This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law
Since publication of the seventh edition of this seminal text, personal injurylaw has witnessed momentous changes. A major overhaul of the social secu-rity system began in 2012 and the Equality Act 2010 significantly modifiesanti-discrimination law and its impact on the disabled. But perhaps the mostimportant legal developments have affected the financing and conduct of per-sonal injury claiming and the operation of the claims-management industry.This new edition takes account of all this activity while setting it into a widerand longer perspective. Complaints that Britain is a ‘compensation culture’ andthat the tort system is out of control are explained and assessed and optionsfor further change are explored. Through the turmoil and controversy, the tortsystem remains a central feature of the legal and social landscape. The book’senduring central argument for its radical reform remains as compelling as ever.
Peter Cane is Distinguished Professor of Law at the Australian National Univer-sity College of Law. His main research interests are in the law of obligations,especially tort law; public law, especially administrative law; and legal theory.
Patrick Atiyah is one of the leading common lawyers of his generation. Until hisearly retirement in 1988 he was Professor of English Law at Oxford University.His published writings range widely over topics in tort law, contract law, legalhistory and legal theory.
Preface page xvList of abbreviations xviiList of tables xxiTable of legislation xxiiTable of cases xxvii
Part I The issues in perspective 1
1 Introduction: surveying the field 3
1.1 Compensation for accidents 3
1.2 Natural and human causes 6
1.2.1 The issue 61.2.2 Society’s ‘responsibility’ for human causes 81.2.3 Protecting reasonable expectations 91.2.4 Egalitarianism and the problem of drawing the line 10
1.3 Mixed systems in a mixed society 11
1.4 Some facts and figures 13
1.4.1 Accidents causing personal injury or death 141.4.2 Death and disability from other causes 161.4.3 The prevalence of disability 171.4.4 The effect of disability on income 181.4.5 Distribution and sources of compensation 191.4.6 The more serious and the less serious 22
2.4.1 A question of fact? 322.4.2 The nature of negligence 362.4.3 Probability of harm 392.4.4 Likely magnitude of harm 402.4.5 The value of the activity and the cost of the precautions
needed to avoid harm 412.4.6 The function of the negligence formula 432.4.7 Foreseeability 442.4.8 The objective standard of care 452.4.9 Negligence in design and negligence in operation 46
2.5 Conduct of the claimant 50
2.5.1 Contributory negligence 502.5.2 Volenti non fit injuria 582.5.3 Illegality 62
3 The scope of the tort of negligence 66
3.1 The nature of the duty of care 66
3.2 Specific duty issues 68
3.2.1 Common situations in which duties of carehave been imposed 68
3.2.2 The distinction between acts and omissions 70
3.3 Nervous shock 83
3.4 Family claims 88
4 Departures from the fault principle 91
4.1 Fault liability and strict liability 91
4.2 ‘Procedural’ devices 93
4.3 Breach of statutory duty 94
4.4 Contractual duties 97
4.5 Rylands v. Fletcher, nuisance and animals 98
4.6 Joint liability 99
4.7 Vicarious liability 101
4.8 Products liability 101
4.9 Proposals to extend strict liability 103
4.9.1 Dangerous things and activities 1034.9.2 Railway accidents 104
4.10.1 Vaccine damage 1054.10.2 HIV and hepatitis-C 1074.10.3 Variant CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) 108
5 Causation and remoteness of damage 109
5.1 Introduction 109
5.2 Factual causation 109
5.2.1 Proving causation 1095.2.2 Causing and increasing the risk of harm 1115.2.3 Omissions 1145.2.4 Multiple causal factors 115
5.3 Limits on the liability of factual causes 117
5.3.1 Legal causation 1185.3.2 Damage not within the risk 1245.3.3 Foreseeability again 126
5.4 Conclusion 128
6 Damages for personal injury and death 129
6.1 The lump sum: predicting the future 129
6.1.1 Personal injury cases 1296.1.2 Fatal cases 1316.1.3 Variation of awards after trial 1346.1.4 Suitability of lump sums 1366.1.5 Alternatives to lump sums 138
6.2 Full compensation 142
6.2.1 Interest 1436.2.2 Lost earnings and support 1446.2.3 Medical and other expenses 148
