The collection
Cases
Landmark and modern judgments, distilled to facts, issues, judgement and significance — 67 summaries across 7 pages.
-
Taylor v. Caldwell [1863] 3 B & S 826
The foundational case for the doctrine of frustration — destruction of a thing essential to performance discharges the contract.
-
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB 1
The “practical benefit” test — performance of an existing duty can be consideration where the promisor gains a practical benefit and there is no duress.
-
Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd v Crabbe [1958] 1 Q.B. 513
Substance over form — an agreement labelled a “licence” created a tenancy, and a members’ club carries on a “business” under the 1954 Act.
-
Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
The leading authority defining the “public” element of public nuisance — a nuisance affecting a class of Her Majesty’s subjects.
-
Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567
Money lent for a specific purpose can be held on trust — the “Quistclose trust” — reverting to the lender if the purpose fails.
-
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
The “Bolam test” — a professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of skilled opinion.
-
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605
The three “ingredients” of a duty of care — foreseeability, proximity, and fairness — and the incremental approach to novel cases.
-
Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] UKHL 3
The seminal “radically different” test for frustration — mere hardship or extra expense does not discharge a contract.
-
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
The foundation of the modern law of negligence — Lord Atkin’s “neighbour principle” and a manufacturer’s duty to the ultimate consumer.
-
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] UKHL 7
“Gillick competence” — a child under 16 with sufficient understanding can consent to medical treatment; parental rights are a dwindling right.