SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
LAW-UH2501L01, Tort Law
NYU London
Instructor Information Dr Jeremy Pilcher Lecturer in Law Director LLM QLD Programme & Deputy Director of Studies Solicitor (England & Wales) and Barrister and Solicitor (New Zealand)
Course Information ● LAW-UH 2501 ● Torts ● The course starts by looking at negligence and how it works in practice. The course then goes on to examine separate torts – nuisance, occupiers’ liability, and defamation before concluding with vicarious liability and an review of the course overall. ● Tuesdays & Thursdays 10:45 a.m.-12 p.m.
Course Overview and Goals The course aims to examine the effectiveness of the tort system in compensating individuals suffering personal injury, injury to reputation, psychological damage, economic loss or incursions on private property as a result of accidents, disease or intentional acts. Focusing on the tort of negligence, the course explores the social, economic and political contexts in which the rules and principles of tort are applied.
Upon Completion of this Course, students will be able to: • Demonstrate understanding of the basic rules and principles relating to tort law • Demonstrate familiarity with various theories pertaining to the nature and functions of tort law • Write critically and analytically about key concepts of tort law • Display knowledge and understanding of key cases in tort law • Display knowledge and understanding of academic literature relating to tort law • Demonstrate an ability to apply the law to analyse legal problems
Course Requirements
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 1
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Class Participation • The module will be taught through lectures and are intended to provide a broad overview, or map of a subject area which will then be developed through independent study. • Students are expected to have prepared for their lectures in order to fully participate. • A significant part of a student’s learning experience occurs outside of the classroom. It is estimated that for every hour of time allocated for lectures, students will need 2-3 hours of preparation time reading and working through course material. • Students will also need to manage their time to prepare their coursework and revise for exams. • NYU Classes the virtual learning environment, any uploaded texts or additional learning materials, updates and news about the class.
Grading of Assignments The grade for this course will be determined according to these assessment components: % of Assignments/ Description of Assignment Final Due Activities Grade Group presentation of a critical case End of Part Assignment 1 20 analysis One Group presentation of a critical case End of Part Assignment 2 20 analysis Two Closed book exam on topics relating to the Exam 60 course content
Failure to submit or fulfill any required course component results in failure of the class
Grades Letter grades for the entire course will be assigned as follows: Letter Percent Description Grade An excellent answer in all or nearly all areas; in areas where excellence is not achieved, a high degree of competence must be shown. A Example: 93.5% and higher Displays exceptional knowledge of the subject, clear well - organised argument and substantial evidence of independent thought.
A very good answer. Very competent in all or B Example: 82.5% - 87.49% most areas, or showing moderate competence in some and excellence in others. Generally SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 2
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Letter Percent Description Grade well-planned and well argued, showing a solid ability to develop logical and persuasive arguments. Treats the issues in a critical and balanced way and shows an awareness of context, sources and different explanations.
A good answer. Answer is good in all areas or strong in some and adequate in others. Shows an awareness of the major issues, shows knowledge of the sources and of alternative C Example: 72.5% - 77.49% approaches to the subject but may not show a clear understanding of alternative arguments or makes uncritical use of sources
An answer that meets the minimum criteria to pass. Shows a grasp of basic relevant information and displays a superficial understanding of relevant issues, presents an D Example: 62.5% - 67.49 adequate argument and is satisfactorily organised with little or no awareness of awareness of different approaches to the subject.
Inadequate answer in all or most aspects, displaying very little knowledge or F Example: 59.99% and lower understanding.
Course Materials
Required Textbooks & Materials ● Elliott & Quinn. 2017. Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow: Pearson.
Optional Textbooks & Materials ● Horsey & Rackley. 2017. Kinder’s Casebook on Tort (14th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. ● Witting. 2015. Street on Torts (14th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press
Resources ● Access your course materials: NYU Classes (nyu.edu/its/classes) ● Databases, journal articles, and more: Bobst Library (library.nyu.edu)
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 3
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
● Assistance with strengthening your writing: NYU Writing Center (nyu.mywconline.com) ● Obtain 24/7 technology assistance: IT Help Desk (nyu.edu/it/servicedesk)
Course Schedule Each session will be in two equal parts, which will both relate to the relevant topic. The first part will primarily be teacher-led with class discussion as appropriate. The second part will be centered on student-led activities, which are denoted in a supplementary document. Assigned readings are to be completed each week prior to attendance at the first session.
