Date: 26 September 2008

Lawindexpro cases

The following are full text judgements made available on the Internet by lawindexpro. These are  

	[ Top ] [ 183416 ]
Richards -v- Delbridge
CA 16 April 1874 Sir George Jessel MR	Trusts
	lip - The donor purported to make a voluntary gift of leasehold premises and stock in trade by endorsing on the lease “This deed and all thereto belonging I give to E from this time forth, and all the stock in trade”. This document was delivered to E’s mother on his behalf. Held: No valid declaration of trust was made in favour of E. For a man to make himself a trustee, he must express an intention to become a trustee.
	Link to full text judgment: - (1874) LR 18 Eq 1116 April 1874 - lip
	[ Top ] [ 183107 ]
Carlill -v- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
CA 07 December 1892 Lindley LJ, Bowen LJ, Smith LJ	Contract
	lip - The defendants advertised "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying "£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions." The plaintiff bought one and used it, but suffered influenza. Hawkins J had held that she was entitled to recover the £100. The defendants appealed. Held: The appeal failed. A contract had been made. The offer was a unilateral contract capable of acceptance by anyone satisfying the conditions. Notification of performance was not required to show acceptance. That the company intended this as a serious offer was reflected by their placing £1000 on deposit for the purpose. lip - Lindley LJ said: 'We must first consider whether this was intended to be a promise at all, or whether it was a mere puff which meant nothing. Was it a mere puff? My answer to that question is "No," and I base my answer upon this passage: "£1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter." Now, for what was that money deposited or that statement made except to negative the suggestion that this was a mere puff and meant nothing at all? The deposit is called in aid by the advertiser as a proof of his sincerity in the matter-that is, the sincerity of his promise to pay this £100 in the event which he has specified. I say this for the purpose of giving point to the observation that we are not inferring a promise; there is the promise, as plain as words can make it. There was ample consideration for the promise.'
	Link to full text judgment: - [1892] EWCA Civ 1 - [1892] 4 R 176 - [1892] 9 TLR 124 - [1892] 41 WR 210 - [1892] 57 JP 325 - [1892] 67 LT 837 - [1892] 62 LJ QB 257 - [1892] 4 All ER Rep 127 - [1893] 1 QB 256 - Hamlyn - Justis - lip 07 December 1892 - Bailii
	- (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174046 ]
Blair -v- Osborne & Tomkins and Another
CA 12 November 1970 Lord Denning M.R., Widgery and Megaw L.JJ	Construction - Contract - Damages - Intellectual Property
	lip - Two neighbours engaged an architect to draw up plans for a building at the rear of their houses. He charged them the full RIBA rate for the plans. They did not ask the architect to build the house or supervise the project but handed the plans to a builder, who made minor amendments, then submitted them as his own design. The architect sued for infringement of the copyright in the plans. He appealed an award of only nominal damages. Held: The nominal award was correct. The contract included an implied term that the land owners would be free to use the plans to build the house, including necessary licences. The attribution was wrongful, but was not the source of damage.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1971] 1 All ER 468 - [1971] 2 WLR 503 - [1971] 1 QB 7812 November 1970 - lip
	Beck v. Montana Constructions Pty. Ltd. [1964-5] N.S.W.R. 229 - (Approved)
	[ Top ] [ 174316 ]
Jarvis -v- Swans Tours Ltd
CA 16 October 1972 Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies and Stephenson LJJ	Consumer - Contract - Damages
	lip - The plaintiff had booked a holiday through the defendant travel tour company. He claimed damages after the holiday failed to live up to expectations. Held: In appropriate cases where one party contracts to provide entertainment and enjoyment, including a contract for a holiday, damages can be recovered for mental distress and vexation. The damages awarded by the county court judge were inadequate. The descriptions in the brochure were representations or warranties, but after the 1967 Act, it was no longer necessary to decide which since damages were available for either. The measure of damages was the loss of entertainment and enjoyment which was promised, and not delivered.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1972] EWCA Civ 8 - [1973] QB 233 - [1972] 3 WLR 954 - [1973] 1 All ER 7116 October 1972 - Bailii 18 October 1972 - lip
	Misrepresentation Act 1967
	Hobbs v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 111 - (Not Followed) Bailey v. Bullock [1950] 2 All E.R. 1167 - (Cited) Stedman v. Swan's Tours (1951) 95 S.J. 727, C.A. - (Cited) Bruen v. Bruce (Practice Note) [1959] 1 W.L.R. 684; [1959] 2 All E.R. 375, C.A. - (Cited) Feldman v. Allways Travel Service [1957] C.L.Y. 934 - (Cited) Hamlin v. Great Northern Railway Co. (1856) 1 H. & N. 408 - (Not Followed) Griffiths -v- Evans - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174048 ]
Wallis's Cayton Bay Holiday Camp Ltd -v- Shell-Mex and BP Ltd
CA 10 July 1974 Lord Denning MR, Stamp and Ormrod L.JJ.	Land - Limitation
	lip - A strip of land between a holiday camp and a garage had been conveyed as an intended roadway. It had not been fenced. A plot of land was sold by the previous farmer to the garage. Later the plaintiffs bought the farm, excluding the roadway, and the disputed land. They farmed the disputed land for several years. The garage was sold to the defendants, but the land remained unidentified, and the plaintiffs continued to farm it. The new road was abandoned, and the defendants tried to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. When they sought to fence the land, the action was begun, claiming possessory title, but failed. The plaintiffs appealed. Held: The owners of the disputed land had left it unoccupied for the purposes of eventual use in connection with the proposed new road and there had been no sufficient ouster of the owners so as to create 12 years' adverse possession within the Limitation Act 1939. The appeal failed.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1975] QB 94 - [1974] 3 WLR 38710 July 1974 - lip
	Leigh v. Jack (1879) 5 Ex.D. 264, CA - (Applied) Williams Brothers Direct Supply Ltd. v. Raftery [1958] 1 Q.B. 159, CA - (Applied)
	[ Top ] [ 174733 ]
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B V -v- Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
CA 16 January 1976 Megaw, Roskill and Goff L.JJ	Agency - Company - Equity - Insolvency
	lip - The seller sold aluminium to the defendant, but included a clause under which they retained title in the materials sold, even if mixed in with manufactured goods, until they had been paid for the metal. The defendants appealed a finding that the receivers held the proceeds of sale of the manufactured goods on trust for the plaintiffs. Held: The appeal failed. The intention of the clause was to secure for as long as possible payment of the purchase price of the aluminium. There had to be read into the contract a duty on the defendant to act under the fiduciary relationship of principal and agent, bailor and bailee, as was contemplated in the clause. The plaintiffs could trace the proceeds of the sub-sales, and recover them.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1976] 1 WLR 67616 January 1976 - lip
	In re Hallett's Estate (1880) 13 Ch.D. 696, C.A - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 177494 ]
Wigginton & Milner Ltd -v- Winster Engineering Ltd
CA 07 December 1977 Buckley and Bridge LJJ and Sir David Cairns, Megarry J	Land
	lip - Various conveyances had dealt with land. By mistake, certain land was excluded from the plans. Held: The plan had been included 'for identification purposes only', but that did not mean that the plan was to be disregarded. It could not overrule the description in the parcels, but the indications it provided were properly used to establish what land had been intended to be conveyed. In this case the land and parcels description was sufficient to say that the land had not been intended to be included in the relevant conveyance: "providing a plan did not conflict with explicit descriptions in the parcels, the fact that it was said to be 'for identification only' did not exclude it from consideration in order to solve problems left undecided by the explicit descriptions in the parcels." In fixing a boundary line, the first recourse is to the description of the property in the relevant conveyance. If the relevant conveyance, in normal circumstances the parcels clause, contains a verbal description of the property in question, sufficient to enable the disputed line to be ascertained; there is no need to refer to the conveyance plan. If, however, no definite conclusion can be reached from the parts or the whole of the description, the recitals and other parts of the deed can be considered for expressions of the intention of the parties. If these cannot be found, extrinsic evidence can, in some few cases, be used, for example to show to what property the description applies. lip - Buckley LJ explained Neilson v Poole: "There, Brooklands South is a specific description of a piece of land, the boundaries of which could be established by extrinsic evidence. If the plan was not to control the parcels, the plan could not have any relation to the boundaries of what was known as Brooklands South, those being matters which were implicit in the explicit description of the parcel concerned as 'what was known as Brooklands South'; and the observation by Megarry J that words such as 'for the purposes of identification only seemed to him to confine the use of the plan to ascertaining where the land is situated, was I think an obiter observation on his part and not part of his decision at all, for he was not concerned merely with that phrase but with its use in conjunction with 'more particularly delineated'."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1978] 1 WLR 146207 December 1977 - lip
	- (Explained)
	[ Top ] [ 177400 ]
Allen and Another -v- Greenwood and Another
CA 16 October 1978 Buckley, Orr and Goff L.JJ	Land - Limitation
	lip - The claimants greenhouse had been in the same position for over 20 years. They complained about work on the defendant neighbour's land which interfered with the rights of light they had acquired. Held: The Act set the standard for the easement acquired by prescription as the extent required for the use which had been made. The greenhouse required extra light, and that was the extent of the easement acquired.
