LLB Law
LLB Law with Business
LLB Law with Criminology
Level Four Coursework
LW403 Law of Torts
Assessment Instructions:
You are required to answer TWO questions from a total of FIVE.
You MUST answer the PART A Question and ONE Question from PART B.
Marks: All questions carry equal marks
Nature of assessment: Portfolio of Answers
Word Count: 3,500 excluding footnotes (a 10% margin of error over this word count is
acceptable). We recommend that you split your word count evenly between the two parts as
each section carries equal weighting towards your mark.
Referencing: All answers must be fully referenced using OSCOLA. Footnotes should be
provided throughout the text along with a Table of Authorities and Bibliography. Candidates
should use, caselaw, statutory material, research reports and journal articles in the
assessment.
Marking:
The table below outlines how your answers will be marked, and the weighting placed on the
elements of each criterion. You can find the full rubric on the Assessment Brief. Explanations
for what each of these criteria mean can be found in the Marking Guide for Students.
Criteria Element Weighting
Knowledge and
Understanding
Understanding of Law and Legal Issues 35%
Accuracy of Law and Legal Terminology 5%
Critical Thinking,
Originality and
Autonomy
Application, Argument and Analysis 20%
Research 10%
Use of Sources 10%
Structure and
Presentation
Written Communication 10%
Grammar, spelling and language conventions 5%
Referencing 5%
Part A
You MUST answer this question
Question 1
Instructions
You are a trainee solicitor at Painter Smith Partners. You have received the following email
from your supervisor.
From: Isilay Taban
Sent: 18th December 2022 13:22
To: Trainee Solicitor
Dear trainee,
We have been instructed by Hakan who has suffered an injury at work. The facts we have
received to date are as follows:
Hakan, an employee of Lesco’s Supermarket, slipped on some spilled Greek yoghurt
in the dairy aisle whilst working. Shortly before this, Annabella, another employee,
had accidentally spilled a box of yoghurts and made no attempt to clear it up. Hakan
was carrying a large box, which had obscured his vision, so did not see the spillage.
Hakan hit his head on the floor and an ambulance was called. There was a delay of
over an hour in the ambulance arriving. It has since transpired that the original
ambulance assigned to the job was involved in a road traffic accident and it took
some time for another to become available.
Hakan was taken to the Frighton Royal Hospital where Connor, a doctor, failed to
diagnose that he had a bleed on the brain. As a result of a previously undiagnosed,
pre-existing genetic disorder Hakan is more seriously affected by this than others
may have been.
As a result of the accident, and its aftermath, Hakan is no longer able to work in the
supermarket. Furthermore, he can no longer continue with his LLB (hons) Law
studies at Frighton University where he had consistently been topping his class in all
his modules and was due to commence a Pupillage at 1 Frighton Chambers the
September after next. Hakan is now suffering from depression because of the
accident.
Ahead of our first meeting with Hakan, please could you draft responses to the following:
1. Outline what potential claims Hakan might have, for which tort and what must be
proved to establish liability.
2. What legal test will the court apply to establish whether Hakan is owed a duty of
care in negligence, and will a duty of care be owed in this scenario?
3. How might Hakan demonstrate that there has been a breach of that duty or those
duties?
4. What legal tests will be applied to establish causation in this scenario?
5. Might there be any defences to negligence here?
6. What further information is needed for you to provide more complete advice? Why?
7. What remedies might be available to Hakan?
I will check your advice prior to the meeting, but please ensure you provide case authorities
for your advice and explain how the law leads you to draw your conclusions.
Regards,
Isilay Taban
Senior Partner – Personal Injury
Painter Smith Partners LLP
(100 Marks)
Continued on the next page
LW403 Law of Torts Assessment Questions January 2022
Part B
You must answer ONE question from this part
Question 2
The Supreme Court’s decisions in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants
[2020] UKSC 12 and Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, constrain the
expansions of liability for vicarious liability and adopts restrictive interpretations of both
relationship and connection requirements.
Considering the above, evaluate the current legal position in relation to vicarious liability.
To answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
Paula Giliker, ‘Can the Supreme Court halt the ongoing expansion of vicarious
liability? Barclays and Morrison in the UK Supreme Court’ (2021) 37 Professional
Negligence 55.
Donal Nolan, ‘Reigning in Vicarious Liability’ (2020) Industrial Law Journal 609.
