National University of Advanced Legal Studied

The Historical
Development of
Law of Torts in
England
History of Statutory Law and Presumptions
Project

SUBMITTED BY:
SINDHU SAMBRANI
ROLL NO. 800
II SEMESTER
NUALS

Historical Development of Law of

Torts in England
Introduction
Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an
injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party. While some torts are also
crimes punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the
damages incurred and deter others from committing the same harms. The injured person may sue
for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the tortious conduct or for monetary damages.1
The word tort has been derived from the Latin term tortum, which means to twist. It therefore,
includes that conduct which is not straight or lawful, but on the other hand, twisted, crooked or
unlawful.2 Tort is a civil,3 private4 wrong whereby the wrongdoer violates the rights of another
person in society, thereby violating the wrongdoers duty to respect the rights vested in every
member of the society.5
Originally, there was no distinction between various wrongs and there was no
compartmentalisaion like crime, tort or breach of contract etc. Various writs governed the
position. In the fourteenth century, under Common Law, the success of an action depended
wholly on the availability of a writ. The law was Ubi remedium ibi jus (where there is a remedy
there is a right) The plaintiff had to choose from a list of writs, the right writ that fits his/her
1 Legal Information Institute, Cornell law School, Tort,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort, Last visited on 4/3/2013
2 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.6
3 ibid
4 B.M. Gandhi, Law of Torts, (2nd ed.2002), p.3
5 See generally: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.6
2

cause of action. If a writ did not pertain to a particular right, the right was not recognized. The
procedural system was incredibly rigid for some 500 years. In 1832 and 1833, some amendments
were made, and ultimately in 1852, Common Law Procedure Act was passed whereby the writs
were abolished. Judicature Act, 1873 further provided that the pleading was to contain only a
statement of the summary of the facts of the case. Now the law has become Ubi jus ibi remedium
(where there is a right there is a remedy). The creation of new torts from time to time shows the
flexibility and justice of the Common Law Courts of England.6
In this paper, you will find a brief introduction of Tort Law or Tortious liability; the paper will
discuss the history and development of Tort Law in England not in general, but with specific
reference to three torts- Trespass (to land), Negligence, and Defamation. The tort of Trespass has
an ancient history, and was one of the first torts to be recognized. I will trace it from its origin.
Under Negligence, I will be dealing with its recognized elements as of today, and how these
elements developed (majorly through case laws). The tort of defamation will be divided into
slander and libel, and their individual development under various courts shall be examined. All
three Torts have been developed through Common Law in England, and thus have a dynamic
past and a stable present.

Tort of Trespass to Land

Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. In
trespass, the interference with the possession is direct and through some tangible object. If the
interference is not direct but consequential, the wrong may be a nuisance.7 To throw stones upon
ones neighbours premises is a wrong of trespass; to allow a stone from a ruinous chimney to
fall upon those premises is the wrong of nuisance. 8
6 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.1
7 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.387
8 Salmond on Torts, (14th ed.), p.72
3

Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or
doing the same through some material object e.g., throwing of stones on another persons land
driving nails into the wall, placing ladder against the wall or leaving debris upon the roof. It is
however no trespass when there is no interference with the possession and the defendant has
been merely deprived of certain facilities like gas and electricity.9
Going beyond the purpose for which a person has entered certain premises or crossing the
boundary where he has the authority to go, amount to trespass. Thus, if a person, who is allowed
to sit in a drawing room, enters the bed room without any justification, the entry into the bed
room is a trespass.
Trespass is a wrong against possession rather than ownership. Therefore, a person in actual
possession can bring an action even though, as against the true owner, his possession was
wrongful.10
Originally, since most torts were also regarded as criminal actions, the defendant typically was
punished by the King according to the criminal laws. In time, however, the King also began to
allow individual victims of the defendant's tortious (i.e., criminal) conduct to sue for their own
personal damages as well.11 The writ of trespass was developed before 1250 as a sort of civil
version of the felony for this purpose. 12Actually, those actions based upon trespass were divided
into several sub-categories, each with its own separate writ associated with particular types of
misconduct. Trespass de bonis asportatis was used for damages to the plaintiff's goods which
had been "carried away" by the defendant. Trespass quare clausum fregit was used in cases
where the defendant physically intruded onto the plaintiff's land by "breaking the imaginary
9 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.387
10 Ibid. at p.388
11 Prof. Edward C. Martin, The English Common Law Writ System,
http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/torts1/writhistory.htm, Last visited on 16/3/2013
12 Trespass: The Origin of Everything, http://www.slesher.com/trespass.html, Last visited on
16/3/2013