	Link to full text judgment: 16 October 1978 - lip
	Prescription Act 1832 3
	Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores Ltd. [1904] AC 179, HL - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 178200 ]
Domb and Another -v- Isoz
CA 29 November 1979 Buckley, Bridge and Templeman LLJ	Agency - Contract - Land - Legal Professions
	lip - In a chain of conveyancing transactions, a solicitor sent his contract and deposit to his vendor's solicitor, asking him to hold it to his order pending exchange. On the next day, that vendor's solicitors agreed to an exchange of contracts over the telephone on his own purchase, but his client then told him not to proceed. The solicitor did not deliver the contract on that purchase, and claimed that under the postal rule, exchange had not taken place. The purchaser appealed a finding that there was no contract. Held: A contract had been created. The solicitor had his client's authority to exchange in this manner, and the contract was made at the time of the agreement on the telephone. The contract could come into existence before the posting of the second part of the contract, which would be the normal rule for postal acceptance. lip - Buckley LJ: "the essential characteristic of exchange of contracts is that each party shall have such a document signed by the other party in his possession or control so that, at his own need, he can have the document available for his own use. Exchange of a written contract for sale is in my judgment effected so soon as each part of the contract, signed by the vendor or the purchaser as the case may be, is in the actual or constructive possession of the other party or of his solicitor. Such possession need not be actual or physical possession; possession by an agent of the party or of his solicitor, in such circumstances that the party or solicitor in question has control over the document and can at any time procure its actual physical possession will, in my opinion, suffice. In such a case the possession of the agent is the possession of the principal. A party's solicitor employed to act in respect of such a contract has, subject to express instructions, implied authority to effect exchange of contracts and so to make the bargain binding upon his client. This he can, in my judgment, do by any method which is effectual to constitute exchange." lip - BRIDGE LJ: "A solicitor acting for a vendor or a purchaser who holds his client's signed part of the contract has his client's ostensible authority to effect exchange of contracts." lip - Templeman LJ: "In my judgment a client impliedly authorises, and ostensibly authorises, his solicitor to effect exchange of contracts in such manner and by such agents as the solicitor may think fit. The client confers power to exchange, but is not interested in the machinery or method of exchange, which is a matter for the solicitor and the general law."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1980] 1 All ER 942 - [1980] Ch 548 - [1980] 2 WLR 56529 November 1979 - lip
	Eccles v. Bryant and Pollock [1948] Ch. 93 - (Cited) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 190115 ]
Wilsher -v- Essex Area Health Authority
CA 01 January 1986 Mustill LJ, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C	Professional Negligence
	lip - A prematurely-born baby was the subject of certain medical procedures, in the course of which a breach of duty occurred. to ensure that the correct amount was administered it was necessary to insert a catheter into an umbilical artery so that his arterial blood oxygen levels would be accurately read on an electronic monitor. A junior doctor mistakenly inserted the catheter into the umbilical vein with the result that the monitor would give a lower reading. Neither he nor the senior registrar appreciated that the X-rays taken showed the catheter in the vein but both realised that there was something wrong with the readings on the monitor. The senior registrar inserted another catheter but into the same vein and other means of monitoring the arterial blood oxygen were also adopted. The following day the second catheter was replaced by one in the artery. Thereafter the monitoring of the arterial blood oxygen levels continued and at times during the following weeks there were periods when the levels were considered too high. The plaintiff developed retrolental fibroplasia, a condition of the eyes, which resulted in blindness. The breach of duty increased the risk of his suffering it. But there were a number of other factors which might have caused the injury. Held: "If it is an established fact that conduct of a particular kind creates a risk that injury will be caused to another or increases an existing risk that injury will ensue; and if the two parties stand in such a relationship that the one party owes a duty not to conduct himself in that way; and if the first party does conduct himself in that way; and if the other party does suffer injury of the kind to which the risk related; then the first party is taken to have caused the injury by his breach of duty, even though the existence and extent of the contribution made by the breach cannot be ascertained."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1987] 2 WLR 425 - [1986] 3 All ER 80124 July 1986 - lip
	Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 - (Applied) A/S Rendal v. Arcos Ltd. (1937) 43 Com. Cas. 1, HL(E) - (Cited) Bonnington Castings Ltd. v. Wardlaw [1956] AC 613; [1956] 2 WLR 707; [1956] 1 All ER 615, HL(Sc) - (Cited) McDermid v. Nash Dredging & Reclamation Co. Ltd. [1986] Q.B 965; [1986] 3 WLR 45; [1986] 2 All ER 676, CA - (Cited) - (Reviewed) - (Appealed to)
	[ Top ] [ 177484 ]
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd -v- Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
CA 12 November 1987 Dillon and Bingham LJJ	Contract
	lip - Lord Justice Bingham described "an overriding principle" recognised by the law of obligations "in many civil law systems, and perhaps in most legal systems outside the common law world" that "in making and carrying out contracts parties should act in good faith". However English law recognised no such principle: "English law . . . has developed piecemeal solutions in response to demonstrated problems of unfairness. Many examples could be given. Thus equity has intervened to strike down unconscionable bargains. Parliament has stepped in to regulate the imposition of exemption clauses and the form of certain hire-purchase agreements. The common law also has made its contribution, by holding that certain classes of contract require the utmost good faith, by treating as irrecoverable what purport to be agreed estimates of damage but are in truth a disguised penalty for breach, and in many other ways." The defendant was to be relieved of the liability imposed by the standard terms sought because the plaintiff had not done "what was necessary to draw this unreasonable and extortionate clause fairly to [the defendant's] attention". But "In reaching the conclusion I have expressed I would not wish to be taken as deciding that condition 2 was not challengeable as a disguised penalty clause. This point was not argued before the judge nor raised in the notice of appeal. It was accordingly not argued before us. I have accordingly felt bound to assume, somewhat reluctantly, that condition 2 would be enforceable if fully and fairly brought to the defendants' attention." lip - Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date. Held: The plaintiff had not managed to include the terms in the contract, which was only made when the deivery was received. Damages on a quantum meruit were substituted. Where a party wishes to incorporate particularly onerous or unusual conditions, it is necessary to do something to draw the attention of the other party to those conditions. A delivery of goods at the request of a potential customer may constitute an offer to supply the goods, which the customer accepts by keeping the goods. There should be no over-arching principle of good faith, but rather piecemeal solutions in response to demonstrated problems of unfairness. lip - Lord Justice Dillon: "It has to be said, however, that the holding fee charged by the plaintiffs by condition 2 is extremely high and in my view exorbitant. . . . It would seem therefore that the defendants would have had a strong case for saying that condition 2 was void and unenforceable as a penalty clause; but that point was not taken in the court below or in the notice of appeal."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1987] EWCA Civ 6 - [1998] 1 All ER 348 - [1989] QB 43312 November 1987 - Bailii 12 November 1987 - lip
