Rowland V Divall (1923) | S 12 TITLE | |
Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1991) | S 13 DESCRIPTION exception | |
Priest v Last (1903) | S 14(3) FITNESS FOR PURPOSE | |
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) | DUTY OF CARE | |
Haley v LEB (1965) | Reasonable foresight | |
Bourhill v Young (1943) | Close and proximate relationship | |
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989) | Fair and reasonable to impose a duty | |
Spartan Steel v Martin (1973) | Consequential economic loss – yes | |
Weller v Foot & Mouth Research Institute (1966) | Pure economic loss – no | |
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) | Causation | |
The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961) | Remoteness | |
Smith v Leech Brain (1962) | ‘thin skull rule’ | |
Beale v Taylor (1967) | S 12 DESCRIPTION | |
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (1987) | a reasonable period of time | |