6.3 Full compensation for lost ‘earnings’: is it justified? 151
6.3.1 The earnings-related principle 1516.3.2 The 100-per-cent principle 155
6.4 Full compensation: the commitment in practice 156
6.5 Intangible losses 160
6.5.1 Assessing intangible losses 1606.5.2 The tariff system 1656.5.3 Subjective factors 1696.5.4 Should damages be payable for intangible losses? 170
7.1 The compensation payable bears no relation to the degree of fault 174
7.2 The compensation bears no relation to the means ofthe tortfeasor 176
7.3 A harm-doer may be held legally liable without being morallyculpable and vice versa 178
7.3.1 Collective liability 1787.3.2 The objective definition of fault 1797.3.3 Moral culpability without legal liability 1827.3.4 The fault principle and popular morality 182
7.4 The fault principle pays little attention to the conduct orneeds of the victim 183
7.5 Justice may require payment of compensation without fault 184
7.6 Pragmatic objections to the fault principle 186
7.7 The fault principle contributes to a culture of blaming anddiscourages people from taking responsibility for their own lives 189
Part III The tort system in operation 199
8 Claims and claimants 201
8.1 Accident victims and tort claimants 201
8.1.1 Cases reaching trial and set down for trial 2018.1.2 Actions commenced 2038.1.3 Tort claims, actual and potential 204
8.2 Why do people (not) make tort claims? 207
8.2.1 Some research findings 2078.2.2 Alternative remedies 2098.2.3 Claims consciousness 210
8.3 Particular types of claims 215
8.3.1 Road accidents 2158.3.2 Industrial injuries and illnesses 2168.3.3 Public liability claims 2188.3.4 Medical injuries 2198.3.5 Group claims 221
9 Tortfeasors and insurers 222
9.1 Defendants 222
9.2 Individuals as tort defendants 222
9.3 Employers and corporations as tort defendants 227
9.7 First-party insurance for the benefit of others 244
9.8 The impact of liability insurance on the law 245
9.8.1 Statutory provisions 2459.8.2 The impact of insurance on the common law 248
9.9 The Motor Insurers’ Bureau 254
10 Settlements and trials 259
10.1 The importance of settlements 259
10.2 Obtaining legal assistance and financing tort claims 260
10.3 The course of negotiations 266
10.3.1 Individual claims 26710.3.2 Group claims 273
10.4 When negotiations break down 277
10.5 The time taken to achieve a settlement 279
10.6 The amount of compensation 282
Part IV Other compensation systems 287
11 First-party insurance 289
11.1 Types of first-party insurance 289
11.1.1 Injury and illness insurance 28911.1.2 Legal expenses insurance 293
11.2 First-party injury and illness insurance comparedwith tort liability 294
12 Compensation for criminal injuries 299
12.1 Tort claims 299
12.2 Compensation orders 300
12.3 Other sources of compensation 303
12.4 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 303
12.4.1 Justifications for the CICS 30312.4.2 The scope of the CICS 30812.4.3 Comparison between the CICS and tort liability 31512.4.4 Administration 32212.4.5 Claims consciousness 324
15.4.1 General principles 37915.4.2 Tort damages and sick pay 38215.4.3 Tort damages and personal insurance 38215.4.4 Tort damages and charitable payments 38415.4.5 Tort damages and social security benefits 384
15.5 Criminal injuries compensation 388
16 The cost of compensation and who pays it 390
16.1 The cost of tort compensation 390
16.2 Costs not paid through the tort system 396
16.2.1 The cost of social services 39616.2.2 The cost of the social security system 39816.2.3 Other sources of compensation 39916.2.4 Costs in perspective 400
16.3 The cost of criminal injuries compensation 401
17 The functions of compensation systems 403
17.1 Compensation 403
17.1.1 Some preliminary questions 40317.1.2 The meaning of ‘compensation’ 40617.1.3 Assessing compensation systems 409
17.2 Distribution of losses 410
17.2.1 What should be distributed? 41017.2.2 How should it be distributed? 411
17.3 The allocation of risks 413
17.4 Punishment 415
17.5 Corrective justice 416
17.6 Vindication 417
17.7 Deterrence and prevention 419
17.7.1 Rules and standards of behaviour 42017.7.2 Accident prevention via insurance 429
17.8 General deterrence 435
17.8.1 The basic idea 43517.8.2 Ascertaining the costs of an accident 43817.8.3 Allocation of costs to activities 43917.8.4 Responsiveness to price mechanism 44217.8.5 Applying general deterrence criteria in practice 44417.8.6 General deterrence and existing systems 445
17.8.7 An assessment of the value of the general deterrenceapproach 450
17.8.8 Conclusions about general deterrence 453
Part VI The future 457
18 Accident compensation in the twenty-first century 459
18.1 Where we are now and how we got here 459
18.2 Basic issues 464
18.2.1 Strict liability or no-fault? 46418.2.2 Limited or comprehensive reform? 46618.2.3 Preferential treatment 47018.2.4 Assessment of compensation 47218.2.5 Funding 47518.2.6 Goals of the system 477
18.3 Proposals and schemes 482
18.3.1 Road accident schemes 48218.3.2 Other schemes 486
18.4 The way ahead 487
18.4.1 A social welfare solution 48718.4.2 A private insurance solution 491
18.5 Damage to property 494
18.6 The role of the insurance industry and the legal profession 495
Like the years between the sixth and seventh editions, those between the seventhand this edition have witnessed vigorous public debate, official reports, legisla-tion and case-law developments in many of the areas covered herein. The mostsignificant legislative changes have affected social security and the financing ofpersonal injury tort claims. The Welfare Reform Act 2012, the various provisionsof which will be phased in over the coming years, represents perhaps the mostfundamental overhaul of the social security system since its establishment in the1940s. It has necessitated major rewriting in Chapter 13, made more difficult bythe fact that, at the time of writing, many of the details of the changes had yetto be settled or announced. In the wake of Lord Justice Jackson’s 2009 Reviewof Civil Litigation Costs, major changes to the funding of personal injury tortclaims were introduced by the omnibus Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishmentof Offenders Act 2012. Once again, at the time of writing, important detailsof the changes had yet to be settled, and so the discussion of the reforms isnecessarily tentative in various respects. Further afield, in 2011, the AustralianProductivity Commission recommended the introduction of two schemes –one for people disabled by injury and the other for people disabled by othercauses – that would greatly improve and increase public provision for the mostseriously disabled. At the time of writing, these schemes were caught up in theinitial phase of political wrangling about how the very large increase in publicexpenditure needed to implement the schemes would be funded. Such devel-opments prove the continuing importance of the issues discussed in this bookand the continuing value of the contribution it makes to public understandingand debate in a central area of public policy, legal theory and legal practice.
As I said in the Preface to the seventh edition, the main aim of this book isto provide the reader with resources for standing back from tort law and thetort system and viewing them in a larger legal and social landscape. Whetherplacing tort at the centre of the picture in this way continues to be desirableis a difficult question deserving of serious attention. From the point of viewof legal education, the approach still seems defensible because tort law is theonly aspect of the political economy of society’s provision for the injured anddisabled that the typical law student encounters. Whether the focus on tort hasthe same utility in the context of public policy debates is contestable. Tort law
has an immanent ideology, and taking tort as a starting point may undesirablyskew consideration of the basic question of how risks and costs of personalinjury and disability ought to be distributed. Tort law and the tort system are(it seems) here to stay. The challenge is to imagine a dispensation to whichtort can make a positive contribution in partnership with other principles andinstitutions of risk and loss distribution. Only by doing this can we nurture thehope that the various components of existing compensation arrangements canbe held in benign and creative tension. Whatever the defects of tort law and thetort system as mechanisms for dealing with personal injury and disability, inthe world of realpolitik the burning question is not how to get rid of tort buthow to live with it.
The bulk of the work of preparing this eighth edition was done during a yearspent (jointly with Professor Jane Stapleton) as Arthur L. Goodhart Professor ofLegal Science at the University of Cambridge and a Visiting Professorial Fellowof Corpus Christi College. I wish to thank the Cambridge Law Faculty andCorpus for their warm hospitality and for the excellent facilities for researchand for life that they provided. It is hard to think of a more congenial place or wayto spend a year in England. More importantly, I am acutely aware of the honourof being elected to the Goodhart Chair. In addition, being in Cambridge madethe task of preparing this edition much easier and more efficient than it wouldhave been if undertaken in Australia. Spending time ‘on the ground’ is essentialto writing accurately and helpfully about the law of any jurisdiction. I must alsorecord my gratitude to Nick Wikeley, now a Judge of the Upper Tribunal, fortypically invaluable advice and for reading (and correcting!) a draft of Chapter13. Nick’s translation (or, perhaps, elevation) from Southampton Universityto the Upper Tribunal is a great gain for the country but an incalculable lossto the academy. The increasing dearth of serious, first-rate scholarship on atopic of such fundamental national importance as social security is much to belamented.
Towards the end of our time in Cambridge, Jane and I had the great pleasureof visiting Patrick Atiyah and his wife Christine in their retirement in the southof England. This edition, like every edition I have prepared (and this is the fifth),is a salute to Patrick and the great contribution he has made to legal scholarshipand to our understanding of the world. It is a tribute to his vision that this bookstill has no real competitor. I know that I can speak for Jane as well as myselfwhen I say that Patrick is one of our intellectual heroes.
A Atlantic Reporter (USA)ABI Association of British InsurersAC Appeal CasesADR alternative dispute resolutionAll ER All England Law ReportsALR Australian Law ReportsAPIL Association of Personal Injury LawyersApp Cas Appeal Cases (nineteenth century)ATE insurance after-the-event insuranceBA bereavement allowanceBeveridge Report Social Insurance and Allied Services, Report by Sir
William Beveridge (Cmnd 6404, 1942)BMLR Butterworths Medico-Legal ReportsBTE insurance before-the-event-insuranceCA Court of AppealCAA constant attendance allowanceCal Rptr California ReporterCFA conditional fee arrangementCh Chancery Division ReportsCICA Criminal Injuries Compensation AuthorityCICB Criminal Injuries Compensation BoardCICS Criminal Injuries Compensation SchemeCivil Justice Review Civil Justice Review: Report of the Review Body on
Civil Justice (Cm 394, 1988)CLR Commonwealth Law Reports (Australia)Cm Command Paper (HMSO)CMC claims management companyCmnd Command Paper (HMSO)CPR Civil Procedure RulesCRU Compensation Recovery UnitDBA damages-based agreementDLA disability living allowanceDLR Dominion Law Reports (Canada)
DWP Department for Work and PensionsEC European CommunityECHR European Convention on Human RightsECtHR European Court of Human RightsEHRR European Human Rights ReportsER English Reports (nineteenth century)ESA employment and support allowanceESDA exceptionally severe disablement allowanceEU European UnionEWCA England and Wales Court of AppealEWHC England and Wales High CourtF Federal Reporter (USA)F Supp Federal Supplement (USA)FSA Financial Services AuthorityFSCS Financial Services Compensation SchemeFtT First-tier TribunalGLO Group Litigation OrderGP general practitionerHarris 1984 Survey D. R. Harris et al., Compensation and Support for
Illness and Injury (Oxford, 1984)Harvard Medical Report of the Harvard Medical Practice Study to
Practice Study the State of New York, Patients, Doctors andLawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, andPatient Compensation in New York (1990)
HC House of CommonsHCA High Court of AustraliaHL House of LordsHMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and CustomsHMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery OfficeIB incapacity benefitICR Industrial Cases ReportsIIAC Industrial Injuries Advisory CouncilIIDB industrial injuries disablement benefitIIS industrial injuries schemeILGS Index-Linked Government StocksIPI income protection insuranceIRC Inland Revenue CommissionersIRLR Industrial Relations Law ReportsIS income supportJ JusticeKB King’s Bench ReportsKIR Knight’s Industrial ReportsLaw Com. Law Commission ReportLJ Lord/Lady Justice
Lloyd’s Rep Lloyd’s ReportsLR . . . Ex Law Reports (Exchequer)LR . . . HL Law Reports (House of Lords)MIB Motor Insurers’ BureauMonckton Committee on Alternative Remedies (Cmnd 6860,
Committee 1946)MR Master of the RollsMVR Motor Vehicle Reports (New South Wales)NHS National Health ServiceNHSLA National Health Service Litigation AuthorityNSWCA New South Wales Court of AppealNSWLR New South Wales Law ReportsNW North Western Reporter (USA)NZLR New Zealand Law ReportsOFT Office of Fair TradingOPCS Disability Report 1: Martin, Meltzer and Elliott, The
Survey Prevalence of Disability Among Adults (HMSO,1988)Report 2: Martin and White, The FinancialCircumstances of Disabled Adults Living in PrivateHouseholds (HMSO, 1988)Report 3: Bone and Meltzer, The Prevalence ofDisability Among Children (HMSO, 1989)Report 4: Martin, White and Meltzer, DisabledAdults: Services, Transport and Employment(HMSO, 1989)Report 5: Smyth and Robus, The FinancialCircumstances of Families with Disabled ChildrenLiving in Private Households (HMSO, 1989)Report 6: Meltzer, Smyth and Robus, DisabledChildren: Services, Transport and Education (HMSO,1989)
Paths to Justice H. Genn, Paths to Justice: What People Do and Thinkabout Going to Law (Oxford, 1999)
Pearson Commission Royal Commission on Civil Liability andCompensation for Personal Injury (appointed in1973)
Pearson Report Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liabilityand Compensation for Personal Injury (Cmnd 7054,1978, 3 volumes)
PIP personal independence paymentPIQR Personal Injury and Quantum ReportsPMI private medical insurancePPO periodical payment order
century)QdR QueenslandRobens Committee Report of the Committee into Safety and Health at
Report Work (Cmnd 5304, 1972)RRL Road Research LaboratoryRTR Road Traffic ReportsSB supplementary benefitSCR Supreme Court Reports (Canada)SERPS State Earnings-Related Pension SchemeSI Statutory InstrumentSLT Scots Law TimesSSP statutory sick payTRL Transport Research LaboratoryTRRL Transport and Road Research LaboratoryUC universal creditUKHL United Kingdom House of LordsUT Upper TribunalWALR Western Australian Law ReportsWAR Western Australian ReportsWinn Committee Report of the Committee on Personal Injuries
Report Litigation (Cmnd 3691, 1968)WLR Weekly Law ReportsWN Weekly Notes (New South Wales)WPA widowed parent’s allowanceWTC working tax credit
1 Numbers of disabled persons in Great Britain by age and degree ofdisability (thousands) page 18
2 Sources of income of family units containing a disabled adult byseverity of disability (%) 19
3 Numbers of injured persons obtaining compensation fromdifferent sources 20
4 Cost of compensation paid from different sources to injured personsand administrative costs of payments, average over 1971–6 (1977currency values) 21
5 Court waiting times in personal injury actions 202
AB v. British Coal Corporation [2004] EWHC 1372 285AB v. John Wyeth & Brother Ltd [1994] PIQR P109 276Adamson v. Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1957) 58 WALR 56 181Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland [1993] AC 789 169Albert v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1972] AC 301 258Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310 86, 87Allen v. Distillers Co. (Biochemicals) Ltd [1974] 2 All ER 365 136Allied Maples Group v. Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602 116Arnold v. Teno (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 609 76Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] 1 AC 962 417Ashton v. Turner [1980] 3 All ER 890; [1981] QB 137 64, 257Attia v. British Gas [1988] QB 304 84, 316Austin v. Zurich Insurance Co. [1945] KB 250 375AXA General Insurance Ltd v. HM Advocate [2011] 3 WLR 871 3Baker v. Willoughby [1970] AC 476 115, 374Barker v. Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 AC 572 112, 113Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1