	Hood v. Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers) Ltd. [1918] AC 837, HL(E) - (Cited) McCutcheon v. David MacBrayne Ltd. [1964] 1 WLR 125; [1964] 1 All ER 430, HL(Sc) - (Cited) Parker v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1877) 2 C.P.D. 416, CA - (Cited) Spurling (J.) Ltd. v. Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461; [1956] 2 All ER 121, CA - (Cited) Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1971] 2 QB 163; [1971] 2 WLR 585; [1971] 1 All ER 686, CA - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174712 ]
Bristol Airport Plc and Another -v- Powdrill and Others
CA 21 December 1989 Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC, Woolf and Staughton L.JJ.	Company - Insolvency - Transport
	lip - An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to allow seizure. Held: The definition of property in the 1982 Act was wide enough to include leased property. The planes were capable of being seized to create a lien. The exercising of a lien was taking action to enforce a security, and therefore required the court's consent. The court had correctly exercised its discretion not to allow seizure to allow the orderly conduct of the administration of the company.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1990] Ch 744 - [1990] 2 WLR 1362b21 December 1989 - lip
	Civil Aviation Act 1982 88(1) Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)
	Air Ecosse Ltd. v. Civil Aviation Authority (1987) 3 B.C.C. 492, Ct. of Session - (Cited) Channel Airways Ltd. v. Manchester Corporation [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 456 - (Cited) Havelet Leasing Ltd. v. Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd. (unreported), 29 June 1988, Phillips J. - (Cited) Quazi v. Quazi [1980] A.C. 744; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 833; [1979] 3 All E.R. 897, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Queen of the South, The [1968] P. 449; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 973; [1968] 1 All E.R. 1163 - (Cited) Smith (A Bankrupt), In re, Ex parte Braintree District Council [1989] 3 W.L.R. 1317; [1989] 3 All E.R. 897, H.L.(E.) - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 174137 ]
BBC Enterprises Ltd -v- Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd and Others
CA 21 December 1989 Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V.-C., Staughton and Beldam L.JJ	Intellectual Property - Media
	lip - The plaintiff sold television entertainment through subscriptions. The broadcasts were protected by encryption. The defendant sold equipment which could unscramble the broadcasts. They were sued under the section. At first instance, the claim was struck out. Held: Programmes were received under the terms of the licence granted by the broadcaster. Those who had not paid were not so licensed, and the receptions were unlawful. Those who sold equipment designed to achieve this were acting in breach of the section. The claim was to proceed.
	Link to full text judgment: 21 December 1989 - lip
	Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 298(2)
	Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co. Ltd. [1955] A.C. 696; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 1135; [1955] 2 All E.R. 345, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines Ltd. [1981] A.C. 251; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 209; [1980] 2 All E.R. 696, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Bradlaugh v. Clarke (1883) 8 App.Cas. 354, H.L.(E.) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174246 ]
Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
CA 31 May 1991 Lords Justices Parker, Stocker and Nolan	Damages - Personal Injury
	lip - The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on television. Held: To establish a claim the plaintiffs had to show that it was foreseeable that they would suffer the injury, and also a sufficiently close relationship with the deceased. If this was not a family relationship, it had to be one of particular closeness. To make a claim for damages for nervous shock, the plaintiffs must show physical proximity. Those who had seen the events on television could not claim.
	Link to full text judgment: 31 May 1991 - lip
	Donoghue -v- Stevenson [1932] AC 562 HL(Sc) - (Cited) Hevican v. Ruane [1991] 3 All E.R. 65 - (Doubted) Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All E.R. 73 - (Doubted) Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 174706 ]
Airedale NHS Trust -v- Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
CA 09 December 1992 Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Butler-Sloss and Hoffmann LJJ	Administrative - Crime - Health - Health Professions
	lip - The official Solicitor appealed a decision that doctors could withdraw medical treatment including artificial nutrition, from a patient in persistent vegetative state. Held: The doctors sought permission to act in accordance with recommended medical practice. Agreement was universal that there was no prospect of the patient's improvement, nor any purpose in continued treatment. The purpose of medical treatment was to act for the benefit of the patient, and no benefit was being derived. The inviolability of life is not an absolute, and hear no direct interference was proposed, but rather the withdrawal of support. The appeal failed.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1993] 2 WLR 31609 December 1992 - lip
	T. (Adult: Refusal of Treatment), In re [1992] 3 W.L.R. 782; [1992] 4 All E.R. 649, C.A. - (Cited) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] A.C. 871; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 480; [1985] 1 All E.R. 643, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Reg. v. Stone [1977] Q.B. 354; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 169; [1977] 2 All E.R. 341, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Cox (unreported), 18 September 1992, Ognall J. Reg. v. Adams (unreported), 8 April 1957, Devlin J. - (Cited) Quinlan, In re (1976) 355 A.2d 647 - (Cited) Nancy B. v. Hotel-Dieu de Quebec (1992) 86 D.L.R. (4th) 385 - (Cited) Malette v. Shulman (1990) 67 D.L.R. (4th) 321 Jobes, In re (1987) 529 A.2d 434 - (Cited) B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), In re [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1421; [1990] 3 All E.R. 927, C.A. - (Cited) B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation), In re [1988] A.C. 199; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 1213; [1987] 2 All E.R. 206, H.L.(E.) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582; [1957] 2 All E.R. 118 - (Cited) C. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), In re [1990] Fam. 26; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 240; [1989] 2 All E.R. 782, C.A. - (Cited) F. (Mental Patient: Sterilisation), In re [1990] 2 A.C. 1; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 1025; [1989] 2 All E.R. 545, H.L.(E.) J. (A Minor) (Child in Care: Medical Treatment), In re [1993] Fam. 15; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 507; [1992] 4 All E.R. 614, C.A. - (Cited) J. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), In re [1991] Fam. 33; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 140; [1990] 3 All E.R. 930, C.A. - (Cited) Airedale N.H.S. Trust -v- Bland - (Appeal from) Airedale N.H.S. Trust -v- Bland - (Appealed to) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582; [1957] 2 All E.R. 118 - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 89578 ]
Stovin -v- Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party)
CA 16 February 1994 Nourse, Kennedy and Roch L.JJ	Negligence - Road Traffic
	lip - A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view. Held: The Highway Authority could be liable in negligence for failing to achieve a remedy to a situation which it knew to be dangerous, but that no additional duty was owed, under its statutory duty to maintain the highway, to execute works on private land. Kennedy LJ "I agree with the judge that the statutory duty to maintain the highway does not extend to work on land not forming part of the highway. There is no definition of highway in the Act of 1980 beyond that in section 328(1), where it is defined as meaning 'the whole or a part of a highway, other than a ferry or waterway,' but the common law definition is that a highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage. It seems to me that despite what is contained in the other statutory provisions to which we have been referred it would be stretching the meaning of both 'highway' and 'maintain' if this court were to say that in order to comply with its duty to maintain the highway authority had to remove an obstruction to visibility situated on adjoining land. In my judgment sections 79 and 154 are merely sections which enable the highway authority to carry out functions which go beyond the scope of section 41. Accordingly I conclude that the judge was right not to find any relevant breach of statutory duty."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1994] 1 WLR 1124 - [1994] 3 All ER 46716 February 1994 - lip 08 March 1994 - Times (Ref) 13 April 1994 - Gazette (Ref)
