CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ) Foundation Stage: Law of Tort Syllabus

Foundation Stage: Law of Tort syllabus — full chapter and topic list

Expand any chapter to see its topics and sub-topics. This is the whole examinable outline for Foundation Stage: Law of Tort in CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ), not a summary of it.

1. 1

   Negligence

   3 topics

   • Duty of care
     • The Caparo three-stage test
     • Duty for pure economic loss and psychiatric harm
   • Breach of duty
     • The standard of the reasonable person
     • Risk factors and professional standards
   • Causation and remoteness
     • The 'but for' test and intervening acts
     • Remoteness and the Wagon Mound principle
2. 2

   Occupiers' and Employers' Liability

   4 topics

   • Occupiers' Liability Act 1957: lawful visitors
   • Occupiers' Liability Act 1984: trespassers
   • Employers' liability and safe systems of work
   • Vicarious liability
     • Relationship and course of employment tests
3. 3

   Land-Based and Other Torts

   4 topics

   • Private and public nuisance
   • The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
   • Trespass to land and to the person
   • Defamation overview
     • Libel, slander and the Defamation Act 2013
4. 4

   Defences and Remedies in Tort

   4 topics

   • General defences
     • Contributory negligence
     • Volenti non fit injuria and consent
   • Damages in tort
     • Compensatory damages and heads of loss
     • Mitigation and the eggshell skull rule
   • Injunctions and equitable remedies
   • Limitation periods for tort claims

Foundation Stage: Law of Tort flashcards for CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ)

18 of 49 cards from the Foundation Stage: Law of Tort deck — real questions with worked answers.

1. What are the three elements a claimant must prove to establish negligence?

   (1) The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach caused reasonably foreseeable damage (factual and legal causation).

2. What test for establishing a duty of care was set out in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990)?

   The three-stage (threefold) test: (1) the harm must be reasonably foreseeable; (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the parties; and (3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

3. What was the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in the law of negligence?

   It established the modern tort of negligence and the 'neighbour principle': you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure your neighbour, i.e. persons closely and directly affected by your acts.

4. Who is a 'neighbour' under Lord Atkin's neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson?

   Persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when directing your mind to the acts or omissions in question.

5. What is the general standard of care expected of a defendant in negligence?

   The standard of the reasonable person performing the activity in question (the objective 'reasonable man' test from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks): doing something a reasonable person would not do, or omitting something a reasonable person would do.

6. What standard of care applies to a defendant exercising a special skill, and what case established it?

   The standard of the reasonably competent professional in that field (the Bolam test from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee): a professional is not negligent if acting in accordance with a responsible body of professional opinion.

7. How does the Bolitho qualification modify the Bolam test?

   Bolitho v City and Hackney HA holds that the professional body of opinion relied on must also be capable of withstanding logical analysis (be logically defensible); a court can reject it if it is not.

8. What four factors do courts weigh when deciding whether the standard of care has been breached?

   (1) The likelihood/probability of harm; (2) the seriousness of potential harm; (3) the cost and practicability of taking precautions; and (4) the social utility of the defendant's activity.

9. What standard of care applies to learners and children in negligence?

   Learners are held to the standard of a reasonably competent person at the task (Nettleship v Weston); children are judged against the standard of a reasonable child of the same age (Mullin v Richards).

10. What is the 'but for' test for factual causation, and which case illustrates it?

    Ask: but for the defendant's breach, would the claimant have suffered the harm? If the harm would have occurred anyway, causation fails. Illustrated by Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (patient would have died regardless of treatment).

11. What is a novus actus interveniens and what is its effect on causation?

    A new intervening act (by a third party, the claimant, or a natural event) that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's breach and the damage, relieving the defendant of liability for subsequent harm.

12. What is the test for legal causation (remoteness of damage), and which case established it?

    Damage must be of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. Established in The Wagon Mound (No 1), which replaced the directness test from Re Polemis with the reasonable foreseeability test.

13. Explain the 'egg-shell skull' (thin skull) rule in tort.

    The defendant must take the victim as they find them; if the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for its full extent even where the claimant's pre-existing vulnerability makes the injury worse (Smith v Leech Brain).

14. Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, what duty is owed and to whom?

    The 'common duty of care' (s 2(2)) is owed to all lawful visitors: to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are permitted to be there.

15. Who counts as an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Acts?

    There is no statutory definition; an occupier is anyone with a sufficient degree of control over the premises (Wheat v E Lacon & Co). There may be more than one occupier at the same time.

16. What special duty does s 2(3)(a) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 impose regarding children?

    An occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults, so premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age; allurements (attractive but dangerous features) may be relevant (Glasgow Corporation v Taylor).

17. How does s 2(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 treat skilled visitors (e.g. tradespeople)?

    An occupier may expect a person exercising their calling to appreciate and guard against special risks ordinarily incident to it, so far as the occupier leaves them free to do so (Roles v Nathan).

18. When can an occupier discharge the duty to a visitor by giving a warning under the 1957 Act?

    Under s 2(4)(a), a warning discharges the duty only if, in all the circumstances, it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe.

See more Foundation Stage: Law of Tort flashcards →

Planning Foundation Stage: Law of Tort for CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ)

Foundation Stage: Law of Tort (CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ)) FAQ