Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Economic Loss caused by negligent activities
The Traditional Approach
Only where losses are consequential
E.g. personal injury, property damage
As a result a defect
Can there be recovery
Giliker: where loss is purely financial
i.e. because defect in house is discovered
then this is PEL and can’t be recovered.
Extension of the Principle?
Giliker: decision in Anns meant that property damage was re-characterised (has now been overruled)
Lord Wilberforce:
House should be treated as a chattel
Therefore, defects in house
As well as (established rule) damage caused to property by consequences of a defect
Would BOTH be liable and grounds for a suit
Principles of Modern Law
Economic loss not recoverable in tort where no contract exists between parties in absence of UCTA or sufficient proximity.
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialists [1986]:
C reared lobsters in tanks, pumps preserved health of lobsters by pumping in sea water, intended to make a profit on them by buying them cheap and then selling them at Christmas for more.
Lobsters died owing to D’s negligence when powers cut out
Goff LJ: Dead lobsters = physical damage.
Therefore, C can claim from D (manufacturer) any loss owing to the damage
i.e. loss of profits selling them on.
BUT can’t recover cost of the pumps/trying to fix them.
Cos D lacks a sufficiently proximate relationship between himself and manufacturer.
This means that “Defective product economic loss” without contract is not recoverable
D and F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989]: C were the leesee and occupiers of a flat in Chelwood House owned by D. D had built house using sub contractor (X) who turned out to have negligently plastered. C sued X for recovery of the loss.
Lord Oliver: no such thing in English law as transmissible warranties of quality
If you don’t have a contract with them, you cannot sue them.
Lord Bridge
Difference between “latent” defects and “apparent defects”.
With latent defects, when the negligent construction causes damage to property or persons X can sue
If the defect is discovered before such things result it is “apparent”
Then this is PEL, not property damage and is therefore not recoverable
Take a dangerously built garden wall
If I have to pay to fix or demolish it
Only the structure itself is flawed and need to be repaired
Not my foot or some of my property
Therefore, repairing the wall is PEL.
Lord Keith:
If you discover a defect, it becomes apparent
Therefore, cost of recovering other property (or personal injury) subsequently damaged by apparent defect = PEL
And can’t be recovered from the tortfeazor
Murphy v Brentwood [1991]:
Why loss is PEL
Lord Keith:
With product liability, it is the latency of the defect which causes the injury
Once this becomes apparent
Then it no longer poses such a danger
All you then have to do is either dispose of the chattel or correct it
In both cases, the loss is then purely economic.
Complex Structure idea discussed but not approved.
Reasons behind rejecting recovery
Lord Keith: Since this is PEL, what would happen if we imposed a duty on the council?
Would lead to wide field of claims
Would need a duty on the builders
And therefore any manufacturer
Difficult questions of liability
If a dangerous defect was discovered before it was dangerous,
Would C be entitled to sue for the rectification of it?
Undermining contractual intentions
Claims that would not be available in contract would be available in tort
Thus C could sue for defects that don’t make property dangerous but merely useless.
In complete absence of negotiated contractual warranty.
Defective Premises Act 1972 is available
Exceptions
Injury caused by apparent defect when unreasonable for C to repair it
Targett v Torfaen BC: C rents house from D, the owner of house. Access to door by stairs with no lower handrail and no artificial lighting, C complains but nothing done. C falls down steps at night, injuring self.
Held Tenant is in entirely different position from an owner of a house defectively constructed who finds apparent defect.
If A finds out about a dangerous defect, does nothing, and is then injured by it/has property damaged by it,
This will not destroy his proximity to B who created the danger, or exonerate B from liability to A,
unless reasonable for A to remove or avoid the danger
Where defect potential source of liability to neighbouring landowners.
Lord Bridge in Murphy v Brentwood
If building stands to close to a boundary and remains potential source of injury to neighbours after discovery of dangerous defect
Ought in principle to be able to sue negligent builder for costs of making building safe for neighbours
Giliker: unclear how far this principle goes
Complex Structure Theory?
Parts of house can...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started