	Highways Act 1980 41(1) 328(1)
	Haydon v. Kent County Council [1978] Q.B. 343, C.A. - (Considered) Anns v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728, H.L.(E.) - (Considered) Murphy v. Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC. 398, H.L.(E.) - (Considered) East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent [1941] A.C. 74, H.L.(E.) - (Distinguished) Sheppard v. Glossop Corporation [1921] 3 K.B. 132, C.A. - (Distinguished)
	[ Top ] [ 174740 ]
Regina -v- Collins
CACD 05 May 1972 Edmund Davies and Stephenson L.JJ. and Boreham J.	Crime
	lip - The defendant was accused of burglary. He had followed a woman from a public house, entered her bedroom via a ladder and had sex with her. She thought he was her boyfriend. He denied entry as a trespasser with intent to rape, saying she had invited him in as he was about to enter the window. Held: He entered as a trespasser if he entered knowing or being reckless as to whether he was entering unlawfully. The jury had to conclude that he had already made a substantial entry into the house before he had been mistakenly invited in. The direction had not been in adequate terms, and the conviction was overturned. The common law doctrine of trespass ab initio has no application to burglary under the Theft Act 1968.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1972] EWCA Crim 105 May 1972 - Bailii 05 May 1972 - lip
	Theft Act 1968 9(1)(a)
	[ Top ] [ 174045 ]
Regina -v- Turnbull and Another; Regina -v- Whitby; Regina -v- Roberts
CACD 09 June 1976 Widgery LCJ, Roskill and Lawton L.JJ., Cusack and May JJ	Criminal Practice - Evidence
	lip - Lord Widgery discussed the direction about alibi evidence: "Care should be taken by the judge when directing the jury about the support for an identification which may be derived from the fact that they have rejected an alibi. False alibis may be put forward for many reasons: an accused, for example, who has only his own truthful evidence to rely on may stupidly fabricate an alibi and get lying witnesses to support it out of fear that his own evidence will not be enough. Further, alibi witnesses can make genuine mistakes about dates and occasions like any other witnesses can. It is only when the jury is satisfied that the sole reason for the fabrication was to deceive them and there is no other explanation for its being put forward, that fabrication can provide any support for identification evidence. The jury should be reminded that proving the accused has told lies about where he was at the material time does not by itself prove that he was where the identifying witness says he was." lip - The defendants appealed their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification. Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance upon the correctness of identification. No special form of words need be used. The jury should examine closely the circumstances of the identification. Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger, but mistakes can still be made. Lord Widgery: "In our judgment the dangers of miscarriage of justice occurring can be much reduced if trial judges sum up to juries in the way indicated in this judgment. First, whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken, the Judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications. In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such a warning and should make some reference to the possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken. Provided this is done in clear terms the Judge need not use any particular form of words. Secondly, the judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made. How long did the witness have the accused under observation? At what distance? In what light? Was the observation impeded in any way, as for example by passing traffic or a press of people? Had the witness ever seen the accused before? How often? If only occasionally, had he any special reason for remembering the accused? How long elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police? Was there any material discrepancy between the description of the accused given to the police by the witness when first seen by them and his actual appearance? If in any case, whether it is being dealt with summarily or on indictment, the prosecution have reason to believe that there is such a material discrepancy they should supply the accused or his legal advisers with particulars of the description the police were first given. In all cases if the accused asks to be given particulars of such descriptions, the prosecution should supply them. Finally, he should remind the jury of any specific weaknesses which had appeared in the identification evidence. Recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows, the jury should be reminded that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. All these matters go to the quality of the identification evidence. If the quality is good and remains good at the close of the accused's case, the danger of a mistaken identification is lessened, but the poorer the quality, the greater the danger. . . . When, in the judgment of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the situation is very different. The judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification. This may be corroboration in the sense lawyers use that word; but it need not be so if its effect is to make the jury sure that there has been no mistaken identification: for example, X sees the accused snatch a woman's handbag; he gets only a fleeting glance of the thief's face as he runs off but he does see him entering a nearby house. Later he picks out the accused on an identity parade. If there was no more evidence than this, the poor quality of the identification would require the judge to withdraw the case from the jury; but this would not be so if there was evidence that the house into which the accused was alleged by X to have run was his father's. . . . In our judgment odd coincidences can, if unexplained, be supporting evidence. The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable of supporting the evidence of identification. If there is any evidence or circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the judge should say so."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1976] 3 All ER 549 - (1976) 63 CAR 132 - [1977] QB 224 - [1976] 3 WLR 44509 June 1976 - lip
	Regina -v- Long (1973) 57 Cr.App.R. 871, C.4. - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 177454 ]
Regina -v- Minors, Regina -v- Harper
CACD 14 December 1988 Watkins L.J., Bush and Steyn JJ	Crime - Evidence
	lip - In each case, the prosecution had produced a computer record to the court as evidence. The record was a computer print out. They challenged their convictions. Held: To admit such evidence, the court had to see compliance with both sections. There should if necessary, be a trial within a trial first, to decide whether the document would generally be admissible under section 68, followed by a test of whether the specific provisions for computer data were also met.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1989] 1 WLR 441 CA14 December 1988 - lip
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 68 69
	- (Considered) Reg. v. Bray, The Times, 4 July 1988, C.A. - (Cited) - (Cited) Reg. v. Wood (1982) 76 Cr.App.R. 23, C.A. - (Cited) Sophocleous v. Ringer [1988] R.T.R. 52, D.C. - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 177325 ]
Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1991)
CACD 16 June 1992 Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ, Macpherson of Cluny and Turner JJ	Crime - Evidence
	lip - The defendant was accused of misusing computer access to put himself in a position to carry out a fraud. The judge held that the section required more than one computer to have been involved. The court was asked to answer whether this was the case. Held: The charge under section 1(1)(a) of using "a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer," did not require the misuse of one computer to access another. Section 1(1) could be satisfied by causing a computer to perform a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to any program or data held in the same computer.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1993] QB 9416 June 1992 - lip
	Computer Misuse Act 1990 1(1)(a) 2(1)
	[ Top ] [ 86240 ]
Regina -v- Brown
CACD 28 May 1993 Staughton L.J., Hidden and Laws JJ	Crime - Information
	lip - A police officer misused his position to access records held on a police computer. Held: Merely accessing computer data by viewing it was not 'use' within the Act, and this particular offence was not established. The word 'use' must be given its ordinary meaning, which required something more. The court certified a question of law and refused leave to appeal.