close" that represented the boundary line which surrounded the property ( relevant in the case of
writ of trespass to land). Finally, trespass vi et armis was used for those other Tort actions
whereby the plaintiff suffered injury to person or property by virtue of the defendant's direct and
forceful misconduct.
What the writs of trespass had in common was that they involved forcible, or at least intentional,
action that directly resulted in injury. Lawyers tried to fit their cases into one of these writs since,
if they could not, they had no case. While courts allowed some flexibility in their use, the basics
had always to apply: direct harm; forcibly caused. So, when a landholder chopped down a tree
and it landed on his neighbour, that could be squeezed into a trespass writ; but where the tree
landed on the road and a passerby stumbled over it after dark, there was no direct injury and
therefore no trespass.

To correct this problem a statute of 1285 allowed writs of trespass to be issued in consimili casu,
"in similar cases." Non-specific writs of trespass could now be obtained if the fact situation were
similar to those covered by traditional writs (as those had come to be interpreted by the courts)
even if the injuries were not direct. A trespass in consimili casu was referred to as trespass on
the case or simply case. The freedom of action allowed by actions on the case was not quickly
taken advantage of and it is not until Edward IIIs reign (1327-1377) that we begin to see
significant numbers of writs called trespass that cannot fit the traditional definitions.13
Even so, this "new" writ remained distinguishable from the original trespass writ in two very
important particulars: (1) it was only available for indirect (as opposed to direct) injuries; and (2)
the plaintiff was required to prove some actual harm (as opposed to merely presuming harm from
the fact of the tortious invasion itself).14

13 Prof. Edward C. Martin, The English Common Law Writ System,

http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/torts1/writhistory.htm, Last visited on 16/3/2013
14 Writ of Trespass on the Case, http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Writ+of+trespass+on+the+case, Last visited on
16/3/2013
5

Even though today the common law no longer recognizes these early English writs, their impact
on the individual Tort causes of action which subsequently evolved from these two early trespass
writs is nonetheless quite profound. Among our modern Tort causes of action, five specific
Intentional Tort actions can be traced directly back to the common law writ of trespass.
Interestingly, these Torts (Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land and Trespass to
Chattels) are the only Torts which still to this day do not require some type of proof of injury in
order to be actionable. Moreover, they are also the only intentional Torts in which the requisite
intent can be transferred from one to another. Indeed, each of these Torts can be established
merely upon the most "technical" showing of an intentional act (i.e., an intent "to do the act").
Most other modern Intentional Tort causes of action require at least some kind of specific intent
(i.e., intent to cause emotional distress; an intent to defame; etc), as well as proof of some actual
harm to the plaintiff (as compared with merely presuming such harm). Indeed, the modern Tort
of "Negligence" has derived directly from the trespass on the case writ.15

Tort of Negligence
Negligence may mean a mental element in tortious liability or it may mean an independent
tort. In this paper, we are concerned with negligence as a tort in itself.16
The tort of negligence may be defined as a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the
standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. 17
Thus we can note that the negligence of tort consists of three elements: (1) a legal duty on the
part of the defendant towards the plaintiff to exercise care in such conduct of the defendant as
falls within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of that duty, i.e., failure to come up to the standard

