TORT LAW II

LLBM2010

Student Name: Ahmed Ibrahim

1
SECTION A:

1. B
2. False.
Because the goal of tort law is to put the claimant in the position he would have been in
before the tort was committed.
3. Frolic of his own.
4. Vicarious liability and employer's personal liability are related but both of them are
distinct concepts. The vicarious liability refers to the liability of an employer for the
actions of their employees, while the employer’s personal liability refers to the liability of
an employer for their own actions. The concept of employer liability only applies to
businesses; however, vicarious liability can be applied in various non-business related
situations. In the corporate setting, many cases of vicarious liability also fall under
employer liability.
5. A
6. The occupier's liability with regards to the duty owed to child visitors is a legal principle
that holds the occupier of a property liable for any injuries or harm suffered by children
visiting the property. The occupier has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the
property is safe for visitors, including children and the standard of care is higher for
children as they are considered less able to appreciate risks and hazards.
7. Control test.
8. B
9. B
10. (A) (C) (D)

SECTION B

2
Q12:

The statements made by the representative from the accounting firm could potentially be
considered defamatory because they suggest that the client's accountant is unprofessional and has
mishandled the audit and caused financial harm to the company. Since defamation is defined as
the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual or organization,
the claimant has to prove that the statement made by the representative is absolutely inaccurate.

However, the representative may have a defense against defamation claims if they can prove that
the statements were true. Truth or honest opinion is a complete defense to a defamation claims. If
the representative can demonstrate that the accountant did in fact take a long time to finish the
audit, wrote off accounts receivable, and caused the company to pay more taxes, then these
statements would not be considered defamatory. In the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe
Sprl (2006), the court held that when the defendant is able to prove that the words complained of
are substantially true, it is a complete defense to an action for defamation. This case established
the defense of truth, if proven, is a valid defense against a claim of defamation, but the burden of
proof is on the defendant to show that the statement is true and that the statement was made
responsibly.

Another defense that the representative can use is that the statements were made in a qualified
privileged context. This can occur if the statements were made in the course of a legal proceeding
or if the representative had a legal, moral, or social duty to communicate the information to the
client. One example of a Case law related to the defense of qualified privilege in a defamatory case
is the case of Horrocks v Lowe (1975). In this case, the House of Lords established the concept of
"qualified privilege" in defamation cases, which applies when a statement is made in certain
circumstances where there is a duty to make the statement or an interest in making it. To succeed
a defense of qualified privilege in this case, the representative must prove that the statement was
made in good faith, in the discharge of a duty or the protection of an interest.

3
Another possible defense for the representative is fair comment. This defense can be used by the
representative if the statement is a comment on a matter of public interest and is an expression of
opinion that is fair and based on true facts.

Lastly, the representative may also be able to claim that the statements were made in good faith
and without malice, which can be a defense to a defamation claim.

It is important to note that the burden of proof in a defamation case is on the person making the
statement, and whether or not the statement is considered defamatory depends on the specific
context and the jurisdiction in which this case is tried.

4
SECTION C
Q14:

The statement that "Tort of passing off and Malicious prosecution is one emerging concepts of
torts in modern society" is not entirely correct. While both passing off and malicious prosecution
are legal causes of action, they are not necessarily emerging concepts.

The tort of passing off has a long history and has been recognized as a distinct cause of action in
common law for over almost half a century. It's been used to protect businesses from unfair
competition by preventing other businesses from passing off their goods or services as those of
another business. One such example supporting this argument is the case of Erven Warnink BV v
Townend & Sons Ltd (1979), which was decided more than four decades ago. In this case, the
plaintiff Erven Warnink BV, was the manufacturer and distributor of a liqueur called "Advocaat"
and had been selling it in the UK for several years. The defendant, Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd, a
rival distributor, began to sell a liqueur under the same name, in similar bottles and packaging.
Erven Warnink BV claimed that this amounts to passing off, and that Townend & Sons was taking
unfair advantage of the reputation and good will that they had built up in the market. The court
found that Townend & Sons had indeed passed off their product as that of Erven Warnink BV and
held that Townend & Sons had committed passing off. The court ordered Townend & Sons to stop
using the infringing packaging and also to pay damages to Erven Warnink BV for the harm caused
by the passing off.

Similarly, malicious prosecution has also been recognized as a distinct cause of action in common
law for a long time. It's been used to protect individuals from wrongful legal actions, such as being
wrongfully charged with a crime or being wrongfully sued in a civil case. One example of a case
involving malicious prosecution is the case of Jones v. Given (1711), which dates back to the 17th
century. In this case, the defendant, Given, maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff, Jones, for a crime
he did not commit. Given had no probable cause to initiate this legal action, and his intent was to
cause harm to Jones. The court found Given guilty of malicious prosecution and ordered him to
pay damages to Jones for harm caused by the malicious prosecution. This case is considered an

5
early example of the tort of malicious prosecution in English common law. It helped to establish
that a person could be held liable for maliciously initiating a criminal prosecution against another
person without probable cause, and with the intent to cause harm. The case also established that
the plaintiff could recover damages for harm caused by the malicious prosecution, such as harm
to their reputation and loss of income.

While it is true that these torts are still relevant today, and are still being used in modern society,
it would be more accurate to say that they are established concepts of torts, rather than emerging
concepts. And as for whether the statement is satisfactory or not, it would depend on the context
in which it is being used. If the statement is being used to introduce these torts to someone who is
not familiar with them, it may not be satisfactory as it gives a false impression that they are new
concepts. However, if the statement is being used in a broader context and is not intended to be
taken as a definitive statement of fact, then it may be satisfactory.

6
7