	Link to full text judgment: 28 May 1993 - lip 04 June 1993 - Times (Ref)
	Data Protection Act 1984 5(2)(b)
	[ Top ] [ 174080 ]
Wolf -v- Crutchley
ChD 23 October 1970 Lord Denning M.R., Phillimore and Cairns L.JJ.	Landlord and Tenant
	lip - The plaintiff came to own two adjoining houses, let on long leases at low rents. She sought to use the legislation to enfranchise one property. The landlord objected saying that the houses had been used as guesthouses, and that a door had been opened up between them. They had come to be rated as one property. Held: The house was structurally independent, and occupied as a dwellinghouse, and the section was complied with. It was not particularly useful to seek to import ideas from the Rent Acts. Three considerations applied, the separate leasehold interests, use as a residence, and being structurally separate.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1971] 1 WLR 9923 October 1970 - lip
	Leasehold Reform Act 1967 3
	Lake v. Bennett [1970] 1 Q.B. 663 - (Cited) Peck v. Anicar Properties Ltd., The Times, October 15, 1970, C.A. - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174087 ]
Willson and Another -v- Greene and Another
ChD 10 November 1970 Mr Justice Foster	Contract - Land
	lip - A plot of land had been originally sold after being pegged out, but the conveyance plan differed from the line pegged out. The land was again sold with a plan on both contract and conveyance still being incorrect. In each case the plan had been used 'for identification purposes only', and the purchaser knew the layout of the actual boundary. Held: Since the plans were used for identification purposes only, and the parties knew of the actual position of the boundary, the court was entitled to take into account the surrounding circumstances to construe the contract. The actual layout on the land prevailed.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1971] 1 WLR 63510 November 1970 - lip
	Webb v. Nightingale, March 8, 1957, C.A.; Bar Library Transcript No. 84 - (Applied)
	[ Top ] [ 177401 ]
In Re Thurlow, Decd Riddick and Another -v- Kennard and Others
ChD 07 July 1971 Pennycuick VC	Wills and Probate
	lip - The will stated that the residuary estate should be divided between 'the descendants' of the deceased's late parents. How was the phrase to be interpreted? Only relations of the parents' brothers and sisters existed. Held: In modern society, the terms descendants must be taken to refer to the children of the person, and did not include collateral relations. The residuary estate passed as on intestacy.
	Link to full text judgment: 07 July 1971 - lip
	Best v. Stonehewer (1864) 34 Beav. 66; (1865) 2 De G.J. & Sm. 537, C.A. - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 174718 ]
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B V -v- Romalpa Aluminium Ltd
ChD 11 February 1975 Mocatta J	Company - Contract - Contract - Equity - Insolvency
	lip - The plaintiffs sold aluminium to the defendant and by a clause in the contract retained their title in the materials sold until payment was received. The purchaser went into insolvent receivership, and the seller sought recovery of the equipment and proceeds of sale of articles made from the materials. The defendants allowed that they had been bailees of the material supplied by the plaintiffs until all debts were paid, but claimed that this was overridden by sales to bona fide purchasers. Held: The clause showed an intention to create a fiduciary arrangement between seller and buyer, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the proceeds of sales to third parties.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1976] 1 WLR 67611 February 1975 - lip
	King v. Hutton [1900] 2 Q.B. 504, C.A. - (Cited) Henry v. Hammond [1913] 2 K.B. 515, D.C. - (Cited) Hallett's Estate, In re (1880) 13 Ch.D. 696, C.A. - (Cited) Diplock, In. re [1948] Ch. 465, C.A. - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 177326 ]
Derby & Co Ltd And Others -v- Weldon And Others (No 9)
ChD 25 July 1990 Mr Justice Vinelott	Evidence - Litigation Practice
	lip - The court considered the application of rules relating to the discovery of documents to material held on computer: "the database of a computer, so far as it contained information capable of being retrieved and converted into readable form, and whether stored in the computer itself or in back-up files, was a document" and ". . . there can be no distinction in principle between the tape used to record a telephone conversation in Grant v Southwestern and County Properties Ltd, which was an ordinary analogue tape on which the shape of sound waves is, as it were, mimicked by the pattern of the chemical deposit on the tape, and a compact disc or digital tape on which sound, speech as well as music, is mapped by co-ordinates and recorded in the form of groups of binary numbers. And so no clear dividing line can be drawn between digital tape recording messages and the database of a computer, on which information which has been fed into the computer is analysed and recorded in a variety of media in binary language." lip - The plaintiffs provided discovery by way of computer printouts. Some defendants sought access to the computer to obtain information about the transactions at issue. The plaintiffs resisted saying that the computer was not a document subject to discovery. Held: The computer database was a document capable of discovered. However the actual discovery ordered would be limited to matter material to the action, and made subject to other conditions so as to protect the records.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1991] 1 WLR 65225 July 1990 - lip
	Grant v. Southwestern and County Properties Ltd. [1975] Ch. 185 - (Cited) - (See Also) - (See Also)
	[ Top ] [ 174442 ]
Re a Debtor (No 2021 of 1995), ex parte Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- The Debtor: Re a Debtor (No 2022 of 1995), ex parte Inland Revenue Commissioners -v- The Debtor [1996] All ER 2 345
ChD 20 November 1995 Laddie J	Insolvency
	lip - The creditor filed a notice of proxy by telephone. The Chairman of the creditor's meeting refused to accept it. The creditor applied to the court. Held: The rules required a signed proxy, but a faxed signature was acceptable. Forms of signature other than those done under hand had been accepted previously. The transmission of a letter by fax did not create any confusion by way of duplication. The chairman should have accepted the proxy by fax. A faxed signature fulfilled the statutory requirement, being a distinctive or personal marking placed there by authority of the creditor.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1996] All ER 2 34520 November 1995 - lip
	[ Top ] [ 168116 ]
Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd
ChD 14 March 2002 Pumfrey J	Damages - Intellectual Property
	lip - The claimant sought additional and punitive damages for infringement of copyright by the defendant. Held: The section should not normally justify an award of purely punitive or exemplary damages. The existence of several copyrights in any work might otherwise leave an infringer open to several such claims. Criminal offences had been created for infringement carried out knowingly. Nevertheless for additional damages can be made for cases of carelessness amounting to an attitude of 'couldn't care less': recklessness could also be equated to deliberation.
	Link to full text judgment: - [2002] EMLR 33 - [2002] EWHC 409 (Ch)14 March 2002 - lip 01 April 2002 - Times (Ref) 23 May 2002 - Gazette (Ref)
	Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 97(2)
	[ Top ] [ 177486 ]
In Re St Peter's, Bushey Heath
Conc 26 October 1970 G. H. Newsom Q.C.	Ecclesiastical - Land
	lip - A faculty was sought for the grant of a right of way easement over unconsecrated land, but within the curtilage of the church. Held: Such an easement could be granted, but the land itself must remain the property of the incumbent. Private rights of way should be granted only after full and open argument. The only way to grant an easement over consecrated land is through an Act of parliament or a church measure.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1971] 1 WLR 35726 October 1970 - lip
	In re St. John's Church, Bishop's Hatfield [1967] - (Cited) St. John's, Chelsea, In re [1962] 1 W.L.R. 706; [1962] 2 All E.R. 850. - (Cited) St. Mary the Virgin, Woodkirk, In re [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1867; [1969] 3 All E.R. 952. - (Cited) St. Mary Abbots, Kensington (Vicar and Churchwardens) v. St. Mary Abbots, Kensington (Inhabitants) (1873) Trist. 17. - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 177327 ]
Denco Ltd -v- Joinson
EAT 14 November 1991 Mr. R. H. Phipps and Mr. S. M. Springer	Employment
	lip - The employee claimed damages for unfair dismissal. He had accessed a computer at his company's premises without authority, having used another's ID and password. The company appealed the finding of unfair dismissal saying the tribunal had wrongly made allowance for his reasons for so acting. Held: The tribunal had erred in requiring the employers to show that they had reasonable grounds for believing the access to be illegitimate. The motive was irrelevant in law. Though the misuse of computers will be a serious offence, companies would be well advised to put appropriate policies in place.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1991] 1 WLR 33014 November 1991 - lip
	Parsons (C.A.) & Co. Ltd. v. McLoughlin [1978] IRLR 65, EAT - (Cited) Polkey v. A.E. Dayton Services Ltd. [1987] 1 WLR 1147 - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 196979 ]
Editions Plon (Societe) -v- France
ECHR 18 May 2004	Human Rights
	Hudoc - Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) No violation of Art. 10 with regard to the interim injunction ; Violation of Art. 10 with regard to the permanent injunction ; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected ; Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ; Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
	Link to full text judgment: - (2006) 42 EHRR 36 - [2004] ECHR 200 - 58148/0018 May 2004 - Bailii 18 May 2004 - lip
	[ Top ] [ 192604 ]
Langridge -v- Levy
ExP 01 January 1836 Parke B	Torts - Other
	lip - A man sold a gun which he knew to be dangerous for the use of the purchaser's son. The gun exploded in the son's hands. Held: The son had a right of action in tort against the gunmaker, but, Parke B said: "We should pause before we made a precedent by our decision which would be an authority for an action against the vendors, even of such instruments and articles as are dangerous in themselves, at the suit of any person whomsoever into whose hands they might happen to pass, and who should be injured thereby."
