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.

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

Trespass for burglary can occur within buildings you're otherwise permitted to enter.

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

Exceeding permitted entry with intent to steal constitutes trespassory burglary.

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.

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.

You can steal your own property from someone with superior possession rights.

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.

Adverse possession requires both factual possession and clear intention to possess land.

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.

House of Lords rules theft can occur even with owner's consent

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.

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.

Adverse possession can succeed even when possessor knows they lack legal right.

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.

Easements acquired by prescription require use 'as of right' not actual right

Proprietary estoppel can grant full ownership where reliance and detriment are sufficiently substantial.

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.

House of Lords rules tenancies can exist without proprietary rights

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.

Theft can occur even when the victim consents to the taking.

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.

House of Lords defines theft as any assumption of owner's rights

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.

Restrictive covenants can bind future landowners in equity despite lack of privity

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.

Proprietary estoppel can create an interest in land equivalent to an estate contract

Established that any unwanted physical contact without consent or lawful justification constitutes battery, regardless of whether harm is caused.

Son who built on father's land acquired equitable interest through proprietary estoppel

Court defines when temporary taking becomes theft under criminal law

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.

This House of Lords case established the modern requirements for the tort of strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher, significantly narrowing its scope. The court clarified that liability only applies to 'non-natural' uses of land and rejected claims for ordinary water supply infrastructure damage.

Proprietary estoppel may fail where equity has been satisfied by acquiescence

Page v Smith established that a defendant owes a duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric injury to primary victims who are within the zone of physical danger, even if no physical injury occurs. The case clarified the distinction between primary and secondary victims in psychiatric injury claims.

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

Court defines burglary requiring knowledge of trespassory entry

English law has no general tort of invasion of privacy.

Confidential information cannot be stolen as it does not constitute property under theft law.

Court rejects easement claim for vehicle storage as too extensive

Contractual purchasers in actual occupation can claim overriding interests under Land Registration Act 1925.

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

Criminal damage can apply to your own property when others have legal interests.

Implied easements automatically pass when landowner sells part of property