law-uh2501l01, tort law - new york universitylaw-uh 2501 torts the course starts by looking at...

LAW-UH2501L01,

Tort Law

NYU London: Spring 2019

Instructor Information

Dr Jeremy Pilcher

Lecturer in Law Director LLM QLD Programme & Deputy Director of Studies Solicitor (England & Wales) and Barrister and Solicitor (New Zealand) +44 (0)20 3073 8116 | [email protected] Office location: Room 102, 4 Gower Street, London WC1

Course Information

● LAW-UH 2501

● Torts

● The course starts by looking at negligence and how it works in practice. The course then

goes on to examine separate torts – nuisance, occupiers’ liability, and defamation before

concluding with vicarious liability and an review of the course overall.

● Tuesdays & Thursdays 10:45 a.m.-12 p.m.

Course Overview and Goals

The course aims to examine the effectiveness of the tort system in compensating individuals suffering personal injury, injury to reputation, psychological damage, economic loss or incursions on private property as a result of accidents, disease or intentional acts. Focusing on the tort of negligence, the course explores the social, economic and political contexts in which the rules and principles of tort are applied.

Upon Completion of this Course, students will be able to:

Demonstrate understanding of the basic rules and principles relating to tort law

Demonstrate familiarity with various theories pertaining to the nature and functions of tort

law

Write critically and analytically about key concepts of tort law

Display knowledge and understanding of key cases in tort law

Display knowledge and understanding of academic literature relating to tort law

Demonstrate an ability to apply the law to analyse legal problems

mailto:[email protected]

Course Requirements

Class Participation

The module will be taught through lectures and are intended to provide a broad overview, or map of a subject area which will then be developed through independent study.

Students are expected to have prepared for their lectures in order to fully participate.

A significant part of a student’s learning experience occurs outside of the classroom. It is estimated that for every hour of time allocated for lectures, students will need 2-3 hours of preparation time reading and working through course material.

Students will also need to manage their time to prepare their coursework and revise for exams.

NYU Classes the virtual learning environment, any uploaded texts or additional learning materials, updates and news about the class.

Grading of Assignments

The grade for this course will be determined according to these assessment components:

Assignments/

Activities Description of Assignment

% of

Final

Grade

Due

Assignment 1 Group presentation of a critical case

analysis 20

End of Part

One

Assignment 2 Group presentation of a critical case

analysis 20

End of Part

Two

Exam Closed book exam on topics relating to the

course content 60

Failure to submit or fulfill any required course component results in failure of the class

Grades

Letter grades for the entire course will be assigned as follows:

Letter

Grade Percent Description

A Example: 93.5% and higher

An excellent answer in all or nearly all areas; in areas where excellence is not achieved, a high degree of competence must be shown. Displays exceptional knowledge of the subject, clear well - organised argument and substantial evidence of independent thought.

Letter

Grade Percent Description

B Example: 82.5% - 87.49%

A very good answer. Very competent in all or most areas, or showing moderate competence in some and excellence in others. Generally well-planned and well argued, showing a solid ability to develop logical and persuasive arguments. Treats the issues in a critical and balanced way and shows an awareness of context, sources and different explanations.

C Example: 72.5% - 77.49%

A good answer. Answer is good in all areas or strong in some and adequate in others. Shows an awareness of the major issues, shows knowledge of the sources and of alternative approaches to the subject but may not show a clear understanding of alternative arguments or makes uncritical use of sources

D Example: 62.5% - 67.49

An answer that meets the minimum criteria to pass. Shows a grasp of basic relevant information and displays a superficial understanding of relevant issues, presents an adequate argument and is satisfactorily organised with little or no awareness of awareness of different approaches to the subject.

F Example: 59.99% and lower

Inadequate answer in all or most aspects, displaying very little knowledge or understanding.

Course Materials

Required Textbooks & Materials

● Elliott & Quinn. 2017. Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow: Pearson.