	Link to full text judgment: - (1837) 2 M & W 519 - lip
	[ Top ] [ 174707 ]
Airedale NHS Trust -v- Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
FD 19 November 1992 Sir Stephen Brown P	Administrative - Crime - Health - Health Professions
	lip - The patient had suffered catastrophic injuries in 1989, leaving him in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought leave to discontinue life maintaining treatment and medical support. The inevitable result would be his death. The application was for an order discharging them from any civil or criminal liability. Held: The provision of food by naso-gastric tube was medical treatment. The decision to withdraw it would be a medical decision. The true cause of the death was the accident. The judge made no declaration as to potential criminal liability, since the action would be within standard and proper medical practice. Future similar decisions should continue to be made after applications to court.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1993] 2 WLR 31619 November 1992 - lip
	Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) 110 S.Ct. 2841 - (Cited) F. (Mental Patient: Sterilisation), In re [1990] 2 A.C. 1; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 1025; [1989] 2 All E.R. 545, C.A. and H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582 - (Cited) In re B. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1421 - (Cited) Airedale N.H.S. Trust -v- Bland - (Appealed to)
	[ Top ] [ 174315 ]
British Railways Board -v- Herrington
HL 16 February 1972 Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Pearson and Lord Diplock	Children - Evidence - Land - Negligence - Nuisance - Personal Injury
	lip - Lord Diplock said that the court may draw adverse inferences from a defendant's decision not to give or call evidence as to matters within the knowledge of himself or his employees: "This is a legitimate tactical move under our adversarial system of litigation. But a defendant who adopts it cannot complain if the court draws from the facts which have been disclosed all reasonable inferences as to what are the facts which the defendant has chosen to withhold." lip - The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser. Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a trespasser, the creation by him of particular risks which may be unknown to sections of the public, including children, might create such a liability. The test may be subjective, as to whether a land-owner of this character might reasonably be expected to do or refrain from doing something on his land to avoid the risk. A duty might arise where the owner had, or ought to have had, actual knowledge of trespassers using the land, and of the risk they might face, and the risk was such as might cause a person with ordinary humane feelings to seek to avoid it. The duty does not extend beyond taking reasonable steps to enable a trespasser to avoid the danger.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1972] UKHL 1 - [1971] 1 All ER 749 - [1972] 2 WLR 537 - [1972] AC 87716 February 1972 - Bailii 16 February 1972 - lip
	Addie (Robert) & Sons (Collieries) Ltd. v. Dumbreck, 1928 S.C. 547; [1929] A.C. 358, H.L.(Sc.). - (Limited) Adams v. Naylor - (Cited) Baker v. Bethnal Green Corporation [1945] 1 All E.R. 135; 109 J.P. 72, C.A. - (Cited) Billings (A. C.) & Sons Ltd. v. Riden [1958] A.C. 240; [1957] 3 W.L.R. 496; [1957] 3 All E.R. 1, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Bird v. Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing. 628. - (Cited) Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856) 11 Exch. 781 - (Cited) Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 92; [1942] 2 All E.R. 396, H.L.(Sc.) - (Cited) Buckland v. Guildford Gas Light and Coke Co. [1949] 1 K.B. 410; [1948] 2 All E.R. 1086. - (Cited) Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis [1955] A.C. 549, [1955] 2 W.L.R. 517; [1955] 1 All E.R. 565, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Commissioner for Railways v. McDermott [1967] 1 A.C. 169; [1966] 3 W.L.R. 267; [1966] 2 All E.R. 162, P.C. - (Cited) Commissioner for Railways v. Quinlan [1964] A.C. 1054; [1964] 2 W.L.R. 817; [1964] 1 All E.R. 897, P.C. - (Cited) Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) v. Cardy (1960) 104 C.L.R. 274. - (Cited) Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland [1909] A.C. 229, H.L.(I.). - (Cited) Creed v. McGeoch & Sons Ltd. [1955] 1 W.L.R. 1005; [1955] 3 All E.R. 123. - (Cited) Davis v. St. Mary's Demolition and Excavation Co. Ltd. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 592; [1954] 1 All E.R. 57 - (Cited) Deane v. Clayton (1817) 7 Taunt. 489. - (Cited) Donoghue -v- Stevenson [1932] AC 562 HL(Sc) - (Cited) Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v. Home Office [1970] AC 1004; [1970] 2 WLR 1140; [1970] 2 All ER 94, HL(E) - (Cited) Dunster v. Abbott [1954] 1 W.L.R. 58; [1953] 2 All E.R. 1572, C.A. - (Cited) Edwards v. Railway Executive [1952] A.C. 737; [1952] 2 All E.R. 430, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Excelsior Wire Rope Co. Ltd. v. Callan [1930] A.C. 404, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Gautret v. Egerton (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 371 - (Cited) Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor [1922] 1 A.C. 44, H.L.(Sc.) - (Cited) Goldman v. Hargrave - (Cited) Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Barnett [1911] A.C. 361, P.C. - (Cited) Haley v. London Electricity Board [1965] A.C. 778; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 479; [1964] 3 All E.R. 185, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Hardy v. Central London Railway Co. [1920] 3 K.B. 459, CA - (Cited) Hawkins v. Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council [1954] 1 Q.B. 319; [1954] 2 W.L.R. 122; [1954] 1 All E.R. 97, C.A. - (Cited) Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 503, C.A. - (Cited) Hillen and Pettigrew v. I.C.I. (Alkali) Ltd. [1936] A.C. 65, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Holland v. Lanarkshire Middle Ward District Committee, 1909 S.C. 1142. - (Cited) Ilott v. Wilkes (1820) 3 B. & Ald. 304. - (Cited) Indemaur v. Dames (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 27 - (Cited) Jay v. Whitfield (Note) (1817) 3 B. & Ald. 308. - (Cited) Kingzett v. British Railways Board (1968) 112 S.J. 625, C.A. - (Cited) Latham v. R. Johnson & Nephew Ltd. [1913] 1 K.B. 398, C.A. - (Cited) Lowery v. Walker [1911] A.C. 10, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Lynch v. Nurdin (1841) 1 Q.B. 29 - (Cited) McCarthy v. Wellington City [1966] N.Z.L.R. 481 - (Cited) M'Glone v. British Railways Board, 1966 S.C. (H.L.) 1, H.L.(Sc.) - (Cited) Miller v. South of Scotland Electricity Board, 1958 S.C.(H.L.) 20 H.L.(Sc.) - (Cited) Mooney v. Lanarkshire County Council, 1954 S.C. 245 - (Cited) Morran v. Waddell (1883) 11 R. 44 - (Cited) Mourton v. Poulter [1930] 2 KB 183 - (Cited) Munnings v. Hydro-Electric Commission (1971) 45 A.L.J.R. 378 - (Cited) Perry v. Thomas Wrigley Ltd. [1955] 1 WLR 1164; [1955] 3 All ER 243 - (Cited) Prentice v. Assets Co. Ltd. (1889) 17 R. 484 - (Cited) Rich v. Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1959) 101 CLR 135 - (Cited) Ross v. Keith (1888) 16 R. 86 - (Cited) Thompson v. Bankstown Corporation (1953) 87 CLR 619 - (Cited) United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt (1922) 258 U.S. 268 - (Cited) Videan v. British Transport Commission [1963] 2 QB 650; [1963] 3 WLR 374; [1963] 2 All E.R. 860. CA - (Cited) Munnings v. Hydro-Electric Commission (1971) 45 ALJR 378 - (Cited) - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 174317 ]
