In three conjoined appeals concerning economic torts, the House of Lords clarified and distinguished the tort of inducing breach of contract from causing loss by unlawful means. The latter requires an act unlawful against a third party, thereby narrowing its scope. Facts This House of Lords judgment concerned three conjoined appeals, each involving different factual scenarios but raising common questions about the scope of economic torts. OBG Ltd v Allan Receivers were appointed over OBG Ltd’s assets by a bank. The appointment was later found to be invalid. Believing their appointment to be valid, the receivers took control of the
A mother suffered psychiatric illness after witnessing a 36-hour period of negligent medical care culminating in her baby's death. The Court of Appeal held this entire seamless period could constitute a single, shocking event, allowing her to claim damages for nervous shock. Facts The claimant, Mrs Walters, brought a claim for psychiatric illness (nervous shock) following the death of her 10-month-old baby, who was under the care of the defendant, North Glamorgan NHS Trust. The baby suffered a major epileptic fit and was taken to hospital. Due to a negligent failure to diagnose and treat acute hepatitis, his condition deteriorated
A recording studio experienced electromagnetic interference in its electric guitars from new railway signalling. The studio owner sued in nuisance. The Court of Appeal held that this specific type of harm was not foreseeable, shifting the legal test from 'abnormal sensitivity' to foreseeability. Facts The claimant, Mr Morris, ran a commercial recording studio, Soundstar Studio, in Croydon. The studio was located approximately 80 metres from the main railway line between London and Brighton. In 1994, Railtrack plc (the predecessor to Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, the appellant) installed new track circuits as part of a major re-signalling project. These circuits generated
A learner driver injured her instructor in an accident. The court held that the learner must be judged by the same objective standard of care as a reasonably competent and qualified driver, not a lower standard reflecting her inexperience. This established a uniform standard. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Nettleship, agreed to give driving lessons to his friend’s wife, the defendant, Mrs Weston. Before doing so, he enquired about her insurance coverage and was assured that she was covered by a fully comprehensive policy. On the third lesson, while executing a simple manoeuvre, Mrs Weston panicked. She failed to straighten the
A homeowner discovered defective foundations in his house, the plans for which a council had approved. He sold it at a loss and sued the council. The House of Lords held the loss was purely economic and therefore irrecoverable, famously overruling Anns v Merton LBC. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Murphy, purchased a house in a new development in 1981. The foundations of the house had been constructed according to a design approved by the defendant, Brentwood District Council. In 1984, significant cracking appeared in the walls of the house, caused by defects in the design of the concrete raft foundations.
The plaintiff was injured in a plane crash after a day of heavy drinking with the pilot. He willingly embarked on the flight, knowing the pilot was drunk. The court held the plaintiff had voluntarily accepted the obvious and great risk. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Morris, and his friend, Mr Murray, spent an afternoon drinking heavily, consuming the equivalent of 17 whiskies each. Mr Murray, who held a pilot’s licence, then suggested they go for a flight in his light aircraft. The plaintiff drove them both to the airfield and assisted Mr Murray in preparing the aircraft for take-off. The
A doctor failed to warn a diabetic mother about the risk of shoulder dystocia. The baby was born with severe disabilities. The Supreme Court ruled doctors must inform patients of all material risks of a treatment and any reasonable alternatives, establishing a patient-centred test for informed consent. Facts The appellant, Mrs Montgomery, was a woman of small stature and a type 1 diabetic. During her pregnancy, it was known that the baby of a diabetic mother is often larger than normal, which carries a 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery (where the baby’s shoulders become stuck after the
Monsanto plc sought an injunction to stop protesters from damaging their genetically modified crops. The protesters claimed the defence of necessity, arguing they acted to prevent environmental harm. The court rejected this defence and upheld the injunction, finding lawful protest alternatives existed. Facts The claimant, Monsanto plc, was a company involved in the research and development of genetically modified (GM) crops. They were conducting trial plantings of GM oil seed rape and maize at various farm sites in the UK under licence from the government. The defendants were environmental protesters who were opposed to the development and use of GM
A supermarket employee assaulted a customer following an initial query at a petrol station kiosk. The Supreme Court held the employer, Morrisons, vicariously liable for the unprovoked attack, broadening the 'close connection' test for an employer's liability for an employee's wrongful acts. Facts The appellant, Mr Mohamud, visited a petrol station kiosk operated by the respondent, WM Morrison Supermarkets plc. He approached the employee on duty, Mr Amjid Khan, to ask if it was possible to print some documents from a USB stick. Mr Khan responded to this legitimate customer enquiry with foul, racist, and threatening language, ordering Mr Mohamud
The widow of a man killed by his neighbour sued the council landlord for negligence. The council had threatened the aggressor with eviction but failed to warn the deceased. The court held the council owed no duty of care to warn. Facts The pursuer was the widow and executrix of Mr Archibald Mitchell. Mr Mitchell and his neighbour, Mr James Drummond, were both tenants of the defenders, Glasgow City Council. For a significant period, Mr Drummond subjected Mr Mitchell and his wife to a campaign of verbal abuse, threats, and vandalism. The Council was aware of this anti-social behaviour and