Optional Textbooks & Materials

● Horsey & Rackley. 2017. Kinder’s Casebook on Tort (14th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

● Witting. 2015. Street on Torts (14th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press

Resources

● Access your course materials: NYU Classes (nyu.edu/its/classes)

http://www.nyu.edu/its/classes

● Databases, journal articles, and more: Bobst Library (library.nyu.edu)

● Assistance with strengthening your writing: NYU Writing Center

(nyu.mywconline.com)

● Obtain 24/7 technology assistance: IT Help Desk (nyu.edu/it/servicedesk)

Course Schedule

Each session will be in two equal parts, which will both relate to the relevant topic. The first part

will primarily be teacher-led with class discussion as appropriate. The second part will be

centered on student-led activities, which are denoted in a supplementary document. Assigned

readings are to be completed each week prior to attendance at the first session.

Topics and Assignments

Session/Date Topic Reading

PART A

Session 1, 5th & 7th

February 2019

Overview & the Duty

of Care

Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 1 &

Chapter 2, pp. 15-31

The duty of care

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Bourhill v Young [1942] AC 92

Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 1 ALL

ER 568

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays

Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181

Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923

Yuen Kun Yeu v. A-G of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175

Foresight

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 77

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Ltd (1970) AC 1004

Proximity

Anns v London Borough of Merton [1978] A.C. 728

Sutradhar v National Environmental Research

Council (2006) 4 ALL ER 490

Calvert v William Hill [2008] EWCA Civ 1427

Fair Just and Reasonable

Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 All ER 344

Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust

[2004] 1 AC 309

Recommended Readings:

http://library.nyu.edu/

https://nyu.mywconline.com/

http://www.nyu.edu/it/servicedesk


A Robertson ‘On the Function of the Law of

Negligence’ (2013) 33 Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies 31

David Howarth ‘Many Duties of Care – or a Duty of

Care? Notes from the Underground’ (2006) 26

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

Nicholas McBride ‘Duties of Care: Do They Really

Exist?’ (2004) 24 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

417


February 2019 Pure economic loss

Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 5

Negligent misstatement

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

(1964) AC 465

Special relationship

Chaudry v Prabhakar (1989) 1 WLR 29

Williams v Natural Life Foods [1998] 1 WLR 830

Assumption of responsibility

Reeman v Department of Transport [1997] 2

Lloyds Rep 648

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates [1995] 2 AC 145

Lennon v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

[2004] EWCA Civ 130

Customs & Excise Commissioner v Barclays Bank PLC [2007] 1 AC 181

Reasonable Reliance

Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296

Third parties

Smith v Eric Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 Scullion v Bank of Scotland [2011] EWCA Civ 693 Caparo v Dickman [1990]2 AC 605 Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] 1 WLR 1921 (CA) Playboy Club London Ltd and others v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA [2016] EWCA Civ 457 Required Readings:


Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow:

Pearson. Chapter 5 and relevant case law


Joshua Griffin ‘Pure Economic Loss: Out of

Negligence and Into the Unknown’ (2014) 44

Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal.

Session 3, 19th & 21st

February 2019

Psychiatric injury


Primary Victim

Dulieu v White (1901)

Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92

Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155

Secondary Victim

Introduction

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

[1992] 1AC 310

Proximity of Relationship

McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

16

Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970

Proximity in Time and Space

McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410

Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003] EWCA Civ 697

Taylor v Novo [2013] EWCA Civ 194

Proximity of Perception

Palmer v Tees Health Authority [2000] PIQR

Vernon v Bosley (No.1) [1997] 1 All ER 577

Sudden shock

Attia v British Gas [1988] QB 304

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA

Civ 26

North Glamorgan NHS v Walters [2002] EWCA

Civ 1792

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. [2007]

UKHL 39

Rescuers


White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

[1998] 3 WLR 1509

Liability for bad news

AB v Tameside & Glossop Health Authority [1996]

