A man, identified as a known suicide risk, committed suicide in police custody. The House of Lords held the police were liable for breaching their duty of care. The deceased's deliberate act of suicide did not break the chain of causation. Facts Martin Lynch, who had a history of suicide attempts, was arrested and taken to Leman Street police station. He was seen by a doctor who noted in the custody record that he was a suicide risk. The custody officer also recognised this risk. Despite this, Mr Lynch was placed in a cell where the flap of the door
A visually disabled woman had a healthy child following a negligent sterilisation. The House of Lords denied her claim for the costs of raising the child, but established a conventional award of £15,000 to recognise the legal wrong and loss of autonomy. Facts The claimant, Ms Rees, suffered from a severe and progressive visual disability. Due to her condition, she was concerned about her ability to care for a child and therefore sought sterilisation. The procedure was performed negligently by the Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust. Subsequently, she conceived and gave birth to a healthy son, Christopher. Ms Rees brought
An inspector in a munitions factory was injured by an explosion. She could not prove negligence. The House of Lords held the factory was not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as there was no 'escape' of the dangerous thing from the premises. Facts The appellant, Miss Eleanor Read, was an inspector for the Ministry of Supply during the Second World War. She was directed to work at the respondent’s munitions factory, which was operated on behalf of the Ministry. On 31st August 1942, an explosion occurred during the process of manufacturing a high-explosive shell, killing one person
Nurses developed Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) while working in a neonatal unit and sued their employer for negligence. The Court of Appeal held the employer was not liable, finding the specific risk of this injury was not reasonably foreseeable at the time. Facts The claimants were five nurses who worked in the Neonatal Intensive and Special Care Baby Unit at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth. They claimed to have developed work-related upper limb disorders (WRULDs), commonly known as Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), as a result of their duties. These duties included cradling the heads of premature babies for prolonged periods while carrying
Two men were convicted of public nuisance for separate acts targeting individuals (racist mailings; a hoax anthrax letter). The House of Lords quashed the convictions, ruling that public nuisance requires a common injury to a community, not just an aggregation of separate wrongs. Facts The House of Lords heard two conjoined appeals concerning the scope of the common law offence of public nuisance. The facts of the individual cases were distinct. R v Rimmington Between 1992 and 2001, Mr Anthony Rimmington sent a vast quantity of racially offensive and abusive material by post to numerous, unconnected individuals across the country.
A prisoner was detained for 59 days beyond her lawful release date because the prison governor miscalculated her sentence based on a legal interpretation that was later overruled. The House of Lords held this was false imprisonment, a tort of strict liability. Facts The appellant, Michelle Evans, was serving consecutive prison sentences. The prison governor’s staff calculated her release date in accordance with the prevailing interpretation of the relevant sentencing provisions, as established in R v. Governor of Blundeston Prison, Ex parte Gaffney [1982] 1 W.L.R. 696. However, a subsequent High Court decision, R v. Secretary of State for the
Prisoners challenged segregation from the general inmate population as false imprisonment. The House of Lords held that lawful segregation does not found such a claim, as a prisoner's liberty is already removed by their sentence, leaving no 'residual liberty' to be taken. Facts This case involved appeals by two prisoners, Mr. Hague and Mr. Weldon, who were segregated from the general prison population and claimed this amounted to the tort of false imprisonment. Mr. Hague was a prisoner at H.M. Prison Parkhurst. Following a period of non-cooperation, the governor decided to transfer him to H.M. Prison Wormwood Scrubs. Pending this
An insurance underwriter secretly planned to establish a competing business while still employed. He misused the employer's confidential information and solicited colleagues to join him. The High Court held this was a flagrant breach of his contractual and fiduciary duties. Facts The claimant, QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd (‘QBE’), a Lloyd’s of London managing agent, brought a claim against several of its former employees. The first defendant, Mr Dymoke, was a senior and highly remunerated underwriter for QBE’s Professional Indemnity business. While still employed by QBE, Mr Dymoke secretly planned to set up a new, competing business (codenamed ‘Project P’)
A prisoner was confined to his cell during an unlawful strike by prison officers and sued their union for false imprisonment. The Court of Appeal held that an omission (the officers' failure to work) does not constitute false imprisonment, which requires a positive act of detention. Facts The claimant, Mr Iqbal, was a prisoner at HMP Wealstun. On 29 August 2007, the Prison Officers Association (POA), the defendant union, called its members out on an unlawful national strike in protest against the government’s decision to stage the prison service pay award. As a result of the prison officers’ absence, the
Children suffered prolonged abuse from neighbours, a situation known to the local council. The Supreme Court held the council owed no common law duty of care to protect them, clarifying that exercising statutory child protection functions does not automatically create such a duty. Facts The claimants, GN and CN, were two children who, along with their mother, were housed by Poole Borough Council. From 2006, the family was subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment and anti-social behaviour by a neighbouring family. The council, through its social services department, was repeatedly made aware of these problems and their severely detrimental
