A homeowner whose property was repeatedly flooded by an overloaded public sewer sued the statutory undertaker. The House of Lords held that the comprehensive statutory scheme under the Water Industry Act 1991 provided the exclusive remedy, precluding claims in common law nuisance. Facts Mr Marcic, the claimant, owned a property that was repeatedly flooded with foul and surface water from overloaded public sewers operated by Thames Water Utilities Ltd, the defendant. The sewers had become inadequate to serve the properties connected to them, particularly after periods of rain. Thames Water was aware of the flooding problems since at least 1992
Cargo owners sued a classification society after its surveyor negligently approved a damaged ship for sailing, which later sank. The House of Lords held the society owed no duty of care, finding it not fair, just, or reasonable to impose one. Facts The vessel “Nicholas H” was carrying the respondents’ (Marc Rich & Co) cargo when it developed a crack in its hull during a voyage. The ship’s master arranged for temporary repairs in port. The shipowners engaged a surveyor from N.K.K. (Nippon Kaiji Kyokai), a non-profit classification society, to inspect the repairs. The surveyor recommended that the vessel undergo
The wife of an employee was injured by a falling cistern, caused by vibrations from a neighbouring engine. Her claim failed as she had no proprietary or contractual right to the property, only a licence to be there, defeating claims in both nuisance and negligence. Facts The claimant, Mrs Malone, resided in a house with her husband. The house was rented not by them, but by her husband’s employer, a company. Mr Malone was the company’s manager and occupied the house as part of his employment arrangement. The landlords had fixed a water cistern to the wall of the lavatory,
The defendants, who were the owners of considerable house property, let a house to a tenant, who subsequently sub-let it to a company, whose manager resided on the premises with his wife (the plaintiff) and his family; the defendants were not liable to do any repairs to the house. In the lavatory of the house was a water tank, which became insecure, owing, as was alleged, to the vibration caused by an engine and machinery upon adjoining premises of the defendants, which were used by them for the purpose of generating electricity for the lighting of their property. Complaints of
An employee sued his employer for harassment by a manager, claiming a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The House of Lords established that employers can be held vicariously liable for an employee's breach of this statutory duty. Facts Mr William Majrowski, an audit co-ordinator for Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust (‘the Trust’), alleged that he had been subjected to bullying, intimidation, and harassment by his departmental manager, Mrs Sandra Freeman. The alleged conduct, which he claimed was motivated by homophobia, included being rude, overly critical, and isolating him. As a result, Mr Majrowski suffered psychiatric injury
A theatre owner, Lumley, had an exclusive contract with singer Johanna Wagner. Gye, a rival, maliciously persuaded her to break this contract. The court held that an action for maliciously procuring a breach of contract was maintainable, establishing the tort of inducing breach of contract. Facts The plaintiff, Benjamin Lumley, was the proprietor of the Queen’s Theatre. He entered into a contract with a renowned opera singer, Johanna Wagner, for her to perform exclusively at his theatre for a specific period. The defendant, Frederick Gye, ran a rival theatre. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, knowing of this existing contract,
Foreign prisoners were detained pending deportation under an unpublished, secret policy. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted false imprisonment. However, because they would have been detained anyway under a lawful policy, they were only entitled to nominal, not substantial, damages for the tort. Facts The appellants, Mr Lumba and Mr Mighty, were foreign nationals who had completed criminal sentences in the UK and were subject to deportation orders. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had the power to detain them pending deportation. The published policy regarding such detention, based on the principles established in R v Governor of
A factory was destroyed by fire after polystyrene blocks, supplied by the defendant, were ignited by a hot wire cutter. The defendant failed to provide adequate fire risk warnings. The court found the supplier liable but reduced damages for the claimant's contributory negligence. Facts The claimant, LMS International Ltd (LMS), operated a factory manufacturing products from expanded polystyrene (EPS). They purchased large blocks of EPS from the defendant, Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd (SPIL). LMS used a hot wire cutting machine to shape the EPS blocks, a process that generated significant amounts of flammable dust and fluff. On 11 February
A lorry driver negligently injured a fellow employee. The employer was held vicariously liable and paid damages. The employer then successfully sued the driver to recover these costs, establishing an employee's implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable care towards their employer. Facts The appellant, Mr Lister (the son), was a lorry driver employed by the respondent, Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd. In the course of his employment, whilst reversing his lorry, he negligently struck and injured his father, who was also an employee of the company. The father sued the company for damages and succeeded, with the company
The warden of a school for children with behavioural difficulties sexually abused pupils. The House of Lords held the school vicariously liable for his intentional, criminal acts, establishing a 'close connection' test between the torts and the employment context. Facts Hesley Hall Ltd, the appellant, operated a residential school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Mr Neville Farrer Grain was employed as the warden of a boarding house attached to the school. His duties involved the day-to-day care of the children residing in the house. The respondents were former pupils who, during their time at the school, were systematically