EWCA Civ 938

Illness vs. grief

Vernon v Bosley (No.1) [1997] 1 All ER 577

Simmons v British Steel [2004] UKHL 20

Recommended Reading:

1998 Law Commission Report

http://www.official-

documents.gov.uk/document/hc9798/hc05/0525/0

525.pdf

Richard Mullender and Alistair Speirs,

‘Negligence, Psychiatric Injury and the Altruism

Principlle’, 20 (4) (2000) Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies, 645

Rachel Mulheron, ‘Rewriting the requirement for a

‘Recognised Psychiatric Injury’ in Negligence

Claims’ (2012) 32 Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies, 77

Eugene C Lim, ‘Proximity, Psychiatric Injury and

the Primary/Secondary Tortfeasor Dichotomy:

Rethinking Liability for Nervous Shock in the

Information Age’ (2014) 23 Nottingham Law

Journal 1


February 2019 Breach of duty

Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 2, pp.

32-44

The Standard of Care

Reasonable not perfect

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691

Glasgow City Corporation v Tylor [1922] 1 AC 44

Characteristics

Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304

Specialist skill

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc9798/hc05/0525/0525.pdf




Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265

Horton v Evans [2006] EWHC 2808

Proving Negligence

Preliminary matters

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850

Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367

Precautionary steps

Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL47,

[2004] 1 AC 46

Bolam/Bolitho framework

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

[1957] 1 WLR 582

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015]

UKSC 11

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing

speaks for itself”)

Mahon v Osborne [1939] 2 KB 14

Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 WLR

749


Joseph Raz, ‘Responsibility and the negligence

standard’ (2010) 30 Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies 1


March 2019 Causation (in fact)

Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 3, pp.

55-66

The ‘but for’ test

Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea [1969] 1 QB 428

Reeves v Commissioner for the Metropolitan

Police [2000] 1 AC 360

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962] 1 WLR 295

Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134

Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4

and 5) [2002] UKHL 19

Concurrent and consecutive causation

Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467

Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 3 WLR 749

Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794


Cumulative causes

Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ

883

Novartis Grimsby v Cockson [2007] EWCA Civ

1261

Intervening Events

Knightly v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349

Roberts v Bettany [2001] EWCA Civ 109

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13

McKew v Holland [1969] 3 All ER 1621

Causal Indeterminacy

Introduction

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC

1074

Material contribution

Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1

Material increase of risk and the rule in

Fairchild

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1

AC 32

Barker v Corus [2006] 2 AC 572

Sienkiewicz v Greif [2011] UKSC 10

BAI (Run Off) v Durham [2012] UKSC 14

Loss of a chance

Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority

[1987] AC 750

Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons [1995] WLR

1602

Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176


Janet Stapleton, “Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of

Liability for Consequences” (2003) 119 Law

Quarterly Review 388

Gideon Cohen ‘Fairchild, Gregg v Scott and

Damage to What’ (2009) 5 Cambridge Student

Law Review 109


Morgan “Lost Causes in the House of Lords:

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services” (2003)

66 Modern Law Review 277


March 2019

Remoteness

(causation in law) &

Defences


A. Remoteness

Introduction to Remoteness

Robb v FT Everard & Sons Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ

1022

The Wagon Mound test

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock &

Engineering Co [1961] 1 AC 388 (The Wagon

Mound (No 1))

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship

Co Pty Ltd [1967] 1 AC 617 (The Wagon Mound

(No 2))

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd

[1921] 3 KB 560

General principles

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

Doughty v Turner Metal Manufacturing Company

[1964] 1 QB

Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals [1971] 1

QB 88

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1

WLR 1082

The ‘thin skull’ rule (or ‘eggshell skull’ principle)

Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405

Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737

Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155

Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64

Required Readings:


Pearson. Chapter 3, pp. 67-73 and relevant case

law



Mark Stauch, “Risk and Remoteness of Damage

in Negligence” (2001) 64 Modern Law Review

191

B: Defenses

Introduction to Defences

Contributory Negligence

Jones v Livox Quarries [1952] 2 QB 608

Froom v Butcher [1975] QB 286

Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859

Voluntariness

Voluntary waiver

White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651

Volenti non fit injuria

ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691

Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509

Morris v Murray [1990] 2 QB 6

Public Policy

Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

[2002] EWCA Civ 1249

Grey v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33

Delany v Picket [2011] EWCA 1532


Horsey and Rackley, Kinder’s Casebook on Tort

(OUP, 2017) Chapter 5

Session 7, 19th & 21st

March 2019

Student

presentations Assignment 1 | Group Presentations

PART B

Session 8, 26th &

28th March 2019 Vicarious liability


Introduction

Hawley v Luminar Leisure [2006] EWCA Civ 30,

Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer

(Northern) Ltd [2005]EWCA Civ 1151

Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd v Salaam & Others

[2003] 1 AC 366 [25]


Employment

Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions

[1968] 2 QB 497

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017]

UKSC 60

Transfer of Employment

Mersey Docks v Coggins [1947] AC 1

Via Systems v Thermal Transfer [2006] 2 WLR

428

Tort Committed in the course of employment

Basic principle for imposing liability

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road

Transport [1942] AC 509

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust

[2006] UKHL 34

Express prohibition

Conway v George Wimpy [1951] 2 KB 266

Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141

Detours (partial prohibition)

Smith v Stages [1989] 2 WLR 529

Criminal Conduct

Introduction

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc

[2016] UKSC 11

Field of activities

Lloyd v Grace Smith [1912] AC 716

Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158

Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare

Society [2012] UKSC 56

Connection

Credit Lyonnasis Bank Netherland v Export Credit

Guarantees [1999] 1 All ER 292

Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22



Philip Morgan, ‘Distorting Vicarious Liability’,

74(4) (2011), Modern Law Review, 555

Douglas Brodie, ‘Enterprise Liability: Justifying

Vicarious Liability, 27(3) (2007) OJLS, 493-508

Session 9, 2nd & 4th

April 2019 Private nuisance


A: Hunter v Canary Wharf in focus

Introduction

Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G&Sm 315, 322;

(1851) 64 ER 849 (QB) 852

Proprietary requirements: who is a claimant in

Private Nuisance?

The rule as clarified in Hunter

Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141

Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727

Hunter v Canary Wharf and London Docklands

Development [1997] AC 655

Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts and others [2011]

EWHC 1199

The Human Rights Dimension

McKenna v British Aluminium [2002] Env LR 30

Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009]

EWCA Civ 28

The protected interests

Bliss v Hall (1838) 4 Bing NC 183

Thompson –Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 All ER

652

Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board

[1965] Ch436

Network Rail Infrastructure v Williams and

Waistell [2018] EWCA Civ 1514

Causation in Nuisance

Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485

Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough

Council [2000] QB 836

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

[1994] 2 AC 264

Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council [1999]

EWCA Civ 1151



Ghandhi, ‘Orthodoxy affirmed’ (1998)

Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 309

B: Coventry v Lawrence in focus

Introduction

The Locality Rule

The Basics of the Rule

Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 652

Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642

Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966

Nature of a Locality

Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793

Southwark Borough Council v Mills [1999] 2 WLR

409

Planning Permission and the change of an

area

Gillingham Borough Council v Medway

(Chatham) Dock Co. [1993] QB 345

Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19

Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKHL 13

Reasonableness

Duration

Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks

[1996] 2 Lloyds Rep. 533

Harrison v Southwark Water [1891] 2 Ch D 409

British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd

(1969) 1 WLR 959 (CA)

Sensitivity

Robinson v Kilvert [1899] 41 CHD 88

Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris [2004] Env

LR 41

Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ

312


Malice

Christie v Davey [1893] 1 CH 316

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] 1 All

ER 825


Lees ‘Lawrence v Fen Tigers: where now for

nuisance?’ (2014) 5 The Conveyancer and

Property Lawyer 449

Lee ‘Case Comment: Private nuisance in the

Supreme Court: Coventry v Lawrence’ (2014) 7

Journal of Planning & Environment Law 705


April 2019 Occupiers’ liability


A: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Introduction

Wombwell v Grimsby Fish Dock Enterprises

[2008] EWCA Civ 831

Common law prior to the OLA 1957

Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10

Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44

Principles of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Occupiers & s.1(2) & (3)

Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552

Types of Visitor

Robson v Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939

McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive

[1995] 1 AC 233

Unauthorised Visitors

Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 3 All ER 777

Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] EWCA Civ

860

Duty of care

Warnings

White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651

Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189


Intruder Detection & Surveillance v Fulton [2008]

EWCA 1009

Children

Simkiss v Rhondda BC [1983] 81 LGR 460

Bourne Leisure v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671

Contractors

Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343

Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] KB 174

Riverstone Neat Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co.

[1961] AC 807

William v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust

[2003] QB 443


Witting, Street on Torts (OUP, 2015) Chapter 8,

pp.211-231

B: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Introduction

British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC

877

White v St Albans City [1990] The Times March

12

Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck

[1929] AC 358

Duty and Trespassers

Revill v Newberry [1996] QB 567

Platt v Liverpool City Council [1997] CLY 4864

Young v Kent County Council [2005] EWHC 1342

Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust [2006] 1

WLR 953

Type of duty

Donoghue v Folkston Properties [2003] QB 1008

Siddorn v Patel [2007] EWHC 1248

Warnings and Exclusion of liability

Section 1(5) and 1(6)

Westwood v Post Office [1973] 1 QB 591

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1

AC 46

Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670



Luke Bennett ‘Judges, child trespassers and

occupiers' liability’ (2011) 3 International Journal

of Law in the Built Environment 126

James Hand ‘The Compensation Culture: Cliché

or Cause for Concern?’ (2010) 37 Journal of Law

and Society 569

Session 11, 23rd &

25th April 2019 Defamation


Introduction

Who can be a claimant?

Knupffer v London Express Newspaper [1942] AC

116

Derbyshire C.C. v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993]

AC 534

McDonalds v Steel (No.4) [1995] 3 All ER 615

McLaughlin v Lambeth LBC [2010] EWHC 2726

Ames v The Spamhaus Project [2015] EWHC 127

Reputation

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWCH 433.

Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237

Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008

Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818

E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20

Innuendo

Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 CA

Charleston and Smith v News Group Newspapers

Ltd and Others [1995] 2AC 65

McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB)

Johnnson v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 1481

Conveyed meaning

Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1WLR 1239

Dwek v Macmillan Publishers [2000] EMLR 284

Reference to the claimant

Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd

(1934) 50 TLR 581

Newstead v London Express Newspapers [1940]

1 KB 377

O'Shea v MGN Ltd. [2001] EMLR 40 (QBD)


The publication rule in Defamation

Theaker v Richardson [1962] 1 WLR 151

Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283

Godfery v Demon Internet [2001] QB 201

Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)

[2001] EWCA Civ 1805

Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015

Google v Tamiz [2013] EWCA Civ 68

Required Reading:


Pearson. Chapter 11 and relevant case law


Leslie Kim Treiger-Bar-Am ‘Defamation law in a

changing society: the case of Youssoupoff v

Metro Goldwyn Mayer’ (2000) 20 Legal Studies

291

David Magan ‘Regulating for Responsibility:

Reputation and Social Media’ (2015) 29

International Review of Law, Computers and

Technology 16

Mullis and Scott, ‘The Wing of the Pendulum:

Reputation, Expression and the Re-centring of

English Libel Law,’ in D. Capper (ed.), Modern

Defamation Law: Rebalancing Reputation and

Free Expression, 2012.