(100 marks)
Question 3
‘For one branch of the law to enable a person to profit from behaviour which another branch
of the law treats as being criminal or otherwise unlawful would tend to produce inconsistency
and disharmony in the law, and so cause damage to the integrity of the system…’
Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust Foundation [2020], per Lord Hamblen
at [119]
Evaluate the extent to which the illegality defence is justifiable by public policy
considerations.
To answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
James Goudkamp, ‘Does Patel v Mirza Apply in Tort?’ [2017] (July/August) Personal
Injury Law Journal 1.
James Goudkamp, ‘Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation
Trust ‘ (2021) 37 Journal of Professional Negligence 171
(100 marks)
Question 4
‘…what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in
Bermondsey…’ Sturges v Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch D 852, at 865, per Thesiger LJ.
In light of this statement, evaluate the use of the locality principle in private nuisance.
To answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
Sandy Steel, ‘The Locality Principle In Private Nuisance’ (2017) 76 The Cambridge
Law Journal 145.
Patrick Bishop and Victoria Jenkins, ‘Planning and Nuisance: Revisiting the Balance
of Public and Private Interests in Land-Use Development’ (2011) 23(2) Journal of
Environmental Law 285.
(100 marks)
Continued on the next page
Page 5 of 5
LW403 Law of Torts Assessment Questions January 2022
Question 5
‘Since Lord Hoffmann’s famous dicta in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
UKHL 47, it has been difficult indeed for claimants who have voluntarily taken a risk inherent
in their activity to succeed in tort for personal injury.’
Evaluate the extent to which Tomlinson provides an insuperable defence to Occupiers’
Liability claims.
To answer this question, you are expected to find and read at least the following sources:
Andrew Evans, ‘Voluntary acceptance of obvious risk – not necessarily fatal to claims
in occupiers’ liability 1957 – The White Lion Hotel (A Partnership) v James’ (2021) 3
Journal of Personal
===>
Sample Answer Guide:
PART A
Question 1
Outline what potential claims Hakan might have, for which tort and what must be proved to establish liability.
Hakan might have several potential claims for compensation for the injuries and losses he sustained as a result of the accident at Lesco’s Supermarket, including:
a. Negligence: Hakan can claim compensation for losses resulting from the failure of the employees of Lesco’s Supermarket to take reasonable care to prevent harm to him.
To establish liability for negligence, Hakan must prove that:
Lesco’s Supermarket owed him a duty of care,
There was a breach of that duty of care,
The breach caused his injury, and
He suffered losses as a result of the injury.
b. Breach of Statutory Duty: Hakan may also have a claim against Lesco’s Supermarket under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which imposes a duty on employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees.
To establish liability, Hakan must prove that:
– Lesco’s Supermarket breached the duty of care owed under the Act, and
The breach caused his injury.
What legal test will the court apply to establish whether Hakan is owed a duty of care in negligence, and will a duty of care be owed in this scenario?
The court will apply the ‘neighbourhood test’ as established in the case of Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, to determine whether a duty of care is owed in negligence.
In this scenario, Lesco’s Supermarket will owe a duty of care to Hakan as their employee, as it was foreseeable that he could be injured as a result of the supermarket’s failure to take reasonable care to prevent harm.
How might Hakan demonstrate that there has been a breach of that duty or those duties?
Hakan can demonstrate a breach of duty by showing that the actions of Lesco’s Supermarket employees, including Annabella and the ambulance service, fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have taken in the same circumstances. This can be proven by considering the following factors:
The nature of the work,
The degree of risk involved,
The likelihood of injury occurring,
The gravity of the injury, and
The resources available to prevent the injury.
What legal tests will be applied to establish causation in this scenario?
The court will apply the ‘but-for’ test and the ‘material contribution’ test to establish causation in this scenario.
The ‘but-for’ test requires the court to determine whether the injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the breach of duty, while the ‘material contribution’ test asks whether the breach of duty materially contributed to the injury.
Might there be any defences to negligence here?
Lesco’s Supermarket may raise several defences to negligence, including:
Contributory negligence: if Hakan was partly responsible for his own injury, Lesco’s Supermarket may argue that he contributed to the accident.
Voluntary assumption of risk: if Hakan was aware of the risk posed by the spillage but continued to work anyway, Lesco’s Supermarket may argue that he voluntarily assumed the risk.
Statutory immunity: if Lesco’s Supermarket was acting in accordance with a statute or regulation, they may argue that they are immune from liability.
What further information is needed for you to provide more complete advice? Why?
To provide more complete advice, we need further information on the following:
