Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:18:36

From: Andrew Tettenborn

Subject: Liesbosch

Not with a bang, but with a whimper, one might say, in view of the fact that the Liesbosch rule had been more hole than shirt since as long as I can remember. It's worth noting that there's a good deal more in Lagden, too: mitigation, discussion of forced betterment, and some discussion of compensation for loss of use of chattels where you don't hire a replacement.

On the same day, see too Marcic v Thames Water. An interesting case on the relation between common law nuisance and statutory liability (where there's a statutory scheme, nuisance is less likely to embrace failure to act - hence no common law liability re failure to spend £1 bn on upgrading most of the sewers in London): not to mention the effect of our human rights legislation on tort liability (Thames Water's inaction did impinge on right to privacy & the home, but impact justified in human rights terms because enforcement authorities have a sizeable margin of appreciation).

Best

Andrew

>===== Original Message From Jason Neyers ====
I post this on behalf of Andrew Burrows:

The rule in The Liesbosch (denying damages for loss consequent on impecuniosity) has today (Dec 4) been abolished by the House of Lords in Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64.

Andrew Tettenborn
Bracton Professor of Law, University of Exeter, England

Tel: 01392-263189 (int +44-1392-263189)
Fax: 01392-263196 (int +44-1392-263196)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 (int +44-7729-266200)

Snailmail:

School of Law
University of Exeter
Amory Building
Rennes Drive
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>