QB 428 76Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550 68, 80Barrett v. Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217 78Bernia, The (1888) 1 App Cas 1 54Bevan Ashford v. Geoff Yeandle (Contractors) Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 238 272Bird v. Pearce [1979] RTR 369 76Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 35Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 39, 41Bond v. Chief Constable of Kent [1983] 1 All ER 456 302Bradburn v. Great Western Railway (1874) LR 10 Ex 1 382Bretton v. Hancock [2005] EWCA Civ 404 247Brice v. Brown [1984] 1 All ER 997 126Broome v. Cassell [1972] AC 1027 415Brown v. Roberts [1965] 1 QB 1 80, 252Buckley v. John Allen & Ford Ltd [1967] 1 QB 637 133Burmah Oil Co. v. Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75 116
Burns v. Edman [1970] 2 QB 541 317Bux v. Slough Metals Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 262 114Byrne v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2009] QB 66 255CAL No. 14 Pty Ltd v. Motor Accidents Insurance Board (2009) 239 CLR 390
77Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 66Capital & Counties plc v. Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004 77Capps v. Miller, The Times, 12 December 1988 52Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis [1955] AC 549 178Cassidy v. Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 94, 231Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Collieries [1940] AC 152 51, 110Chadwick v. British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912 82, 87Chaplin v. Boys [1971] AC 356 253Charlton v. Fisher [2002] QB 578 247Charlton v. Forest Printing Ink Co. [1978] IRLR 559 300Chester v. Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 115Chief Adjudication Officer v. Faulds [2002] 2 All ER 961 341Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v. Van Colle [2009] 1 AC 225 49, 68Childs v. Desmoreaux [2006] 1 SCR 643 79Clark v. National Insurance Corporation [1963] 3 All ER 375 237Clarke v. Vedel [1979] RTR 26 256Clunis v. Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] 3 All ER 180 64Colledge v. Bass Mitchells & Butlers Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 536 383Connelly v. RTZ Corporation plc [1998] AC 854 167Cookson v. Knowles [1979] AC 556 132, 144, 158Cooper v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1985] QB 575 257Corfield v. Groves [1950] 1 All ER 488 258Corrigan v. Bjork Shiley Corporation (1986) 227 Cal Rptr 247 167Couch v. Attorney-General [2010] 3 NZLR 149 172Cox v. Hockenhull [1999] 3 All ER 577 131Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Litigation; Group B Plaintiffs v. Medical Research
Council (1997) 41 BMLR 157 85Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd [1988] 1 SCR 1186 77Crofton v. National Health Service Litigation Authority [2007] 1 WLR 923
150CSR Ltd v. Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1 148Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd [1998] 4 All ER 417 247Daly v. General Steam Navigation Ltd [1980] 3 All ER 696 148Davie v. New Merton Board Mills [1959] AC 604 249Davis Contractors v. Fareham Urban District Council [1950] AC 696 34Deyong v. Shenburn [1946] KB 227 73Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. (1932) 163 A 111 116Dimond v. Lowell [2002] 1 AC 384 264Dodds v. Dodds [1978] QB 543 54Donnelly v. Joyce [1974] QB 454 150
Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 66, 69Dooley v. Cammell Laird [1951] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271 87Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co. [1964] 1 QB 518 125DP & JC v. UK (2003) 36 EHRR 183 68Drake v. Foster Wheeler Ltd [2010] EWHC 2004 (QB); [2011] 1 All ER 63
