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.

On Caparo v Dickman [1990]

On Siddiqui v University of Oxford [2016] EWHC 3150

‘Judge allows Oxford graduate's £1m high court battle to proceed’, The Guardian, 5 December 2016

Burgess and another v Lejonvarn [2016] EWHC 40 (TCC) a cautionary tale for professional consultants offering friendly advice, the Technology and Construction Court found that an architect owed a duty of care in tort when advising friends on a garden project:


In 50 mins of the most compelling advocacy Simeon Maskrey QC addresses the UKSC on negligence entirely from first principles with barely any authority mentioned – first part of the hearings on Darnley in the UKSC:

Listen to ‘Debrief' - a series of podcasts from Kings Chambers’ clinical negligence and personal injury group. The Supreme Court’s decision in Darnley v Croydon held an NHS Trust liable after a receptionist in Accident and Emergency gave misleading information to a patient about the likely waiting time to be seen. Nigel Poole QC, Helen Mulholland and Richard Livingston discuss:

Donoghue v Stevenson ‘alternative’ take on the famous case

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990]

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2020],f=1