Article Images
You are about to undo an edit. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
</ref> finding that the Tate Gallery's viewing platform was not an ordinary use of land, and hence constituted a private nuisance in overlooking the claimant's residences. |
</ref> finding that the Tate Gallery's viewing platform was not an ordinary use of land, and hence constituted a private nuisance in overlooking the claimant's residences. |
||
* [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/25.html ''Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC''] [2023] UKSC 25, finding that banks do not have a duty to prevent their customers from making payments to fraudsters. |
* [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/25.html ''Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC''] [2023] UKSC 25, finding that banks do not have a duty to prevent their customers from making payments to fraudsters. |
||
* ''[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0038.html Paul and another v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust]''<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 January 2024 |title=Press Summary |url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0038-0044-0049-press-summary.pdf |access-date=27 August 2024 |website=www.supremecourt.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=JUDGMENT. Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent |url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2022-0038-0044-0049-judgment.pdf |access-date=27 August 2024 |website=www.supremecourt.uk}}</ref> [2024] UKSC 1, finding that psychiatric harm is treated no differently from physical harm in the Law of Torts. Also that doctors do not owe a duty of care to members of the family of their patients to prevent them from harm caused by negligent treatment of the patient. |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||