The owner of a dog is not answerable in trespass for its unauthorised entry into the land of another, often described as an unprovoked trespass1, but a man is liable in trespass if he wilfully sends a dog on another's land in pursuit of game, although he did not himself go on the land2, or if he allows a dog to roam at large, knowing it to be addicted to destroying game
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Background to the Single RulebookHistorically, the European Commission (Commission) favours using Directives (rather than Regulations) to set out its legislation in respect of the financial services sector. However, Directives, allowing Member States greater flexibility in how they implement
When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant?Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull).General
Issue estoppel is a sub-species of the res judicata doctrine (see Practice Note: The doctrine of res judicata). In addition to the general key requirements for establishing a res judicata (see Practice Note: Key requirements to establish a res judicata), this Practice Note considers the specific
Fraud by false representationFraud by false representation applies to a broader range of conduct than the offences under the preceding legislation (the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)). No gain or loss need actually be made, and no deception need operate on the mind of the deceived for the Fraud Act 2006
0330 161 1234