TangibleInterferenceSwaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Malone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfAndrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]Wilsons vClydeCoal[1938]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceTheWagonMoundNo.1Sim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013That thedamage isunreasonableS.2(4)(a)Bolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]Yes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 Benjaminv Storr[1874]A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationTransco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control 1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work Illegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)FREECambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]FREESmith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962The purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceCook vSquare[1992]A defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. • The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused FREEHughes vLordAdvocate[1963]Provides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceKennawayvThomson[1981]Tetleyv Chitty[1986]TangibleInterferenceSwaine vG NorthernRy Co[1864]Malone vLasky;Hunter vCanaryWharfAndrea v Selfridge &Co Ltd [1938], Halseyv Esso Petroleum[1961], De Keyser’sRoyal Hotel v Spicer[194], Kennaway vThomson [1981]Wilsons vClydeCoal[1938]Voluntaryassumptionofrisk/consentas a defenceTheWagonMoundNo.1Sim vStretch[1935];s.1(1) of theDA 2013That thedamage isunreasonableS.2(4)(a)Bolton vStone;Castle v StAugustineLinks [1922]Yes,unders.1(3)OLA 1984 Benjaminv Storr[1874]A newintervening act– which is abreak in thechain ofcausationTransco plc vStockportMetopolitanBoroughCouncil [2004] Occupierdepended on1)Occupation,OR 2) control 1. Provision ofcompetent staff ofmen;2. Adequate plant andequipment;3. An effective system;and4. A safe place of work Illegal activity(a defencewhere C isengaging inillegal activity)FREECambridgeWater Co vEasternCountiesLeather plc[1994]FREESmith vLeech-Brain & CoLtd [1962The purposeof the tort ofprivatenuisanceCook vSquare[1992]A defencewhere theblame for thedamage atissue isapportioned. • The type ofdamage caused• The way in whichthe damage wascaused• The extent ofdamage caused FREEHughes vLordAdvocate[1963]Provides adefinitionfor privatenuisanceKennawayvThomson[1981]Tetleyv Chitty[1986]

Tortious Bingo - Call List

(Print) Use this randomly generated list as your call list when playing the game. There is no need to say the BINGO column name. Place some kind of mark (like an X, a checkmark, a dot, tally mark, etc) on each cell as you announce it, to keep track. You can also cut out each item, place them in a bag and pull words from the bag.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
  1. Tangible Interference
  2. Swaine v G Northern Ry Co [1864]
  3. Malone v Lasky; Hunter v Canary Wharf
  4. Andrea v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938], Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961], De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer [194], Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  5. Wilsons v Clyde Coal [1938]
  6. Voluntary assumption of risk/consent as a defence
  7. The Wagon Mound No.1
  8. Sim v Stretch [1935]; s.1(1) of the DA 2013
  9. That the damage is unreasonable
  10. S.2(4)(a)
  11. Bolton v Stone; Castle v St Augustine Links [1922]
  12. Yes, under s.1(3) OLA 1984
  13. Benjamin v Storr [1874]
  14. A new intervening act – which is a break in the chain of causation
  15. Transco plc v Stockport Metopolitan Borough Council [2004]
  16. Occupier depended on 1) Occupation, OR 2) control
  17. 1. Provision of competent staff of men; 2. Adequate plant and equipment; 3. An effective system; and 4. A safe place of work
  18. Illegal activity (a defence where C is engaging in illegal activity)
  19. FREE
  20. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]
  21. FREE
  22. Smith v Leech-Brain & Co Ltd [1962
  23. The purpose of the tort of private nuisance
  24. Cook v Square [1992]
  25. A defence where the blame for the damage at issue is apportioned.
  26. • The type of damage caused • The way in which the damage was caused • The extent of damage caused
  27. FREE
  28. Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963]
  29. Provides a definition for private nuisance
  30. Kennaway v Thomson [1981]
  31. Tetley v Chitty [1986]