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.

Economic loss cases don’t come along that often – but we do have comment on some fairly recent ones to pique your attention!

David Hart QC, ‘When a duty of care does arise in tort – suing Companies House’, UK Human Rights Blog, 8 February 2015

 ‘CA adds extra negligence finding and £375k damages on top of High Court’s £1.6m Withers ruling’

Scope of Duty to give Advice
BPE Solicitors & Anor v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel) [2017] UKSC 21 (22 March 2017) .
The case involves a detailed analysis of the SAAMCO principles relating to liability for economic loss caused by careless advice, and where liability stops when the loss which has been suffered is attributable to other factors than the careless advice.

Supreme Court clarifies distinction between 'advice' and 'information' negligence cases

And an interesting one:

The Court of Appeal dealt with “the novel question whether a supplier of information to the police, which led to a criminal investigation, was owed a contractual or tortious duty by the police to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of the investigation so as to safeguard him from economic loss”. The claims in contract and negligence were dismissed at first instance, and the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection of the claim:
An Informer v A Chief Constable [2012] EWCA Civ 197

Comments on earlier cases

In the wake of one of the largest and most complicated cases on pure economic loss, Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995], some of those who incurred the economic losses continue to fight the battle:

Lloyd's Names face bankruptcy as court battle ends

The most recent ruling on this came in July 2009:

Lloyd's Names ruling means Stevenson's work is done, The Observer, 5 July 2009

Case Comment: Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13’ from the UK Supreme Court blog, written by Clare Montgomery QC of Matrix Chambers

Caparo Industries
For interest: a global - still-thriving - company, founded and chaired by Lord Paul of Marylebone.


Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners [1963]

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973]

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976]

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978]

Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983]

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990]

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Smith v Eric S Bush [1990]

White v Jones [1995]

Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995]

Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2006]

Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2011]

Conarken Group Ltd & Anor v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (Rev 1) [2011]

Scullion v Bank of Scotland plc (trading as Colleys) [2011]

Sebry v Companies House the Registrar of Companies (Rev 1) [2015]

Taberna Europe CDO II Plc v Selskabet AF 1.September 2008 in Bankruptcy [2016] EWCA Civ 1262

BPE Solicitors & Anor v Hughes-Holland (in substitution for Gabriel) [2017] UKSC 21