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.

This House of Lords case established that liability for negligent misstatement can exist where there is a special relationship between the parties, even without a contractual relationship. It created an exception to the general rule that there is no duty of care for pure economic loss caused by negligent statements.

Spartan Steel v Martin established important limits on recovering pure economic loss in negligence claims. The case concerned a factory's lost profits when defendants negligently cut their electricity supply, with the Court of Appeal restricting compensation to physical damage and consequential losses only.

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.

Damages recoverable for loss of chance even where outcome speculative but valuable.

Landmark House of Lords case establishing that concurrent liability in contract and tort is possible, and that a duty of care can exist in tort even where there is a contractual relationship, particularly in professional services contexts involving economic loss.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Loss of chance must be substantial to ground contractual damages claim

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.

Shareholders cannot sue directors for negligence causing loss to the company alone.

Court establishes landmark test for recoverable damages in contract breach

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.

Claimants must reasonably mitigate loss but may benefit from successful mitigation.

House of Lords limits damages for defective building work to reasonable remedial costs

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.

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

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.

Tortfeasor not liable for losses from unrelated supervening illness

Mental distress damages require physical inconvenience and must be modest in amount.

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.

No damages for injured feelings or mental distress in wrongful dismissal cases.

White v Jones established that solicitors can owe a duty of care to intended beneficiaries under a will when they fail to carry out testamentary instructions. This landmark case extended the tort of negligence to protect third parties who suffer loss due to a solicitor's breach of duty to their client.

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.

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

Contracting parties can recover substantial damages despite suffering no direct loss

Section 2(1) damages assessed on fraud basis, including all consequential losses.

Court establishes 'reasonable foreseeability' test for contractual damages

The House of Lords held that a bank did not owe a duty of care to prevent third parties from dissipating assets subject to a freezing order, as this would impose an unreasonable burden on banks.

Corporate veil pierced where companies operated as single economic unit.

House of Lords case establishing strict limits on when company directors can be personally liable in tort to third parties. The case emphasized that personal assumption of responsibility, not mere involvement in the company's business, is required for individual liability.

Contractual damages should put innocent party in position as if contract performed.

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.

Hypothetical bargain damages available where traditional loss-based damages inadequate.

Frustration requires total failure of contractual purpose, not mere inconvenience or disappointment.

House of Lords rejects loss of chance claims in medical negligence

Defamatory words must lower reputation among right-thinking people, not wrongdoers.

Material property damage actionable in nuisance without proving unreasonableness.

Contractual damages must be within reasonable contemplation of parties at contract formation.

Total failure of consideration allows recovery of payments under frustrated contracts.

Contracting parties can recover substantial damages for third party property damage

Divisible injury: damages apportioned where only part of harm attributable to defendant's breach