Clerk & Lindsell On Torts 22nd ed: 2nd Supplement

Clerk & Lindsell On Torts 22nd ed: 2nd Supplement
Product ISBN: 9780414072602
Status: Out of stock (Delivery time - H.K titles: 1 week - Overseas titles: 4 week)
HK$1,428.00

Product Details


Author(s):

Publication date:

Binding :

Publisher:

Qty: Add to Cart

The Second Supplement to the Twenty-Second Edition brings the Main Work fully up to date with the latest developments, including decisions of the Supreme Court in:

  • Perry v Raleys Solicitors on the correct approach to a “lost chance” claim against solicitors, approving Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons
  • Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe on the potential liability of a parent company in relation to the activities of its subsidiaries
  • Stocker v Stocker on the correct approach to determining the meaning of words posted to a social media site (Facebook) for the purposes of the tort of defamation
  • James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis holding that an employer does not owe a duty of care to employees to defend a civil action against the employer in a manner that protects the employees from economic or reputational harm
  • Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro SpA holding that no duty of care is owed by a bank to a casino in respect of a credit reference on a customer given to the casino’s agent, where the bank was unaware of the existence of the casino

And in the Court of Appeal, including:

  • Economou v de Freitas and Serafin v Malkiewicz on the correct approach to s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013 and its relationship to the common law defence of responsible journalism
  • ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd confirming that the same policy objections to awarding compensation for the costs of raising a healthy child in a wrongful birth claim apply to breach of strict contractual obligations as well as negligence actions
  • Khan v Meadows holding that negligent advice about the risk of a child being born with haemophilia did not give rise to a claim for the costs of raising a child with autism in a wrongful birth claim, applying SAAMCo
  • Rees v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis on who can qualify as a “prosecutor” for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution
  • Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation v Goldscheider on the correct approach to the meaning of all “reasonably practicable” steps to avoid the risk under the Control of Noise Regulations 2005 in a case of occupational deafness