Rylands v Fletcher established the rule of strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on land. This landmark case created a new tort principle that makes landowners liable for harm caused by hazardous substances kept on their property, regardless of fault or negligence.

The House of Lords held that there could be no liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher without an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land, clarifying a key element of strict liability.

The Court of Appeal held that a defendant is only liable in nuisance for interference that would affect the ordinary use of land, not for damage to unusually sensitive activities or property.

The High Court held that deliberately making noise to annoy a neighbor constitutes actionable nuisance, even if similar noise might not be actionable when made for legitimate purposes.

Hunter v Canary Wharf established that interference with television reception caused by a building does not constitute a nuisance, and clarified that only those with proprietary interests in land can sue in private nuisance. The case significantly restricted the scope of nuisance claims and access to such remedies.

Cambridge Water concerned liability for environmental contamination where a leather manufacturer's chemical spillages polluted a water company's borehole. The House of Lords established that foreseeability of harm is required for both nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher liability, significantly limiting strict liability for environmental damage.

Miller v Jackson is a leading nuisance case about cricket balls repeatedly being hit from a village cricket ground into a neighbouring homeowner’s property. The Court of Appeal held that this amounted to actionable private nuisance, but by a majority refused an injunction and instead left the claimant to damages, making the case important both for nuisance and for the court’s discretion over remedies.

Extended Goldman v Hargrave to natural land movements, establishing that landowners must take reasonable steps to prevent naturally occurring land slippage from damaging neighbouring property. Confirmed the 'measured duty' principle in English law.

Industrial activities causing multiple forms of interference can constitute nuisance.

Murphy v Brentwood DC is a landmark House of Lords case that significantly restricted liability for pure economic loss in negligence. The case overruled Anns v Merton and established that local authorities owe no duty of care to building owners for economic loss caused by defective foundations, fundamentally reshaping the law of negligence in construction cases.

A woman claimed damages after allegedly finding a decomposed snail in a bottle of ginger beer, becoming ill as a result. This case established the modern law of negligence and the 'neighbour principle' - that we owe a duty of care to those who might reasonably be affected by our actions.

House of Lords case that relaxed the test for factual causation where the defendant's negligence materially increased the risk of harm that actually occurred.

Wilkinson v Downton established the tort of intentionally causing physical harm through false statements without direct physical contact. The defendant falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured, causing her severe shock and physical illness, creating liability for intentional infliction of harm.

This case established that employers can be vicariously liable for employees' intentional wrongdoing if there is a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the wrongful acts. The House of Lords held a care home liable for sexual abuse committed by a warden against residents.

House of Lords restricts Rylands v Fletcher liability to truly exceptional land uses

Occupiers liable for continuing third-party nuisances they know about.

Landmark House of Lords decision establishing that public authorities can owe a duty of care in negligence to individuals who suffer harm as a direct result of the authority's carelessness in exercising statutory functions. The case extended Donoghue v Stevenson principles to public law contexts.

Rose v Plenty established that an employer can be vicariously liable for an employee's actions even when those actions directly contravene express prohibitions, provided the wrongful act was committed in the course of employment. The case clarified the scope of vicarious liability in tort law.

A flooring specialist nominated by the building owner owed a duty of care in negligence for pure economic loss arising from defective workmanship, despite no contract between the parties. The House of Lords extended Donoghue v Stevenson and Anns, finding sufficient proximity based on the specialist's knowledge the floor was for the pursuer's use and reliance on their skill.

House of Lords case establishing that in medical negligence, claimants must prove causation on the balance of probabilities even where multiple potential causes exist.

Malicious acts against neighbours can constitute nuisance despite being otherwise lawful.

Caparo established the modern three-stage test for determining when a duty of care exists in negligence: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. The case concerned whether auditors owed a duty of care to potential investors who relied on company accounts. In Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 the Supreme Court clarified that the three-stage framework is not a universal test and is relevant only in novel cases.

Material property damage actionable in nuisance without proving unreasonableness.

No prescriptive right to nuisance until it becomes actually actionable

Novus actus interveniens breaks chain of causation where negligent act is not foreseeable consequence

A shareholder can sue to enforce voting rights when chairman wrongfully rejects votes

House of Lords creates broad two-stage test for duty of care

An advertisement of an auction is not an offer but an invitation to treat.

Agreement to sell council house formed despite use of word 'may' in council's letter

A mortgage term postponing redemption is valid if not oppressive or unconscionable

Spring v Guardian Assurance established that employers owe a duty of care when providing employment references, requiring them to take reasonable care to ensure accuracy and avoid negligent misstatements. This landmark case extended the tort of negligence to employment references, balancing the need for honest references with protection against careless or malicious statements.

No general duty to prevent third parties causing harm; liability requires special circumstances.

Cannot take benefit of deed without accepting corresponding burdens - mutual benefit and burden

Mental distress damages available where peace of mind is important contractual object.

Easements must benefit land itself, not just provide personal commercial advantage

Assignment of contractual rights and exceptions to the privity rule in construction contracts