Barnett v Kensington and Chelsea Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 Q.B. 428

What's the case about?
Mr Barnett was employed as a security guard at the Chelsea College of Science and Technology.  In the early morning of New Year's day 1966 he began to feel unwell.  He left work and went to his local hospital, St Stephens.  The accident and emergency nurse was unsure what to do with Mr Barnett, and telephoned for the doctor.  The doctor refused to see Mr Barnett, and suggested instead that he go home and call on his own doctor if he continued to feel unwell.

Mr Barnett went back to work, lay down, and was later found to be gravely ill.  He was taken back to hospital but pronounced dead on arrival.  It was discovered that Mr Barnett had been poisoned with arsenic. His widow brought a claim in negligence against the hospital.  She sought compensation from the hospital on the grounds that had the doctor done his duty and seen Mr Barnett, he would not have died.

Where is it on the map?
The hospital is at point R and the college at point S.

Who won?
The hospital.  The court agreed with Mrs Barnett that the doctor had been negligent when he refused to see Mr Barnett.  But the court also found that as Mr Barnett had been poisoned by arsenic he would likely have died even if the doctor hadn't been negligent.

What's the principle?
This case illustrates the test of factual causation in tort, often known as the 'but for' test: but for the defendant's negligence would the claimant have suffered loss?  If not, then factual causation is satisfied and the other elements of the claim can be considered.  If the answer if yes, the loss would have occurred anyway and the defendant will not be liable, regardless of whether they acted negligently.

What's it like today?
Most of the site of St Stephen's Hospital is now taken up by the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which opened in 1993.  The remaining part of St Stephen's Hospital is now known as the St Stephen's Centre and is home to a HIV/AIDS research centre:

Mr Barnett had been working at the Chelsea College of Science and Technology on Manresa Road when he was taken ill.  A brief history of the building, along with pictures, can be found here.  Chelsea College of Science and Technology later became part of King's College London.  The building on Manresa Road was converted into flats in 2005.  The facade has been kept, but the interior has been remodelled.  According to the developer, the flats sold for record prices.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] 1 All ER 482

What's the case about?
In 1951, Boots started operating a self-service chemists' store in Edgware.  The store was arranged so that customers could select items, take them to the till and pay for them there.  The tills were supervised by a pharmacist.  The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought a claim against Boots, arguing that they were selling medicines without the proper supervision of a pharmacist, in contravention of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933.

Where is it on the map?
At point J.

Who won?
Boots.  The Court of Appeal held that the sale did not take place until the cashier served the customer, and at this stage the transaction was supervised by a pharmacist.

What's the principle?
A contract (in this case a contract for the sale of medicines) is not formed until a party has made an offer, and the offer has been accepted by the other party.  An offer must show an unequivocal intention to form a contract, on certain terms.  The Pharmaceutical Society argued that Boots made an offer to the customer by placing the items on the shelves.  But the Court of Appeal held that the offer was actually made by the customer, when he or she gave their selected items to the cashier.  At this stage, a pharmacist supervised the proceedings and the customer's offer would be rejected if the goods were not appropriate for them.  So Boots' new sales method was lawful.  

This case is often cited as authority for the proposition that shops do not make an offer to the customer when placing items on shelves.  Instead, this sales method is an example of an 'invitation to treat'.  

What's it like now?

Sixty years have passed and it's fair to say that self-service shops have caught on.  But some things are slower to change: the shop in Edgware is still a chemist, albeit no longer a Boots.

The manager was very kind and let me take a few photos inside:

It's a beautifully laid-out shop.

Tulk v Moxhay (1848) 47 ER 1345

What's the case about?
In 1808 Mr Tulk sold land at Leicester Square to Mr Elms for £210.  The land was arranged as 'pleasure gardens'.  As a condition of the sale, Mr Elms covenanted (promised) that neither he nor anyone who might own the land after him would build on it.  After Mr Elms' died in 1822 the land changed hands a number of times.  By 1848 it was owned by Mr Moxhay.  Mr Moxhay was aware of the covenant entered into by Mr Elms but denied that he was bound by it.  He sought to build on Leicester Square.  Mr Tulk tried to stop him. 

Where is it on the map?
At point C.

Who won?
Mr Tulk won.  The Lord Chancellor ruled that Mr Moxhay could not build on the square as he was bound by Mr Elms' covenant.  This was because the promise contained in the covenant related directly to the land (in legal language it 'touched and concerned' the land) and because Mr Moxhay knew about the covenant when he bought the land.  It would have been unfair for him to have negotiated a low price for the land on the basis that it was not possible to build on it and then seek to deny that state of affairs once he had completed the purchase.

What's the principle?
Tulk v Moxhay is authority for the principle that the burden of a negative freehold covenant (a promise not to do something with freehold land, such as not to build on it) can be enforced against future owners of land even though they are not the original person that made the promise in the covenant.

As with most legal principles, there are a few further hoops to jump through.  The covenant must 'touch and concern' the land.  This is a notoriously difficult term to define but an example of a covenant that does not touch and concern the land would be one that contained a personal promise e.g. a promise to let a neighbour play your piano cannot be enforced against you by a person who buys your neighbour's house.  Also, the original parties to the covenant must have intended that it would run with the land.  In Tulk v Moxhay, this was apparent from Mr Elms' promise that future owners of the land would be bound by his promise.  And finally, the purchaser must have had notice of the covenant, that is to say they must have been aware of it.  But a purchaser cannot escape a covenant by turning a blind eye to the paperwork - the courts will treat a purchase as having notice of a covenant if he could have found out about it by making reasonable enquiries.

