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.

Court of Appeal established that actions for personal injury must be brought in negligence, not trespass, when the injury is unintentional.

Mitigation duty requires reasonable steps but not complex litigation against third parties.

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.

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.

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.

No liability for damage to property already damaged by another tortfeasor.

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.

Concurrent liability in contract and tort possible; Hedley Byrne extends to services.

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.

Court establishes landmark test for recoverable damages in contract breach

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

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.

Tortfeasor liable for full damages despite victim's subsequent unrelated injury

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.

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

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.

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 limits damages for defective building work to reasonable remedial costs

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

Material property damage actionable in nuisance without proving unreasonableness.

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.

Contracting parties can recover substantial damages for third party property damage

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.

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.

Court creates personal remedy against innocent recipients of wrongly distributed estate funds

Leading case establishing that nuisance can arise from various forms of interference including noise, vibrations, and noxious emissions from industrial activities.

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

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.

Supreme Court recasts SAAMCO and widens focus on scope of duty

A motorcyclist was injured in a collision at a junction where visibility was obstructed by a bank on highway authority land. The authority had considered removing the bank but failed to act. The House of Lords held that the highway authority owed no duty of care for failing to remove the obstruction.

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

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.

The House of Lords established that an occupier can be liable for nuisance created by third parties if they knew or ought to have known of the nuisance and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it.

House of Lords revolutionizes trust law by requiring causation for breach claims

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

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

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

Employers liable for employees' torts despite express prohibitions if within employment scope.

Court establishes 'reasonable foreseeability' test for contractual damages

No duty of care owed during joint criminal enterprise; ex turpi causa bars claim.