15 Prof. Edward C. Martin, The English Common Law Writ System,

http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/torts1/writhistory.htm, Last visited on 16/3/2013
16 W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, (17th ed.2006), p.132
17 Ibid.
6

of care required by law; and (3) consequential damage to the plaintiff which can be attributed to
the defendants conduct.18
The modern concept of negligence and the three elements therein were only developed after
1932, through the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson19, as the duty of care was not a concept that
was recognized prior to this case. The aforementioned case shall be dealt with later on in this
paper.20
Although the modern concept didnt exist, negligence existed in different forms in the past.
Some eight hundred (800) years ago, there existed in common law very little or no concern by
the state regarding individuals and their interactions.21
In the fourteenth century, the monarchy began to take an interest in individual interactions. The
Law of Torts saw its rise with the introduction on the Tort of Trespass. However, a party wanting
to bring an action for trespass had to follow strict forms- their trespass must fit a writ.
In the fifteenth century, the concept of actions on the case developed in response to the
narrowness of the writ system. This brought about some sense of justice as it broadened the
scope of a plaintiffs claims, and later, it developed into the form of nuisance, some other torts,
and negligence.
This early negligence only applied to certain cases such as apothecaries, doctors/surgeons, and
other people who served the public in a professional capacity, and for whom there was a general
accepted standard of appropriate conduct. They had a duty of care to the public, unlike private
individuals at that time.

18 Ibid.
19 (1932) AC 562 H. L.
20 Ibid at p.157
21 UBC Law Students, History of the law of Torts and Negligence,
www.ubclss.org/CANs/semester%202%20notes.doc, Last visited on 15/3/2013
7

In the latter half of the eighteenth century, negligence developed in a way that they could be
indirect, as opposed to the directness required by the trespass torts. Trespass torts required the
direct action of an individual to interfere with anothers ownership of their rightful property, such
as in the case of Scott v. Sheppard.22 Duty was first put forward as a unifying concept in the
law of tort in Bullers Nisi Prius (An Institute of the Law elative to Trials at Nisi Prius),
published in 1768, in which it was suggested that:23
Every man ought to take reasonable care that he does not injure his neighbour; therefore,
wherever a man receives hurt through the default of another, though the same were not wilful, yet
if it be occasioned by negligence or folly the law gives him an action to recover for the injury so
sustained. . . . However, it is proper in such cases to prove that the injury was such as would
probably follow from the act done.24
In the 1800s, instead of focusing on causation, courts began to see fault as most important for
actions on the case. With this shift in focus, it became less necessary to restrict actions to the preset categories. There was an attempt to develop a more general theory/principled approach to
negligence. However, this century saw some cases where a plaintiffs claim against a private
individual under the tort of negligence failed in court, simply because the courts seemed afraid of
the repercussions of letting a third party, not a party to a contract, sue for damages.25
The question of whether a plaintiff who was not party to the initial contract of sale or supply
should be able to claim the benefit of the warranty given thereunder by the manufacturer or

22 Ibid.
23 Negligence,
http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/extracts/9780199211364_lunney.pdf, Last visited on
15/3/2013
24 Ibid.
25 UBC Law Students, History of the law of Torts and Negligence,
www.ubclss.org/CANs/semester%202%20notes.doc, Last visited on 15/3/2013
8

supplier came up, and this was addressed through certain cases such as Heaven v. Pender26 and
Winterbottom v. Wright .27
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the Postmaster General to drive a mail coach. The coach
had been supplied to the Postmaster General by the defendant under a contract which provided
that during the term of the contract, the coach was to be kept in a fit, proper, safe and secure
state. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently conducted himself, and so utterly
disregarded his aforesaid contract and so wholly neglected and failed to perform him duty in this
behalf, that the plaintiff was injured when the coach collapsed, throwing him off his seat.
This plaint lapsed in court. Lord Abinger C. B., in his judgement, commented saying that there
was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant, and if the plaintiff could sue, then
any passenger, or any person on the road who was hurt by this mishap could bring a similar
action. He said that unless they confined the operation of such contracts, to the parties who
entered into them, the most absurd and outrageous consequences, to which [he could] see no
limit, would ensue He continues to say that there are certain classes of contracts that can be
turned into torts, but only in cases where a public duty has been undertaken, or a public nuisance
committed. In cases other than what is mentioned above, the actions available must be restricted
to parties to a contract.28
The notion that liability in negligence was based on the existence of a duty owed by the
defendant to the claimant was slow to take hold but by the early part of the nineteenth century it
was said that the plaintiff had the right to compensation or damages for the negligent or wilful
conduct of the party sued, in doing or omitting something contrary to the duty which the law