Topics and Assignments
Session/Date Topic Reading
PART A
Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 1 & Chapter 2, pp. 15-31
The duty of care Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Bourhill v Young [1942] AC 92 Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 1 ALL ER 568 Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181 Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923 Yuen Kun Yeu v. A-G of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175
Overview & the Duty Foresight Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 77 Session 1 of Care Home Office v Dorset Yacht Ltd (1970) AC 1004
Proximity Anns v London Borough of Merton [1978] A.C. 728 Sutradhar v National Environmental Research Council (2006) 4 ALL ER 490 Calvert v William Hill [2008] EWCA Civ 1427
Fair Just and Reasonable Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 All ER 344 Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust [2004] 1 AC 309
Recommended Readings: A Robertson ‘On the Function of the Law of
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 4
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Negligence’ (2013) 33 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31
David Howarth ‘Many Duties of Care – or a Duty of Care? Notes from the Underground’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Nicholas McBride ‘Duties of Care: Do They Really Exist?’ (2004) 24 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 417 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 5
Negligent misstatement
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465
Special relationship
Chaudry v Prabhakar (1989) 1 WLR 29
Williams v Natural Life Foods [1998] 1 WLR 830
Assumption of responsibility
Reeman v Department of Transport [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 648
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates [1995] 2 AC 145
Lennon v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Session 2 Pure economic loss [2004] EWCA Civ 130 Customs & Excise Commissioner v Barclays Bank PLC [2007] 1 AC 181
Reasonable Reliance
Esso Petroleum v Mardon [1976] QB 801 Spring v Guardian Assurance [1995] 2 AC 296
Third parties
Smith v Eric Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 Scullion v Bank of Scotland [2011] EWCA Civ 693 Caparo v Dickman [1990]2 AC 605 Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick [2000] 1 WLR 1921 (CA) Playboy Club London Ltd and others v Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA [2016] EWCA Civ 457
Required Readings: Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow: SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 5
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Pearson. Chapter 5 and relevant case law
Recommended Readings: Joshua Griffin ‘Pure Economic Loss: Out of Negligence and Into the Unknown’ (2014) 44 Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal. Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 4
Primary Victim Dulieu v White (1901) Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92 Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155
Secondary Victim
Introduction Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1AC 310
Proximity of Relationship McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 16 Greatorex v Greatorex [2000] 1 WLR 1970
Proximity in Time and Space Psychiatric injury Session 3 McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal [2003] EWCA Civ 697 Taylor v Novo [2013] EWCA Civ 194
Proximity of Perception Palmer v Tees Health Authority [2000] PIQR Vernon v Bosley (No.1) [1997] 1 All ER 577
Sudden shock Attia v British Gas [1988] QB 304 Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26 North Glamorgan NHS v Walters [2002] EWCA Civ 1792 Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd. [2007] UKHL 39
Rescuers White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1998] 3 WLR 1509 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 6
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Liability for bad news AB v Tameside & Glossop Health Authority [1996] EWCA Civ 938
Illness vs. grief Vernon v Bosley (No.1) [1997] 1 All ER 577 Simmons v British Steel [2004] UKHL 20
Recommended Reading: 1998 Law Commission Report http://www.official- documents.gov.uk/document/hc9798/hc05/0525/0 525.pdf
Richard Mullender and Alistair Speirs, ‘Negligence, Psychiatric Injury and the Altruism Principlle’, 20 (4) (2000) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 645
Rachel Mulheron, ‘Rewriting the requirement for a ‘Recognised Psychiatric Injury’ in Negligence Claims’ (2012) 32 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 77
Eugene C Lim, ‘Proximity, Psychiatric Injury and the Primary/Secondary Tortfeasor Dichotomy: Rethinking Liability for Nervous Shock in the Information Age’ (2014) 23 Nottingham Law Journal 1 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 2, pp. 32-44
The Standard of Care
Reasonable not perfect Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 Session 4 Breach of duty Glasgow City Corporation v Tylor [1922] 1 AC 44
Characteristics Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304
Specialist skill Wells v Cooper [1958] 2 QB 265 Horton v Evans [2006] EWHC 2808 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 7
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Proving Negligence
Preliminary matters Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Paris v Stepney BC [1951] AC 367
Precautionary steps Tomlinson v Congleton BC [2003] UKHL47, [2004] 1 AC 46
Bolam/Bolitho framework Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) Mahon v Osborne [1939] 2 KB 14 Lloyde v West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 WLR 749
Recommended Readings: Joseph Raz, ‘Responsibility and the negligence standard’ (2010) 30 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 3, pp. 55-66
The ‘but for’ test Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea [1969] 1 QB 428 Reeves v Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police [2000] 1 AC 360 McWilliams v Sir William Arrol [1962] 1 WLR 295 Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 Session 5 Causation (in fact) Kuwait Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19
Concurrent and consecutive causation Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467 Performance Cars v Abraham [1962] 3 WLR 749 Jobling v Associated Dairies [1982] AC 794
Cumulative causes SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 8
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Bailey v Ministry of Defence [2008] EWCA Civ 883 Novartis Grimsby v Cockson [2007] EWCA Civ 1261
Intervening Events Knightly v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349 Roberts v Bettany [2001] EWCA Civ 109 Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13 McKew v Holland [1969] 3 All ER 1621
Causal Indeterminacy
Introduction Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] AC 1074
Material contribution Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1
Material increase of risk and the rule in Fairchild Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003] 1 AC 32 Barker v Corus [2006] 2 AC 572 Sienkiewicz v Greif [2011] UKSC 10 BAI (Run Off) v Durham [2012] UKSC 14 Loss of a chance Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons [1995] WLR 1602 Gregg v Scott [2005] 2 AC 176
Recommended Readings: Janet Stapleton, “Cause-in-Fact and the Scope of Liability for Consequences” (2003) 119 Law Quarterly Review 388
Gideon Cohen ‘Fairchild, Gregg v Scott and Damage to What’ (2009) 5 Cambridge Student Law Review 109
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 9
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Morgan “Lost Causes in the House of Lords: Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services” (2003) 66 Modern Law Review 277 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 3
A. Remoteness
Introduction to Remoteness Robb v FT Everard & Sons Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1022
The Wagon Mound test Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co [1961] 1 AC 388 (The Wagon Mound (No 1)) Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd [1967] 1 AC 617 (The Wagon Mound (No 2)) Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co. Ltd [1921] 3 KB 560
General principles Remoteness Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 Session 6 (causation in law) & Doughty v Turner Metal Manufacturing Company Defences [1964] 1 QB Tremain v Pike [1969] 1 WLR 1556 Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals [1971] 1 QB 88 Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082
The ‘thin skull’ rule (or ‘eggshell skull’ principle) Smith v Leech Brain [1962] 2 QB 405 Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737 Page v Smith [1996] 1 AC 155 Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64
Required Readings: Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow: Pearson. Chapter 3, pp. 67-73 and relevant case law
Recommended Readings:
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 10
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Mark Stauch, “Risk and Remoteness of Damage in Negligence” (2001) 64 Modern Law Review 191
B: Defenses
Introduction to Defences
Contributory Negligence Jones v Livox Quarries [1952] 2 QB 608 Froom v Butcher [1975] QB 286 Owens v Brimmell [1977] QB 859
Voluntariness
Voluntary waiver White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651
Volenti non fit injuria ICI v Shatwell [1965] AC 656 Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691 Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146 Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509 Morris v Murray [1990] 2 QB 6
Public Policy Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2002] EWCA Civ 1249 Grey v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33 Delany v Picket [2011] EWCA 1532
Recommended Readings: Horsey and Rackley, Kinder’s Casebook on Tort (OUP, 2017) Chapter 5 Student Session 7 Assignment 1 | Group Presentations presentations
PART B
Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 18
Introduction Hawley v Luminar Leisure [2006] EWCA Civ 30, Session 8 Vicarious liability Viasystems (Tyneside) Ltd v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd [2005]EWCA Civ 1151 Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd v Salaam & Others [2003] 1 AC 366 [25] SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 11
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Employment Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497 Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10 Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60
Transfer of Employment Mersey Docks v Coggins [1947] AC 1 Via Systems v Thermal Transfer [2006] 2 WLR 428
Tort Committed in the course of employment
Basic principle for imposing liability Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport [1942] AC 509 Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34
Express prohibition Conway v George Wimpy [1951] 2 KB 266 Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141
Detours (partial prohibition) Smith v Stages [1989] 2 WLR 529
Criminal Conduct
Introduction Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11
Field of activities Lloyd v Grace Smith [1912] AC 716 Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56
Connection Credit Lyonnasis Bank Netherland v Export Credit Guarantees [1999] 1 All ER 292 Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22
Recommended Reading: SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 12
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Philip Morgan, ‘Distorting Vicarious Liability’, 74(4) (2011), Modern Law Review, 555
Douglas Brodie, ‘Enterprise Liability: Justifying Vicarious Liability, 27(3) (2007) OJLS, 493-508 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 13
A: Hunter v Canary Wharf in focus
Introduction Walter v Selfe (1851) 4 De G&Sm 315, 322; (1851) 64 ER 849 (QB) 852
Proprietary requirements: who is a claimant in Private Nuisance?
The rule as clarified in Hunter Malone v Laskey [1907] 2 KB 141 Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727 Hunter v Canary Wharf and London Docklands Development [1997] AC 655 Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts and others [2011] EWHC 1199
The Human Rights Dimension Session 9 Private nuisance McKenna v British Aluminium [2002] Env LR 30 Dobson v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 28
The protected interests Bliss v Hall (1838) 4 Bing NC 183 Thompson –Schwab v Costaki [1956] 1 All ER 652 Bridlington Relay v Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] Ch436 Network Rail Infrastructure v Williams and Waistell [2018] EWCA Civ 1514
Causation in Nuisance Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485 Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough Borough Council [2000] QB 836 Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire Council [1999] EWCA Civ 1151 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 13
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Recommended Readings: Ghandhi, ‘Orthodoxy affirmed’ (1998) Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 309
B: Coventry v Lawrence in focus
Introduction
The Locality Rule
The Basics of the Rule Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 652 Helens Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642 Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966
Nature of a Locality Dennis v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWHC 793 Southwark Borough Council v Mills [1999] 2 WLR 409
Planning Permission and the change of an area Gillingham Borough Council v Medway (Chatham) Dock Co. [1993] QB 345 Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd [1996] Ch 19 Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKHL 13
Reasonableness
Duration Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep. 533 Harrison v Southwark Water [1891] 2 Ch D 409 British Celanese v AH Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd (1969) 1 WLR 959 (CA)
Sensitivity Robinson v Kilvert [1899] 41 CHD 88 Network Rail Infrastructure v Morris [2004] Env LR 41 Barr v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 312
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 14
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Malice Christie v Davey [1893] 1 CH 316 Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett [1936] 1 All ER 825
Recommended Reading: Lees ‘Lawrence v Fen Tigers: where now for nuisance?’ (2014) 5 The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 449
Lee ‘Case Comment: Private nuisance in the Supreme Court: Coventry v Lawrence’ (2014) 7 Journal of Planning & Environment Law 705 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 8
A: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Introduction Wombwell v Grimsby Fish Dock Enterprises [2008] EWCA Civ 831
Common law prior to the OLA 1957 Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10 Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44
Principles of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
Occupiers & s.1(2) & (3) Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552 Session 10 Occupiers’ liability
Types of Visitor Robson v Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939 McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1995] 1 AC 233
Unauthorised Visitors Ferguson v Welsh [1987] 3 All ER 777 Harvey v Plymouth City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 860
Duty of care
Warnings White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 Darby v National Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 189 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 15
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading Intruder Detection & Surveillance v Fulton [2008] EWCA 1009
Children Simkiss v Rhondda BC [1983] 81 LGR 460 Bourne Leisure v Marsden [2009] EWCA Civ 671
Contractors Haseldine v Daw [1941] 2 KB 343 Woodward v Mayor of Hastings [1945] KB 174 Riverstone Neat Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co. [1961] AC 807 William v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2003] QB 443
Recommended Reading: Witting, Street on Torts (OUP, 2015) Chapter 8, pp.211-231
B: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984
Introduction British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 White v St Albans City [1990] The Times March 12 Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358
Duty and Trespassers Revill v Newberry [1996] QB 567 Platt v Liverpool City Council [1997] CLY 4864 Young v Kent County Council [2005] EWHC 1342 Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust [2006] 1 WLR 953
Type of duty Donoghue v Folkston Properties [2003] QB 1008 Siddorn v Patel [2007] EWHC 1248
Warnings and Exclusion of liability Section 1(5) and 1(6) Westwood v Post Office [1973] 1 QB 591 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46 Ratcliff v McConnell [1999] 1 WLR 670 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 16
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
Recommended Reading: Luke Bennett ‘Judges, child trespassers and occupiers' liability’ (2011) 3 International Journal of Law in the Built Environment 126
James Hand ‘The Compensation Culture: Cliché or Cause for Concern?’ (2010) 37 Journal of Law and Society 569 Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 11
Introduction
Who can be a claimant? Knupffer v London Express Newspaper [1942] AC 116 Derbyshire C.C. v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 McDonalds v Steel (No.4) [1995] 3 All ER 615 McLaughlin v Lambeth LBC [2010] EWHC 2726 Ames v The Spamhaus Project [2015] EWHC 127
Reputation Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWCH 433. Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818 Session 11 Defamation E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20
