Roderick Bagshaw is Tutor and Fellow in Law at Magdalen College and a Lecturer in the Faculty of Law. He teaches undergraduate courses in Administrative Law, Constitutional Law and Tort Law, and on the postgraduate BCL Evidence course. He was formerly on the Executive Committee of the Society of Legal Scholars and the Convenor of the Society's Tort Law Subject Section.
Fellow of Mansfield College 1994-2002.
Lecturer, Jesus College, 1992-94.
R M Bagshaw, 'Monetary Remedies in Public Law - Misdiagnosis and Misprescription' (2006) 26(1) Legal Studies 4
R M Bagshaw, 'Children as Actionable Damage' (2004) 15 King's College Law Journal 117
N J McBride and R M Bagshaw, Tort Law (Fourth edition) (Pearson 2012) (forthcoming) [...]
Fourth edition of this textbook
Third edition of McBride and Bagshaw's Textbook on Tort.
NJ McBride and R M Bagshaw, Tort Law, Second Edition (Pearson Education 2005)
Nicholas J McBride and R M Bagshaw, Tort Law (Longman 2001) [...]
R M Bagshaw, 'Causing the Behaviour of Others and Other Causal Mixtures' in Richard Goldberg (ed), Perspectives on Causation (Hart Publishing 2011) [...]
This chapter investigates the concept of ‘cause’ which ought to be used by tort lawyers when making claims such as that Derek’s wrongful behaviour ‘caused’ Trevor to act in some way, in particular in circumstances where we regard Trevor’s action as ‘voluntary’ rather than ‘coerced’. The central issue is whether a tort lawyer’s inquiry into whether Derek’s wrongful behaviour ‘caused’ Trevor to act in some way ought to be the same as an inquiry into whether Derek’s wrongful behaviour ‘caused’ the kettle to boil or the toaster to burn the toast.
R M Bagshaw, 'The Edges of Tort Law’s Rights' in D Nolan and A Robertson (eds), Rights and Private Law (Hart Publishing 2011) [...]
Most proponents of a ‘rights-focused account’ of the law of torts argue that not only are there currently no general common law rights to pure economic benefits but there are also good reasons why general common law rights to purely economic benefits should not exist whilst general common law rights to property do, or good reasons why legislators or judges should not in future create or recognise general common law rights to purely economic benefits. The main purpose of this chapter is to evaluate these ‘good reasons’ using three perspectives provided by the ‘edges’ of currently recognised legal rights.
R M Bagshaw, 'Tort Design and Human Rights Thinking' in David Hoffman (ed), The Impact of the UK Human Rights Act on Private Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) [...]
The principal theme of this chapter is that in pursuing the goal of making English tort law compatible with Convention rights, and the related goal of developing tort law so as to allow it to assist in protecting these rights, we should not lose sight of what makes a good tort duty. Lord Bingham commended the opinion that ‘where a common law duty covers the same ground as a Convention right, it should, so far as practicable, develop in harmony with it’ (Van Colle v. Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police; Smith v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police  UKHL 50;  1 AC 225 at ). But this chapter aims to unsettle any assumption that such harmony requires the development of tort duties which mirror Convention rights, even in situations where the tort duties will be owed by public bodies. It is more important for newly developed duties to be harmonious with the goals of the law of torts than for them to replicate concepts used by the Strasbourg Court.
R M Bagshaw, 'Chapters on: \\\'Relevance, Admissibility and Weight; Previous and Subsequent Existence of Facts; The Best Evidence Rule\\\'; \\\'Corroboration, Supporting Evidence and Related Warnings\\\'; \\\'Identification\\\'; \\\'Physical Conditions, States of Mind and Emotions\\\'' in Hodge M Malek QC (ed), Phipson on Evidence, Seventeenth edition (Sweet & Maxwell 2010)
R M Bagshaw, 'Tort Law, Concepts and What Really Matters' in Andrew Robertson and Tang Hang Wu (eds), The Goals of Private Law (Hart Publishing 2009) [...]
This chapter explores the relationship between the capacity of tort law to achieve its goals and the nature of the concepts that are incorporated in the law.
R M Bagshaw, 'Behavioural Science Data in Evidence Teaching and Scholarship' in Paul Roberts and Mike Redmayne (eds), Innovations in Evidence and Proof (Hart Publishing 2007)
R M Bagshaw, 'Chapters on: 'Relevance, Admissibility and Weight; Previous and Subsequent Existence of Facts; The Best Evidence Rule'; 'Corroboration, Supporting Evidence and Related Warnings'; 'Identification'; 'Physical Conditions, States of Mind and Emotions'' in Hodge M Malek (ed), Phipson on Evidence, Sixteenth edition (Sweet & Maxwell 2005)
R M Bagshaw, 'Downloading Torts: An English Introduction to On-Line Torts' in H Snijders and S Weatherill (eds), E-Commerce Law (Kluwer Law International 2003) [...]
Chapter in book
R M Bagshaw, 'Legal Proof of Knowledge' in Mirfield and R Smith (eds), Essays for Colin Tapper (LexisNexis Butterworths 2003)
R M Bagshaw, 'Unauthorized Wedding Photographs' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 550 [...]
Casenote discussing Douglas v Hello! (no 3)
R M Bagshaw, 'Private Nuisance and Defence of the Realm' (2004) 120 Law Quarterly Review 37 [...]
R M Bagshaw, 'Rylands Confined' (2004) 120 Law Quarterly Review 388 [...]
Casenote on Transco v Stockport MBC