26 (1883) 11 QBD 503

27 (1842) 10 M & W 109
28 See generally: Negligence,
http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/extracts/9780199211364_lunney.pdf, Last visited on
15/3/2013
9

casts on him in the particular case. This, however, still left the question, of when the law casts
such a duty on the defendant, unanswered.29
The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson was instrumental in answering this question, and in the
advent of duty of care as recognized in the modern context.
The facts of Donoghue v. Stevenson were as follows: Friend of Donoghue (P) purchased a dark,
opaque bottle of ginger-beer and gave it to P. P drank some ginger beer, and poured some over
her ice-cream, before her friend discovered a decomposed snail in the bottle. P sued the
manufacturer for psychological harm (shock) and gastroenteritis (stomach flu).30
Her claim was successful. This case established the modern law of negligence and established
the neighbour test.31
Atkins J set up prima facie duty of care based on the neighbourhood principle. In his
judgement he said:
"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your
neighbour; and the lawyer's question "Who is my neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. You
must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be
likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be
persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them
in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions
which are called in question" 32

29 ibid
30 MAlister (Donoghue) v. Stevenson: http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/malisterdonoghue-v-stevenson/, Last visited on 17/3/2013
31 Donoghue v. Stevenson, http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Donoghue-vStevenson.php, Last visited on 17/3/2013
10

Another important case in the development of the tort of negligence is Hedley Byrne v. Heller &
Partners33
Hedley Byrne was an advertising company that asked its banker for a report on the financial
position of one of its clients, whom it was doing work on credit for. Hedleys banker asked the
clients banker (Heller) for a report. Crucially, there was no contractual relationship between
Hedley Byrne and Heller.
Heller provided a report that was stated to be given without responsibility to Hedleys bankers
and showed the client to be in a strong financial position. Hedleys bankers sent the report to
Hedley, which relied on the contents and continued to provide services on credit. The client went
into liquidation and Hedley sued Heller for its negligent report.
In a landmark judgment, the House of Lords held that, in the absence of the without
responsibility disclaimer, Hedley would have had a successful claim. Their Lordships ruled the
law imposes a duty of care on an advisor with specialist skill and knowledge who knows or
ought to know that his or her special skill is being relied on, even if he or she is not in a contract
with the person relying on the information.34
As one may have noticed, the duty of care is the main principle on which the tort of negligence is
based, and the two aforementioned cases had an important impact in determining the situations
in which this duty of care exists. The second principle, though less important, is to what extent
this duty of care exists, i.e., the standard of care. This element has been elucidated in certain
cases and through certain texts.
Standard of care:

32 (1932) AC 562 at p 580.

33(1964), AC 465 H. L.
34 Arthur Wardhaugh, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964),
http://www.supplymanagement.com/law/court-reports/2011/hedley-byrne-co-ltd-vheller-partners-ltd-1964/, Last visited on 17/3/2013
11

Generally, the expected standard of care is that the reasonable person is equipped with the same
skills and expertise as others in similar situation, which in essence is indifferent to each situation
(Blay etc. 2008). The decision in case Cook v. Cook [1986] showed a different standard of care
applied in an inexperienced person. Further, the standard of care gives way to standard of
children of the relevant age and experience, which has been shown in the case Waverley Council
v. Ferreira [1966] that the standard of care was that of a 12-year-old child.35
Thus one may conclude that different standards of care are expected of different people in
varying circumstances, but the general rule is that of the average person, or a man on the red
omnibus.
Although a new tort in its current sense, the Tort of negligence has become an important tort, as
it forms one of the three kinds of torts, namely, (i) intentional torts, (ii) negligence and (iii) strict
liability torts, actionable in a court of law. 36