Dingle -v- Turner and Others
HL 16 February 1972 Viscount Dilhorne, Lord MacDermott, Lord Hodson, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Cross of Chelsea	Charity - Trusts - Wills and Probate
	lip - The testator left part of his property on charitable trusts for the relief of the poverty of 'the poor employees' of a company. The appellant argued that it was not a charitable gift, and that the gift failed. Held: The intention of the gift was to benefit the poor generally who fell within a certain description, rather than certain individuals. Since they were a 'section of the public', the gift was charitable and did not fail. (Majority) The fiscal advantages obtained by making a gift charitable should not be taken into account in assessing its motives and charitable status.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1972] AC 601 - [1972] UKHL 2 - [1972] 2 WLR 52316 February 1972 - Bailii 16 February 1972 - lip
	Scarisbrick's Will Trusts, In re [1950] Ch. 226; [1950] 1 All E.R. 143; [1951] Ch. 622; [1951] 1 All E.R. 822, C.A. - (Approved) In re Compton [1945] Ch. 123, C.A. - (Cited) Oppenheim v. Tobacco Securities Trust Co. Ltd. [1951] A.C. 297, H.L.(E.) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174047 ]
Cassell & Co Ltd -v- Broome and Another
HL 23 February 1972 Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone LC, Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock and Lord Kilbrandon	Constitutional - Damages - Defamation - Litigation Practice
	lip - The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. The court of appeal had considered Rookes v Barnard to have been decided per incuriam. Held: It was not for the Court of Appeal to direct a judge to ignore a decision of the House of Lords. The Young case gave guidance to be followed where conflicting decisions existed. "The bad conduct of the Plaintiff himself may also enter into the matter, where he has provoked the libel, or where perhaps he has libelled the defendant in reply. What is awarded is thus a figure which cannot be arrived at by any purely objective computation. This is what is meant when the damages in defamation are described as being "at large"" Rookes v Barnard was correct. The defendants having calculated that they would receive more from extra sales than they might have to pay in damages, it was open to the court to award exemplary damages. If, but only if, the sum awarded by way of compensation was inadequate to punish the defendant, the jury might mark their disapproval of his conduct by awarding a larger sum. The award of exemplary damages always remains discretionary. Compensatory and exemplary damages are "as incompatible as oil and vinegar" Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest: "I do not think that the word "calculated" was used to denote some precise balancing process. The situation contemplated is where someone faces up to the possibility of having to pay damages for doing something which may be held to have been wrong but where nevertheless he deliberately carries out his plan because he thinks that it will work out satisfactorily for him." lip - Lord Hailsham considered the role of guidance on levels of damages from the court of appeal: “The first, and paramount consideration in my mind is that the jury is, where either party desires it, the only legal and constitutional tribunal for deciding libel damages including the award of damages. I do not think the judiciary at any level should substitute itself for a jury, unless the award is so manifestly too large . . . that no sensible jury properly directed could have reached the conclusion . . . The point is that the law makes the jury and not the judiciary the constitutional tribunal, and if Parliament had wished the roles to be reversed in any way, Parliament would have said so at the time of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 ... It may very well be that, on the whole, judges, and the legal profession in general, would be less generous than juries in the award of damages for defamation. But I know of no principle of reason which would entitle judges, whether of appeal or at first instance, to consider that their own sense of the proprieties is more reasonable than that of a jury, or which would entitle them to arrogate to themselves a constitutional status in this matter which Parliament has deliberately withheld from them, for aught we know, on the very ground that juries can be expected to be more generous on such matter than judges.”
	Link to full text judgment: - [1972] UKHL 3 - [1972] AC 1027 - [1972] 2 WLR 64523 February 1972 - Bailii 23 February 1972 - lip
	Rookes v. Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129 - (Correct) Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Ltd ((1944) KB 718) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 174274 ]
Ebrahimi -v- Westbourne Galleries Ltd and Others (on Appeal from In Re Westbourne Galleries Ltd)
HL 03 May 1972 Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Cross of Chelsea and Lord Salmon	Company - Equity
	lip - A company had operated effectively as a partnership between two and then three directors. No dividends had been paid, but the directors had received salaries. One director was removed and sought an order for the other to purchase his shares, or alternatively for the company to be wound up on the just and equitable ground. The company had promised to begin to pay dividends. Held: In the case of a small company the rights and obligations of a company went beyond bare company law requirements. The applicant had been excluded from being involved in the management of the company against his reasonable expectations. Since he was unable effectively to dispose of his interest, the company should be wound up. The term 'quasi-partnership' is dangerously misleading. Equitable considerations can come to be applied where the association has personal characteristics and rests on a relationship of trust and confidence, and all members are expected to take an active part and share transfers are restricted. lip - Lord Wilberforce said: “A limited company is more than a mere legal entity, with a personality in law of its own: that there is room in company law for recognition of the fact that behind it, or amongst it, there are individuals, with rights, expectations and obligations inter se which are not necessarily submerged in the company structure. That structure is defined by the Companies Act and by the articles of association by which shareholders agree to be bound. In most companies and in most contexts, this definition is sufficient and exhaustive, equally so whether the company is large or small. The ‘just and equitable’ provision does not, as the respondents suggest, entitle one party to disregard the obligation he assumes by entering a company, nor the court to dispense him from it. It does, as equity always does, enable the court to subject the exercise of legal rights to equitable considerations; considerations, that is, of a personal character arising between one individual and another, which may make it unjust, or inequitable, to insist on legal rights, or to exercise them in a particular way.”
