.png){kind=icon}
Tort law cases often make the news headlines. The purpose of the web links provided here is to fill you in on some of the background to the cases and, occasionally, statutes that you are studying. They include a mixture of video and audio clips, newspaper reports, blog posts, Government reports, case reports and so on. We've also taken the opportunity to include 'updates' where the law has changed or developed since the publication of the book.
In our experience it is often easier to remember the facts or decision of a particular case when you know a bit more about its background - when you can, for example, visualise the parties involved, or picture the accident or event that lead to the claim. We also believe that awareness of the context of a particular case or the passage of a statute can often help students understand – and begin to question – why the decision was reached, or why the introduction of legislation was felt necessary. Our view is that it is important that you experience – and engage with – tort law as a dynamic and fluid process, as a body of progressive rather than static, ahistorical rules. We hope that the links provided here (as well as other things you may link to from them) will help you do this and that they will give you a sense of historical perspective and an insight into the role of the context and history in the development of legal doctrine.
We've done our best to ensure that the links are as extensive as possible but the links are (obviously) not exhaustive. We urge you to make keep an eye on developments both in tort and other areas of law by reading good legal blogs as well as the law pages of quality newspapers online.
Of course, we also know that on occasions (particularly when a deadline is pressing) these sort of additional materials (as well as the others included on our online resources) can prove to be a bit of a distraction. These links are intended to supplement your studies. They are not an alternative to the harder work of reading the text book, academic commentary, and cases. In fact, there is no excuse for not reading the cases. Within these web links we've provided deep links on BAILLI to a selection of key cases from each chapter, and we encourage you to put your background reading, watching, and surfing to good use by reading these in full so that you gain a deeper understanding of the issues they raise.
There has been extensive media coverage of the many vicarious liability claims being brought against the Catholic Church as well as the potential claims following the exposure of abuse by Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and others while working for the BBC and others. Here is just a selection:
BBC News, ‘Stuart Hall: More alleged victims to sue over abuse’, 7 May 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505
Owen Bowcott, ‘Catholic church sex abuse ruling could cause big spike in compensation claims’, 28 February 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/catholic-church-abuse-claims-compensation?INTCMP=SRCH
Clive Coleman, Jimmy Savile scandal: What legal redress for abuse victims?, 11 January 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20988635
Lisa O’Carroll and Josh Halliday, ‘Jimmy Savile: BBC, hospitals and star's estate face at least 50 damages claims’, 2 November 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/02/jimmy-savile-bbc-damages-claims?INTCMP=SRCH
Lisa O’Carroll, ‘Jimmy Savile's alleged victims set to sue BBC and Stoke Mandeville hospital’, 12 October 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court?INTCMP=SRCH
BBC Unreliable Evidence documentary – Who’s to Blame?, BBC Radio 4, 15 December 2012
Clive Anderson and guests discuss the legal liability of organisations for crimes or other misbehaviours committed by people who work for them. In the wake of Jimmy Savile and other recent abuse cases, complex legal questions have arisen about who, apart from the perpetrators themselves, should be held to blame - and liable to pay compensation.
You can listen to the programme here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p7bxr
There is likely to be ongoing coverage of the potential liability claims relating to the abuse by Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and others. It’s probably best to keep an eye on the relevant inquires lead by Janet Smith and Linda Dobbs
http://www.damejanetsmithreview.com/
On Catholic Care Welfare Society v Institute of Brothers of Christian Schools [2012]
BBC News, Catholic teaching institute liable for abuse at school, 21 November 2012 (including an interview with one of the boys who claim they were abused)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-20424136
Owen Bowcott, Christian Brothers must share sexual abuse compensation costs, court rules, 21 November 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/21/christian-brothers-abuse-compensation-court?INTCMP=SRCH
Owen Bowcott, Catholic diocese facing abuse claims seeks to share burden of blame, 23 July 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/catholic-diocese-abuse-claims-middlesbrough?INTCMP=SRCH
Discussed in Meghann McTague, ‘Expanding the Scope’, New Law Journal, 8 February 2013
http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/expanding-scope
On JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012]
Owen Bowcott, ‘Catholic church loses abuse liability appeal’ 12 July 2012 (on the Court of Appeal decision)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/12/catholic-church-loses-apeal-liability?INTCMP=SRCH
Owen Bowcott, ‘Sexual abuse compensation case to test legal limits of church's liability’, 17 May 2012 (on the Court of Appeal decision)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/17/sexual-abuse-compensation-legal-church?INTCMP=SRCH
Riazat Butt, ‘Catholic bishop criticises ruling on church liability for actions of priests’, 15 November 2011 (on the High Court decision)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/15/catholic-bishop-liability-church-priests?INTCMP=SRCH
Riazat Butt and Owen Bowcott, ‘Court to decide Catholic church liability for priest abuse’, 6 July 2011 (on the High Court decision)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/06/court-catholic-church-priest-abuse?INTCMP=SRCH
On the application of the close connection test (post Lister v Hesley Hall [2001])
Simon Allen, ‘Violent employees and vicarious liability’ Law Society Gazette, 16 February 2012
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/violent-employees-and-vicarious-liability
On Sexism in the Police Force (similar facts to Waters v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1997])
Belinda Sinclair talks on Radio 4’s Women’s Hour about 17 years of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination as a Metropolitan police officer. She was awarded £500,000 in compensation.
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2001_34_mon_01.shtml
On Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 and Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12
Paula Giliker, Vicarious Liability in the Supreme Court: Can we finally say it is no longer on the move?
https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/tag/paula-giliker/
In Episode 106 of the Law Pod UK series Rosalind English discusses these judgments and other important decisions on vicarious liability with Robert Kellar QC and Isabel McArdle, both of 1 Crown Office Row.
https://audioboom.com/posts/7552372-ep-106-vicarious-liability-robert-kellar-qc-isabel-mcardle
Cases
Catholic Care Welfare Society v Institute of Brothers of Christian Schools [2012]
http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0230_Judgment.pdf
JGE v The Trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/938.html
Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/256.html
Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/22.html
JXJ v The Province of Great Britain of the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools ("The De La Salle Brothers") [2020] EWHC 1914 (QB) (17 July 2020) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/1914.html
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/13.html