Session 12, 30th & 2nd

May 2019 Defamation defences


Introduction

Truth

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234

Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 WLR 640

Chase v News Group Newspapers [2002] EWCA

Civ 1772

Honest Opinion (formerly Fair Comment)

London Artists v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375

Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343

Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53

Branson v Bower (no.2) [2002] QB 737


British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010]

EWCA Civ 350

Rath v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2008]

EWHC 398 (QB)

Publication on a matter of public interest

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2

AC 127

Loutchansky v Time Newspapers (Nos. 2-5)

[2001] EWCA Civ 1805

Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd [2006] EWCA

Civ 17

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe (No.3)

[2006] UKHL 44


David Hooper et al . ‘Defamation Act 2013 - what

difference will it really make?’ (2013) 24

Entertainment Law Review 199

Bloy ‘What price irresponsible journalism?

Reflections on the Galloway litigation’ (2006) 11

Communications Law Review 13

Brown ‘Fair comment to honest opinion - what's

new?’ (2013) 24 Entertainment Law Review 236

Rudkin ‘Things get serious: defining defamation’

(2014) 25 Entertainment Law Review 201


May 2019

Student

presentations Assignment 1 | Group Presentations

Session 14, 14th &

16th May 2019 Course review Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law

Exam Week

NYUL Academic Policies

Attendance and Tardiness

Key information on NYU London’s absence policy, how to report absences, and what

kinds of absences can be excused can be found on our website

(http://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/attendance-policy.html)

http://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/attendance-policy.html

Assignments, Plagiarism, and Late Work

You can find details on these topics and more on this section of our NYUL website

(https://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/academic-policies.html) and on the Policies and

Procedures section of the NYU website for students studying away at global sites

(https://www.nyu.edu/academics/studying-abroad/upperclassmen-semester-academic-

year-study-away/academic-resources/policies-and-procedures.html).

Classroom Conduct

Academic communities exist to facilitate the process of acquiring and exchanging knowledge

and understanding, to enhance the personal and intellectual development of its members, and

to advance the interests of society. Essential to this mission is that all members of the University

Community are safe and free to engage in a civil process of teaching and learning through their

experiences both inside and outside the classroom. Accordingly, no student should engage in

any form of behaviour that interferes with the academic or educational process, compromises

the personal safety or well-being of another, or disrupts the administration of University

programs or services. Please refer to the NYU Disruptive Student Behavior Policy for examples

of disruptive behavior and guidelines for response and enforcement.

Disability Disclosure Statement

Academic accommodations are available for students with disabilities. Please contact the

Moses Center for Students with Disabilities (212-998-4980 or [email protected]) for further

information. Students who are requesting academic accommodations are advised to reach out

to the Moses Center as early as possible in the semester for assistance.

Instructor Bio

Dr Pilcher began his legal career in New Zealand as a Crown prosecutor before moving on to

work in commercial litigation. After moving to England, he qualified as a Solicitor and worked in

both the public and private sectors as a fraud investigator.

Dr Pilcher’s academic research builds on qualifications he holds in fields including cultural

research and art law as well as his professional experience as a lawyer and fraud investigator.

He is particularly interested in the deployment of real-time technologies to critique the way that

legal systems structure and organize societies.

https://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/academic-policies.html

https://www.nyu.edu/academics/studying-abroad/upperclassmen-semester-academic-year-study-away/academic-resources/policies-and-procedures.html

https://www.nyu.edu/academics/studying-abroad/upperclassmen-semester-academic-year-study-away/academic-resources/policies-and-procedures.html

https://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/bullying--threatening--and-other-disruptive-behavior-guidelines.html

mailto:[email protected]

law-uh2501l01, tort law - new york universitylaw-uh 2501 torts the course starts by looking at...

Documents