Tort of Defamation
Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a persons reputation and tends to
lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make
them shun or avoid him.37
By 1882, it was established that even an innuendo can be defamatory. A statement could
sometimes be innocent prima facie but because of some latent or secondary meaning it may be
considered to be defamatory.38 In Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty and Sons,39 we saw that
where there are a number of possible explanations, it is not reasonable to pick on the one that is
35See general: Negligence,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/torts/torts03.htm, Last
visited on 16/3/2013
36 Types of Torts, http://torts.uslegal.com/types-of-torts/, Last visited on 16/3/2013
37 W.H.V. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, (17th ed. 2002), p.515
12

defamatory of the claimant. Thus, a statement would be deemed defamatory through innuendo
only if a reasonable person would infer that particular defamatory explanation as opposed to any
other innocent explanation.40
Slander and Libel:
English law divides actions for defamation into Slander and Libel.41
Slander:
In common with most of the Germanic systems, prior to the 11th century, Anglo-Saxon law was
particularly concerned with insulting words addressed by one person to another. This was an
offence which it punished with severity, sometimes with the excision of the tongue. Bot and wite
were due for certain terms of abuse before the Norman Conquest(1066 A.D.), and long after the
Conquest local courts frequently entertained cases of insult; such jurisdiction was naturally left
to the local courts, for they alone could secure amends (fines or humiliating confessions) before
the same community that had witnessed the affront. 42
Gradually it becomes apparent that local courts are giving remedy for words which are not
merely insults addressed to the plaintiff, but rather statements to his prejudice addressed to other
persons. The remedy also takes the form of a civil action for damages rather than that of a
criminal prosecution for a petty misdemeanor. There exists an interesting case in 1333 where the
county court of Bedford tried an action in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant called
him a false and faithless fellow, whereby he was prevented from raising a loan which was being
negotiated.43
38 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.195
39 (1882) 7 A. C. p.741
40 See general: W.V.H Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, (17th ed. 2002), p.526
41 R.K. Bangia Law of Torts (9th ed.1986), p.189
42 Mary Batesson, Borough Customs (Selden Society), p.78
13

Up until 1275, for serious matters of slander, the church was the most practicable jurisdiction.44
The Kings Courts didnt take up matters of defamation and admitted that the Church had
unfettered authority on this matter. But the King, like other lords, could not stand by while
someone was saying that there is no justice in the lords court, nor could he tolerate similar
statements about his principal officers. Thus, in 1275, we see the beginning of a statute called
scandalum magnatum, the slander of magnates. This statute enacted that one who publishes false
news or scandal tending to produce discord between the King and his people or the magnates
shall be kept in prison until he produces in court the originator of the tale. This dealt particularly
with political statements, and defendants were prosecuted under the Kings Court.45
Down till the 17th century, the Common Law courts dealt only with civil remedies and awarding
damages, as the ecclesiastical courts and Star Chamber, which monopolized criminal procedures,
provided the Common Law courts no room for criminal proceedings. However in 1641, with the
lapse of the Star Chamber, the Common Law courts deemed slander as criminally actionable in
certain cases. Slanders actionable per se were originally (1) imputations of temporal crimes, but
by the close of this period, (2) reflections on fitness for office, skill in trade or profession, and (3)
imputations of certain diseases were added to the list.46
Much later, more than two centuries in the future, a fourth category was added to this list.
Slander is actionable in English courts if there is an (4) imputation of unchastity or adultery to
any woman or a girl, under the Slander of Women Act, 189147
43 Text and translation in Plucknett, The County Court, Harvard Law Review, XLII.,
p.668
44Theodore Frank Thomas Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (1956),
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=2458&chapter=243142&layout=html&Itemid=27, Last visited on
14/3/2013
45 Ibid.
46 See in general: Ibid.
47 R. K. Bangia, Law of Torts (9th ed.1986), p.190
14

Libel:
Libel is defamatory representation made in some permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture,
effigy or statue.48
Libel saw its origin in the statute of scandalum magnatum, 1275 when Edward Coke was the
Attorney-General of the Star Chamber. Libel, as even of today, was treated as a tort as well as a
crime, while slander was merely a tort. We could see this as the Common Law courts gave a civil
action for damages on scandalum magnatum, but the Star Chamber concentrated mainly on the
crime, while preserving the principles and name of the statute and borrowing influences from
Roman law, thus giving rise to the crime of libel.49
In the 17th century, more specifically in 1641, the Star Chamber collapsed, and consequently
there was confusion for twenty years as to the remaining courts jurisdiction. Later however, it
was concluded that the Court of Kings Bench succeeded to as much of the Star Chambers
jurisdiction as was consistent with the then constitutional thought. Consequently the Star
Chambers law of libel was henceforth to be administered by the same court as had developed
the common law of slander; inevitably the two bodies of law were bound to influence each other,
and tended to become more coherently combined into something approaching a systematic law
of defamation.50
In the 16th century, once printing became cost effective and rampant across Europe, a long line of
proclamations and statutes came up to deal with the new menace that came with press printing.
According to one enactment, printing might constitute a statutory treason,51 and succeeding
48 Ibid. at p.189
49 Theodore Frank Thomas Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (1956),
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=2458&chapter=243142&layout=html&Itemid=27, Last visited on
14/3/2013
50 Ibid.
51Tanner, Tudor Constitutional Documents, p.386
15

statutes settled a policy of treating printing as an overt action of treason.52 Still more numerous
were the proclamations which regulated the book trade. As early as 1538 a proclamation required
a licence from the Privy Council or a bishop before any English book could be printed,53 and for
a century and a half there is a steady stream of proclamations directed against unlicensed
printing, and heretical and seditious literature. The system of licensing plays was regulated by
proclamation54 in 1661, although it was in fact a century old by this time, and many statutes from
1543 onwards punished profane interludes and plays. Statutory in its origin, the control of the
stage was finally appropriated as part of the prerogative after the Restoration. A proclamation of
1668 tried to prevent the hawking of newspapers in the streets,55and in 1688 the peddling of
books was forbidden,56 after a vain attempt to license the peddlers.
Until the 20th century, Libel was known to be only in the form of things one could see, and
slander dealt with defamatory actions that one could hear. However, in Youssoupoff v. M. G.
M. Pictures Ltd.(1934),57 it was established that even the speech that synchronizes with the
photographic part of a cinema film is also considered to be libel.58 Slesser L. J. observed:
There can be no doubt that, so far as the photographic part of the exhibition is concerned, that is
a permanent matter to be seen by the eye, and is the proper subject of an action for libel, if
defamatory. I regard the speech which is synchronized with the photographic reproduction and

52 (1547) Edw. VI, c. 12, s. 6

53 Steele, Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, p.176
54 ibid., p.3316
55 Steele, op. cit., p. 3516
56 ibid., p. 3859
57 (1934) 50 T. L. R., p.581
58 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts (9th ed.1986), p.189
16

forms part of one complex, common exhibition as an ancillary circumstance, part of the
surroundings explaining that which is to be seen.59
The Defamation Act, 1952 provides that broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy
shall be treated as publication in permanent form and thus may be a proper subject of an action
for libel.60
These are the developments of slander and libel in England till date. There is still no clear
consensus on the difference between slander and libel, as some like to include permanent
auditory information as libel61, while others such as Winfield still feel it is slander.62 Hopefully in
the coming years, through more judgments and statutes, a uniform opinion on defamation and the
two elements shall arise.

Conclusion
We have seen how Tort law has evolved over more than 800 years, and what an important place
it holds in our lives today. In the landscape of legal instruments, Tort Law is but a minute speck,
yet, it is momentous, as without it, a lack of protection of rights would exist. Tort law protects
every private individuals rights from anothers encroachment into it. Tort law acts as a security
blanket in the legal context today. Although it had not been codified, Tort law is still practiced in
the civil jurisdiction of most Common Law countries today. It continues to evolve, with the
advent of upcoming Torts such as Tort of Cyber trespass, which shows that Common Law is not
fixed, but flexible and adapts to changing times. Whether Tort Law is more important than
Criminal Law or other forms of Civil Law is an indiscernible answer, but we do however know
that each is required to protect individuals from various harms in society. Tort Law arose out of
necessity, as necessity is the mother of all inventions, and this invention has evolved so as to
59 (1934) 50 T. L. R., p.587
60 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.189
61 Salmond, Torts, (17th ed.), p.139
62 R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, (9th ed.1986), p.190
17

almost become unrecognizable from its original form today. Yet it retains the essential, original
character and principles for which it was created and valued in the first place.

18