In common with all legal causes of action, the law of tort  is reduced in textbooks, courseand lecture guides to certain structural and conceptual categories . Such an exercise is necessary to the process of exchange which is comprised in teaching and learning. It helps to make sense of extensive data, it serves to highlight current or controversial issues. However, whilst the process of categorising is unavoidable, the emergent categories are not.  Tort Law categories and conceptual frameworks are  not set in stone,
but sometimes they appear to be so. So, whilst there is no right or wrong arrangement or nomenclature , there is a need to constantly test the efficacy of dominant categorisations and conceptual frameworks.
 
Designed to be used by students alongside their formal study of tort law, this series of lectures aims to support students &; critical evaluation of the field  of tort by encouraging interrogation of the way in which the law of tort is conceptualised within the university and its associated organisation - legal academic publishing.  Each lecture is structured around contemporary legal questions, deemed to raise issues of public importance. Each begins with a decision of the UK Supreme Court between decided 2015-2017. Although not
invariably the case, Supreme Court legal disputes call up and extensive history of Law, and offer as good a place as any from which to begin the task of reconceptualizing the field of torts. These  lectures reveal that existing categories sometimes oversimplify, sometimes overcomplicate the field and are sometimes quite simply misleading. They interrogate assumed fundamental distinctions- such as that of claimant and defendant - as
well as highlighting the work of those scholars and jurists who have offered usable and effective categories and concepts which under-used in the academy.