Innuendo Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 CA Charleston and Smith v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others [1995] 2AC 65 McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) Johnnson v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 1481
Conveyed meaning Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1WLR 1239 Dwek v Macmillan Publishers [2000] EMLR 284
Reference to the claimant Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581 Newstead v London Express Newspapers [1940] 1 KB 377 O'Shea v MGN Ltd. [2001] EMLR 40 (QBD) SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 17
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading
The publication rule in Defamation
Theaker v Richardson [1962] 1 WLR 151 Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 283 Godfery v Demon Internet [2001] QB 201 Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 Cairns v Modi [2013] 1 WLR 1015 Google v Tamiz [2013] EWCA Civ 68
Required Reading: Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law (11th ed.) Harlow: Pearson. Chapter 11 and relevant case law
Recommended Reading:
Leslie Kim Treiger-Bar-Am ‘Defamation law in a changing society: the case of Youssoupoff v Metro Goldwyn Mayer’ (2000) 20 Legal Studies 291
David Magan ‘Regulating for Responsibility: Reputation and Social Media’ (2015) 29 International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 16 Mullis and Scott, ‘The Wing of the Pendulum: Reputation, Expression and the Re-centring of English Libel Law,’ in D. Capper (ed.), Modern Defamation Law: Rebalancing Reputation and Free Expression, 2012. Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law Chapter 11
Introduction
Truth Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 WLR 640 Session 12 Defamation defences Chase v News Group Newspapers [2002] EWCA Civ 1772
Honest Opinion (formerly Fair Comment) London Artists v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375 Telnikoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343 Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53 Branson v Bower (no.2) [2002] QB 737 SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 18
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Session/Date Topic Reading British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350 Rath v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2008] EWHC 398 (QB)
Publication on a matter of public interest Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 AC 127 Loutchansky v Time Newspapers (Nos. 2-5) [2001] EWCA Civ 1805 Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 17 Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe (No.3) [2006] UKHL 44
Recommended Reading: David Hooper et al . ‘Defamation Act 2013 - what difference will it really make?’ (2013) 24 Entertainment Law Review 199
Bloy ‘What price irresponsible journalism? Reflections on the Galloway litigation’ (2006) 11 Communications Law Review 13
Brown ‘Fair comment to honest opinion - what's new?’ (2013) 24 Entertainment Law Review 236
Rudkin ‘Things get serious: defining defamation’ (2014) 25 Entertainment Law Review 201 Student Session 13 Assignment 1 | Group Presentations presentations
Session 14 Course review Elliott & Quinn 2017 Tort Law
Exam Week
NYUL Academic Policies
Attendance and Tardiness • Key information on NYU London’s absence policy, how to report absences, and what kinds of absences can be excused can be found on our website (http://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/attendance-policy.html) SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 19
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Assignments, Plagiarism, and Late Work • You can find details on these topics and more on this section of our NYUL website (https://www.nyu.edu/london/academics/academic-policies.html) and on the Policies and Procedures section of the NYU website for students studying away at global sites (https://www.nyu.edu/academics/studying-abroad/upperclassmen-semester-academic- year-study-away/academic-resources/policies-and-procedures.html). Classroom Conduct Academic communities exist to facilitate the process of acquiring and exchanging knowledge and understanding, to enhance the personal and intellectual development of its members, and to advance the interests of society. Essential to this mission is that all members of the University Community are safe and free to engage in a civil process of teaching and learning through their experiences both inside and outside the classroom. Accordingly, no student should engage in any form of behaviour that interferes with the academic or educational process, compromises the personal safety or well-being of another, or disrupts the administration of University programs or services. Please refer to the NYU Disruptive Student Behavior Policy for examples of disruptive behavior and guidelines for response and enforcement.
Disability Disclosure Statement Academic accommodations are available for students with disabilities. Please contact the Moses Center for Students with Disabilities (212-998-4980 or [email protected]) for further information. Students who are requesting academic accommodations are advised to reach out to the Moses Center as early as possible in the semester for assistance.
Instructor Bio
Dr Pilcher began his legal career in New Zealand as a Crown prosecutor before moving on to work in commercial litigation. After moving to England, he qualified as a Solicitor and worked in both the public and private sectors as a fraud investigator.
Dr Pilcher’s academic research builds on qualifications he holds in fields including cultural research and art law as well as his professional experience as a lawyer and fraud investigator. He is particularly interested in the deployment of real-time technologies to critique the way that legal systems structure and organize societies.
SAMPLE SYLLABUS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE Page 20