Court: House of Lords
Year: 1895
Principle(s): Damnum Sine injuria: An action in tort cannot arise if there is no infringement of a legal right despite the existence of harm.
Court: Court of Appeal
Year: 1965
Principle(s): An action for trespass to the person can only be brought for intentional torts.
Court: High Court
Year: 1830
Principle(s): An action constitutes an assault if there is a means of carrying out the threat into effect, and not actually carrying out the threat
Court: Court
Year: 1669
Principle(s): Words accompanying an act can negate an assault; For an act to constitute an assault, there should be an intention to cause harm or injury.
Court: Court
Year: 1704
Principle(s): Touching another in anger constitutes battery; Or anger/aggression is necessary for a touch to constitute battery.
Court: Court
Year: 1844
Principle(s): An omission does not constitute a trespass. An action is required
Court: Court
Year: 1986
Principle(s): For an act to constitute assault, it must be possible to carry out physical violence
Court: Court
Year: 1853
Principle(s): A conditional threat which causes a reasonable apprehension of harm would constitute an assault
Court: Court
Year: 1840
Principle(s): An otherwise empty threat may constitute an assault if there is reasonable apprehension of harm.
Court: Kings Bench
Year: 1773
Principle(s): Direct act of the defendant as a constitutive element of battery
Court: Court
Year:
Principle(s): Battery; A touch with any object to which the defendant is intimately attached constitutes physical touch of the plaintiff.
Court: Court
Year: 1984
Principle(s): To succeed in battery, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant touched them without lawful justification. A police officer without a lawful justification;
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1915
Principle(s): If the defendant fails to facilitate the exit of the plaintiff in another way than earlier contemplated by the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant is not liable for false imprisonment.
Court: Queen's Bench
Year: 1845
Principle(s): For false imprisonment, there must be a total restraint on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has a reasonable means of escaping, there shall be no false imprisonment.
Court: Court
Year:
Principle(s): When a person enters an agreement that stipulates the terms of entry or exit from a premises (the wharf in this instance), it does not amount to false imprisonment if he is prevented from exiting the premises contrary to the terms of the agreement.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1990
Principle(s): Per Lord Bridge, the following questions ought to be asked to determine if a duty of care exists: 1. Whether the damage caused to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. 2. Whether the parties are in a relationship of proximity. 3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1932
Principle(s): A duty of care is owed to persons who are in close proximity to be affected by our acts.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1970
Principle(s): Duty of care: neighbor principle, reasonable foreseeability of harm.
Court: House of Lords
Year: 1978
Principle(s): Anns two stage for duty of care.
Court: Court
Year: 1965
Principle(s): Duty of care: reasonable foreseeability of harm.
Court: High Court (KB)
Year: 1933
Principle(s): Voluntary assumption of risk, no duty of care; If the acts of the defendant no longer pose a danger to others, a person attempting to get rid of the dangerous situation is not owed a duty of care
Court: Court of Appeal
Year:
Principle(s): Duty of care owed to third party rescuers.
Court: High Court
Year: 2016
Principle(s): Vicarious liability; basis of liability in tort; medical negligence.