What's it like now?
In 1874 the land was purchased by Baron Grant, Member of Parliament for Kidderminster, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works.  Baron Grant paid for the ground to be refurbished and for a statue of William Shakespeare to be erected.  Today, the land is owned and maintained by Westminster City Council.

The inscription on the fountain commemorates Baron Grant's gift.

It has been 205 years since Mr Elms made his promise to Mr Tulk and the land still has not been built on. To find out more about the history of Leicester Square, take a look at this excellent website: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=41119 

Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740

What's the case about?
Mr Krell owned premises on the 3rd floor of 56a Pall Mall.  In March 1902, he advertised the premises to let.  He put up a sign pointing out that the windows would offer a good view of Edward VII's coronation procession, which was to take place on 26 and 27 June.  On 20 June, Mr Henry agreed to let the rooms for 26 and 27 June.  The agreement did not state that the premises were hired for any particular purpose.  Mr Henry paid a deposit of 25 shillings and agreed to pay a balance of 50 shillings on 24 June.  The King fell ill and his coronation was called off (he was eventually crowned in August 1902).  Mr Henry refused to pay the remaining 50 shillings. When Mr Krell sued him, Mr Henry counter-sued for a refund of the 25 shilling deposit!

Where is it on the map?
At point I.

Who won?
In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Vaughan Williams held that Mr Henry did not have to pay the balance of 50 shillings.  But he could not recover the 25 shillings already paid.

What's the principle?
This case illustrates the doctrine of frustration of contract.  The Court found that both parties knew the premises were hired for the purposes of watching the procession, even though this was not made explicit in their contract.  The coronation was a fundamental part of the contract and its cancellation made the contract impossible to perform.  As this was a factor outside of either party's control they were released from their future obligations.

What's it like now?

 
This is Quadrant House, at 55-58 Pall Mall.  The ground floor is occupied by the Commonwealth Secretariat. The third floor has an ornate balcony, which no doubt gives an excellent view of Pall Mall.  The premises are very close to St James' Palace and The Mall.  So close in fact, that I bumped into these guys on the way back to the tube:

As for the law, the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 modifies the effect of frustration on some types of contract, but Krell v Henry remains good law in some situations.

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 256

What's the case about?
In 1937, the tenant (High Trees House Ltd) took the lease of High Trees House, a block of flats in Clapham, for 99 years.  The ground rent was £2,500 per annum.  The tenants found it difficult to let the individual flats due to the outbreak of war. In 1940, the landlord (Central London Property Trust) agreed in writing to reduce the ground rent to £1,250 per annum. By early 1945 the tenant's position had improved and the whole block was occupied. In September 1945 the landlord wrote again to the tenant asking that they start paying full rent again. They brought a claim in the High Court to recover the post 1945 ground rent at the higher rate.

Where is it on the map?
At point H.

Who won?
Giving judgment, Denning J (later to become Lord Denning) held that the circumstances under which the reduction had been made (i.e. the war) no longer applied and therefore the landlord could charge ground rent at £2,500 per annum again. But Denning also stated that the landlord would not be able to recover the unpaid rent from the war period, as he had promised not to and it would be inequitable for him to go back on his promise.

What's the principle of law?
The rather grand name for the principle is 'promissory estoppel'. It modifies the basic principle that a variation of a contract can only be binding if you give something in return for it ('consideration').  

Promissory estoppel is applied at the judge's discretion where the alternative would be an unfair (inequitable) outcome.  It will not be applied if the defendant has acted in bad faith.  Where promissory estoppel is applied, it will protect a defendant who is in breach of contract but has acted in reliance of the other party's promise.

What's it like today?

 
The building is still looking elegant, and it appears that a roof terrace has been added.  Here is a link to a blog with some much better pictures than my own.

Mayor of Westminster v London and North Western Railway Company [1905] AC 426

What's the case about?
The London and North Western Railway Company owned buildings on Parliament Street.  The Mayor of Westminster had a power to construct public toilets under the Public Health (London) Act 1891.  The Mayor used this power to build toilets beneath the centre of the road. They constructed steps going down from the pavement on either side of the road.  The steps encroached on the Railway's land.  The Railway argued that the design of the scheme meant that the Mayor had in effect, constructed a public subway as well as toilets, and that he had no power in law to do this.

Where is it on the map?
At point D.

Who won?
The Mayor of Westminster won - the House of Lords held that the Mayor had used his power to construct public toilets in a legitimate way, and that the dual purpose did not invalidate this.

What's the principle of law?
The courts should not interfere where a public authority exercises its statutory discretion in a bona fide and reasonable way.


What's it like today?

 

The subway is still in use, as are the toilets!

About this blog

Many people think they are familiar with legal London - the Royal Courts of Justice, the Inns of Court, the Old Bailey etc. But the streets of London are also home to a huge amount of case law. Over the next few weeks I will be uploading details of interesting cases involving places in London. My criteria for including a case are:

• It has to be a noteworthy case, preferably one that undergraduate Law students will be familiar with
• It has to involve a place in London 
• The place has to still be there! 

Some of these locations have been easy to find, others less so. I have tracked down the locations by reading law reports, by using Google Streetview and by visiting on foot. If you think I have made any mistakes, or you have suggestions of your own, please let me know!

Amy
@AmyWoolfson