John Murphy, ‘The vitality of injurious falsehood’

When it comes to their range or the frequency with which they are invoked, some torts, like tides, seem to ebb and flow. The story concerning the expansion and contraction in the scope of the tort of negligence via the duty concept requires no re-telling. Almost as well known is the way that liability for harm caused by things liable to cause damage upon their escape waxed in the several decades that followed the landmark decision in Rylands v Fletcher, only to wane again during the second half of the 20th century before making a solid (if not quite roaring) comeback just before and just after the turn of the millennium in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc and Transco Plc v Stockport MBC. Much the same story can be told of liability under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, a tort, the existence of which, was severely challenged in Wainright v Home Office, only to be rejuvenated (with some reconfiguration) by the Supreme Court in O v Rhodes

€ (Westlaw)

John Murphy, ‘The vitality of injurious falsehood’ (2021) 137 Law Quarterly Review (Oct) 658.

First posted 2021-09-18 18:00:28

Leave a Reply