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