –  
LIABLE
...
   BB’s  meant  
to  be  going  back  to  Glasgow,  but  managed  to  get  the  bus  driver  to  take  them  a  diversion  via  Dollar
...
     Vicarious  liability?  AUTHORISED  WORK  
DONE  IN  AN  UNAUTHORISED  MANNER
...
   
Despite  this  he  continued  to  use  a  13  year  old,  there  was  an  accident  and  the  boy  was  hurt,  he  
claimed  against  his  employers  re  vicariously  liable
...
 

OCCUPIERS  LIABILITY
...
   At  common  law  of  DOC  owed  it  all  depends  on  the  persons  
entitlement  to  come  onto  the  property  i
...
 guest,  licensee,  tenant  –  any  of  these  then  there  is  a  duty  
of  care
...
   Did  the  Pursuer  owe  a  duty  of  care,  did  he  breach  the  duty  of  
care,  did  the  breach  cause  the  loss?    
Dumbreck  v  Addie  –  Action  against  the  owner  of  a  coalmine,  a  4  year  old  was  playing  and  got  hurt,  
he  was  a  trespasser  so  no  DOC  owed
...
   
S  1  (1)  The  duty  rests  upon  the  occupier
...
   In  respect  of  dangers  which  are  due  to  the  state  of  the  premises  or  to  anything  done  or  
omitted  to  be  done  by  them
...
   10  year  old  boy  broke  into  a  Derelict  building,  Council  was  in  the  
process  of  buying,  and  the  seller  was  the  CO-­‐OP
...
 Duty  of  
insuring  the  property  was  the  council,  but  the  occupier  was  the  CO-­‐OP  as  they  still  had  control
...
   
Feely  v  CO-­‐OP
...
   Local  Authority  put  a  compulsory  
purchase  order  on  it
...
   
S3  (1)  Where  a  landlord  is  responsible  for  repair  and  maintenance  of  leased  premises  then  he  (and  
not  the  tenant)  is  liable  as  occupier
...
 
Cairns  v  Butlins  –  80  year  old  woman  having  a  picnic  on  grass  frequented  by  campers,  she  fell  into  a  
hold  and  sued  Butlins,  claim  successful
...
 (vessel  vehicle  or  planes,  caravans,  oil  rigs!)    

Clark  v  Maersk  –  Oil  rig  classed  as  a  moveable  structure
...
   Damp  was  caused  by  rising  condensation  from  rising  damp  in  
the  building
...
   
Beggs  v  Motherwell  –  Forklift  truck  driver,  injured  because  premises  had  railway  sleepers  and  truck  
got  stuck
...
   
S1(1)  Anything  done  or  omitted  to  be  done  by  them
...
 Unfenced  holes  
(cairns  v  Butlins)  asbestos
...
   Claim  
successful  as  the  single  pane  was  a  hazard  and  they  omitted  to  sort  this
...
   Mr  H  was  thrown  out  of  a  nightclub  by  a  bouncer
...
   
Kirk  v  Fife  Council  –  Injured  in  a  5  a  side  football  game
...
 The  janitor  wanted  to  clear  them  up  but  the  boys  insisted  on  playing
...
   It  was  a  danger  due  to  something  that  should  but  had  not  been  done
...
   
Hill  v  Lovat  –  Receptionist  of  vets  surgery
...
   Had  to  go  thro  a  
private  garden  and  was  bitten  by  the  vets  dog  and  her  leg  got  infected,  which  resulted  in  a  below  the  
knee  amputation
...
   
What  is  the  extent  of  occupier  duty?    
Duty  to  show  reasonable  care
...
   
In  determining  the  reasonableness  –  need  to  show  1
...
 The  calculus  of  risk
...
   
Fencing  was  up  on  3  sides  of  the  square  the  4th  side  was  a  wall,  the  boy  claimed  that  they  failed  to  
show  reasonable  care,  ought  to  have  fenced  all  four  sides
...
   
Fagen  v  Highland  Council  –  Woman  drinking  during  the  day,  stopped  at  8pm
...
30pm  and  stopped  and  sat  on  a  bench
...
   She  
sued  the  council  for  a  breach  of  Doc  –  area  should  have  been  fenced
...
 
NUISANCE    
The  defender  is  liable  for  any  use  of  his  property  which  causes  insufferable  trouble  of  annoyance  
(PLUS  QUAM  TOLERABLE0)  to  the  Pursuer  (his  neighbour)    
It  would  usually  be  a  continuing  wrong
...
   Noise  was  the  construction  of  the  grandstand  being  erected,  metal  clanging  happened  
every  year
...
   Pigeons  roosting  under  a  rail  bridge  and  kept  fouling  on  the  pavements,  
constantly  used  to  upset  people  walking  under  the  bridge
...
   
**  If  you  are  sued  for  noise  nuisance,  but  it  has  been  going  on  for  months  then  you  get  a  new  
neighbour,  can’t  say  you’re  choice  to  move  here  –  that’s  not  a  defence!  Test  is  if  conduct  is  PLUS  
QUAM  TOLERABLE

---