Term
Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895] AC 587 |
|
Definition
· A claimant may not have a remedy in tort if he has suffered a kind of harm which is not protected by tort law |
|
|
Term
Wainright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 |
|
Definition
· The claimant subjected to stripsearch when visiting a prison, and caused them distress and upset. Tried to use ECHR Article 8 to cover kind of harm she suffered. House of Lords refused to grant this (see page 27 of Tort Manual for more) |
|
|
Term
| Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 ALL ER 929 |
|
Definition
| Lord Denning said that if the defendant's actions are only careless (negligent) then the claimant should sue in the tort of negligence |
|
|
Term
F v West Berkshire Health Authority
[1989] 2 ALL ER 545 |
|
Definition
Lord Goff said that generally acceptable physical contact in ordinary conduct of every day life does not count as battery
· Lord Goff highlighted that defence of necessity applies when an adult is medically treated without his consent I.e. if patient is unconscious (emergency situation); if a person cannot speak (caused by mental incapacity or stroke)
· Lord Brandon said that defence of necessity is subject to the operation/treatment being in the best interests of the patient. It must be life saving or to ensure improvement or prevent deterioration in the patient's physical or mental health. |
|
|
Term
| Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 ALL ER 440 |
|
Definition
| Croom-Johnson LJ stated that it is not necessary for the defendants to intend the consequences of their actions, and if so the defendant has carried out an intentional act, this would be a battery |
|
|
Term
| Read v Coker (1853) 13 CB 850 |
|
Definition
| Words alone could NOT amount to an assault; they had to be accompanied by some actions/gesture |
|
|
Term
| R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 |
|
Definition
| Lord Steyn said that 'a thing said is also a thing done' - that an assault can be committed in speech alone. And that 'immediate' could cover something which would happen within a minute or so. |
|
|
Term
| Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 |
|
Definition
| The defendant told the claimant that her husband had been badly injured in an accident, which was untrue. This trauma caused her to suffer severe shock, inducing vomiting and other serious physical permanent consequences. No assault or battery, but court decided to allow the claim, which created a new cause of action. The defendant intended to cause shock to the claimant who suffered some tangible damage as a result |
|
|
Term
| Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432 |
|
Definition
| • Bristow J - A valid consent had to be 'real' and a patient's consent to medical treatment would be 'real' once they were informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure which is intended. |
|
|
Term
| Cockcroft v Gerson (1705) II Mod Rep 43, per Holt CJ |
|
Definition
| • Establishes that for self-defence to succeed, the force used by the defendant must be reasonable and proportionate and not used in retaliation |
|
|