150Dunne v. North West Gas Board [1964] 2 QB 806 414Dunnett v. Railtrack plc [2002] 1 WLR 2434 272Eagle v. Chambers (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 3081 136Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32 112, 191Finlay v. Railway Executive [1950] 2 All ER 1969 278Fitzgerald v. Lane [1989] AC 328 55Fletcher v. Autocar Ltd [1968] 2 QB 322 251Flynn v. Commonwealth of Australia (1988) 6 MVR 186 47Froom v. Butcher [1976] QB 268 52Gaca v. Pirelli General plc [2004] 1 WLR 2683 383, 384Gale v. Motor Union Insurance Co. Ltd [1928] 1 KB 359 372Gardner v. Moore [1984] AC 548 257, 314, 373Gaskins v. British Aluminium [1976] QB 524 278Giambrone v. JMC Holidays Ltd (No. 2) [2004] 2 All ER 891 150Gillies v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2006] 1 WLR 781 358Glaister v. Appleby-in-Westmoreland Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1325 250Goldman v. Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 81, 82Goodburn v. Thomas Cotton Ltd [1968] 1 QB 845 132Gorris v. Scott (1874) LR 9 Ex 125 125Gray v. Barr [1970] 2 QB 626 318Gray v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1998) 312Green v. Russell [1959] 2 QB 226 244Gregg v. Scott [2005] 2 AC 176; [2005] 2 WLR 268 113, 117Gregory v. Kelly [1978] RTR 426 61Griffiths v. British Coal Corporation [2001] 1 WLR 1493 387Griffiths v. Brown, The Times, 23 October 1998 77Groves v. Wimborne [1898] 2 QB 402 94, 326Gurtner v. Circuit [1968] 2 QB 587 258Gwilliam v. West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] QB 443 248, 250H v. Ministry of Defence [1991] 2 QB 103 165Haigh v. Ireland [1974] 1 WLR 43 97Hall (Arthur J. S.) & Co. v. Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 67Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205 61Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 WLR 3002 272Hamilton v. Al Fayed (No. 2) [2003] QB 1175 263Hardy v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1964] 2 QB 745 318Hartley v. Birmingham City Council [1992] 1 WLR 968 233Hatton v. Sutherland [2002] 2 All ER 1 86Hay v. Hughes [1975] 1 All ER 257 146
Heil v. Rankin [2001] QB 272 163, 164Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 76Hepburn v. Tomlinson [1966] AC 451 244Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 49, 80, 300Hinz v. Berry [1970] 2 QB 40 83Hodges v. Harland & Wolff [1965] 1 WLR 523 165Hodgson v. Imperial Tobacco [1998] 2 All ER 672 274Hollis v. Dow Corning Corporation (1995) 129 DLR (4th) 609 115Holmes v. Syntex Laboratories Inc. (1984) 202 Cal Rptr 773 167Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [1970] AC 1004 48, 79, 300Horsley v. MacLaren (The Ogopogo) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 210 74, 77Hosie v. Arbroath Football Club Ltd, 1987 SLT 122 81Hotson v. East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750 113Houghton v. Hackney Borough Council (1961) 3 KIR 615 300Hudson v. Ridge Manufacturing Co. [1957] 2 QB 348 80Hunt v. Severs [1994] 2 AC 350 150, 254Hunter v. British Coal Corporation [1988] 2 All ER 97 87Hussain v. New Taplow Paper Mills [1988] AC 514 383ICI v. Shatwell [1965] AC 656 61, 183IRC v. Hambrook [1956] 2 QB 641 373Jaensch v. Coffey (1983–4) 155 CLR 549 86Jebson v. Ministry of Defence [2000] 1 WLR 2055 78Jefford v. Gee [1970] 2 QB 130 144Jobling v. Associated Dairies Ltd [1982] AC 794 374Jones v. Dennison [1971] RTR 174 181Jones v. Lloyd, The Times, 22 March 1967 225Kars v. Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354 254Kent v. Griffiths [2001] QB 36 77Kingston v. Chicago & NW Railway (1927) 22 NW 913 115Kirkham v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [1990] 2 QB 283 63, 64,
77Kralj v. McGrath [1986] 1 All ER 54 172Lamb v. Camden London Borough Council [1981] QB 625 127Lamb v. Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1 127, 172Lane v. Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379 318Larner v. British Steel plc [1993] ICR 551 95Leakey v. National Trust [1980] QB 485 81Lee v. Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] AC 12 337Lefevre v. White [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 569 231Leversley v. Thomas Firth [1953] 1 WLR 1206 96Lim Poh Choo v. Camden Health Authority [1979] QB 196; [1980] AC 174
143Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957] AC 555 232, 249, 253,
375Longden v. British Coal Corporation [1998] AC 653 383