	Link to full text judgment: - [1973] AC 360 - [1975] 235 EG 90103 May 1972 - lip
	Companies Act 1948 220 222(f)
	In re Wondoflex Textiles Pty. Ltd. [1951] V.L.R. 458 - (Approved) In re Straw Products Pty. Ltd. [1942] V.L.R. 222 - (Approved) Loch v. John Blackwood Ltd. [1924] A.C. 783, P.C. - (Approved) In re Yenidje Tobacco Co. Ltd. [1916] 2 Ch. 426, CA - (Approved) Symington v. Symington's Quarries Ltd. (1905) 8 F. (Ct. of Sess). 121 - (Approved) Blisset v. Daniel (1853) 10 Hare 493 - (Applied)
	[ Top ] [ 183780 ]
Shiloh Spinners Ltd -v- Harding
HL 13 December 1972 Lord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Pearson, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon	Landlord and Tenant
	lip - A right of re-entry had been reserved in the lease on the assignment (and not on the initial grant) of a term of years in order to reinforce covenants (to support, fence and repair) which were taken for the benefit of other retained land of the assignor. The House considered the availability of an order for specific performance of a positive covenant in a lease. Held: Lord Wilberforce: "There cannot be any doubt that from the earliest times courts of equity have asserted the right to relieve against the forfeiture of property. The jurisdiction has not been confined to any particular type of case. The commonest instances concerned mortgages, giving rise to the equity of redemption, and leases, which commonly contained re-entry clauses; but other instances are found in relation to copyholds, or where the forfeiture was in the nature of a penalty. Although the principle is well established, there has undoubtedly been some fluctuation of authority as to the self-limitation to be imposed or accepted on this power." and ". . . it remains true today that equity expects men to carry out their bargains and will not let them buy their way out by uncovenanted payment. But it is consistent with these principles that we should reaffirm the right of courts of equity in appropriate and limited cases to relieve against forfeiture for breach of covenant or condition where the primary object of the bargain is to secure a stated result which can effectively be attained when the matter comes before the court, and where the forfeiture provision is added by way of security for the production of that result." and "[W]hat the court has to do is to satisfy itself, ex post facto, that the covenanted work has been done, and it has ample machinery, through certificates, or by inquiry, to do precisely this."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1973] AC 691 - [1973] 2 WLR 2813 December 1972 - lip
	[ Top ] [ 174124 ]
Norwich Pharmacal Co and others -v- Customs and Excise Commissioners
HL 26 June 1973 Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cross of Chelsea and Lord Kilbrandon	Customs and Excise - Information - Litigation Practice
	lip - Lord Reid: "So discovery to find the identity of a wrongdoer is available against anyone against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in relation to the same wrong. It is not available against a person who has no other connection with the wrong than that he was a spectator or has some document relating to it in his possession. But the respondents are in an intermediate position. Their conduct was entirely innocent; it was in execution of their statutory duty. But without certain action on their part the infringements could never have been committed. Does this involvement in the matter make a difference?" to which he answered 'Yes'. Referring to the authorities: "They seem to me to point to a very reasonable principle that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration. I am the more inclined to reach this result because it is clear that if the person mixed up in the affair has to any extent incurred any liability to the person wronged, he must make full disclosure even though the person wronged has no intention of proceeding against him. It would I think be quite illogical to make his obligation to disclose the identity of the real offenders depend on whether or not he has himself incurred some minor liability. I would therefore hold that the respondents must disclose the information now sought unless there is some consideration of public policy which prevents that." lip - Lord Kilbrandon: "There is no suggestion that in so doing he is pretending to exercise any right of relief against the discoverers. In my opinion, accordingly, the respondents, in consequence of the relationship in which they stand, arising out of their statutory functions, to the goods imported, can properly be ordered by the court to disclose to the appellants the names of persons whom the appellants bona fide believe to be infringing these rights, this being their only practicable source of information as to whom they should sue, subject to any special right of exception which the respondents may qualify in respect of their position as a department of state. It has to be conceded that there is no direct precedent for the granting of such an application in the precise circumstances of this case, but such an exercise of the power of the court seems to be well within broad principles authoritatively laid down. That exercise will always be subject to judicial discretion, and it may well be that the reason for the limitation in practice on what may be a wider power to order discovery, to any case in which the defendant has been 'mixed up with the transaction', to use Lord Romilly's words, or 'stands in some relation' to the goods, within the meaning of the decision in Post v Toledo, Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad Co (1887) 11 NERep 540, is that that is the way in which judicial discretion ought to be exercised." lip - The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their patents. Held: If someone, even innocently became involved in tortious acts committed by third parties, he became under a duty assist in discovery of the identity of the third party wrongdoers. How the information was acquired was not relevant. Duties of confidence owed by taxation authorities could be overborne if necessary.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1973] FSR 365 - [1974] RPC 101 - [1973] UKHL 6 - [1973] 2 All ER 943 - [1973] 3 WLR 164 - [1974] AC 13326 June 1973 - Bailii 26 June 1973 - lip
	Post v. Toledo, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railroad Co. (1887) 11 N.E.Rep. 540 - (Applied) Orr v. Diaper (1876) 4 Ch.D. 92; 25 W.R. 23 - (Applied) Upmann v. Elkan (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 140; 7 Ch.App. 130 - (Applied) - (At First Instance) - (Appeal from (reversed))
	[ Top ] [ 174756 ]
Haughton -v- Smith, On Appeal From Regina -v- Smith (Roger) [1974] 2 WLR 1
HL 21 November 1973 Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C., Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Salmon	Crime
	lip - The defendant had been accused of attempting to handle stolen goods. It appeared that he would have committed the offence, but the goods had meanwhile been taken by the police into safe-keeping and thus the goods were no longer stolen. Held: For section 22 the goods had to be, or remain, stolen at the time of the attempted handling. It was not open to the prosecution to change a complete, but failed, charge of handling into an offence, by calling it an attempted handling. Acts on the way to commission of some act which if completed would not be an offence could not themselves be an offence.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1974] 2 WLR 121 November 1973 - lip
	Theft Act 1968 22(1) 24(3)
	Rex v. Percy Dalton (London) Ltd. (1949) 33 Cr.App.R. 102, C.C.A. - (Approved) Reg. v. Donnelly [1970] N.Z.L.R. 980 - (Applied) Reg. v. Miller (1965) 49 Cr.App.R. 241, C.C.A. - (Disapproved) Reg. v. Curbishley (1970) 55 Cr.App.R. 310,7 C.A. - (Disapproved)
	[ Top ] [ 174314 ]
Anns and Others -v- Merton London Borough Council
HL 12 May 1977 Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon and Lord Russell of Killowen	Construction - Limitation - Local Government - Negligence
	lip - The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority appealed a finding that it was liable, arguing that the claims were time barred and that it had owed no duty beyond its statutory duty. Held: As a public body, the defendant's powers and duties were defined in public not private law. Any distinction between the powers and duties of a local authority fell to be considered in that context. The authority should at least have considered whether to inspect the foundations, and if it did inspect, to do so with care. The authority could not protect itself entirely, simply by failing to carry out any inspection at all. A duty of care might exist at common law, and whether it did so did not depend upon whether the statute imposed a duty or a power to inspect. The cause of action arose at the time when the condition of the building suggested some fault, and time did not begin to run until this happened. The action was not statute barred.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1977] UKHL 4 - [1977] 2 All ER 492 - [1977] CLY 2030 - [1978] AC 72812 May 1977 - Bailii 12 May 1977 - lip
	Public Health Act 1936
	East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent [1941] A.C. 74 - (Doubted) Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd v. Home Office [1970] AC 1004; [1970] 2 WLR 1140; [1970] 2 All ER 94, HL(E) - (Cited) Dutton v. Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 Q.B. 373; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 299; [1972] 1 All E.R. 462, C.A. - (Cited) Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575, H.L.(E.). - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 175469 ]
Attorney-General -v- Leveller Magazine Ltd And Others; Attorney-General -v- National Union of Journalists; Attorney-General -v- Peace News Ltd And Others
HL 01 February 1979 Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Scarman	Contempt of Court - Criminal Practice - Magistrates - Media
	lip - The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, and who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to be disclosed during the hearing, but the court had had no power to restrain its publication after the trial. The journalists appealed convictions for contempt. Held: The importance of press and media reports in safeguarding the public character of court proceedings is reinforced by the privilege afforded to fair and accurate reports of the proceedings. It might well be contempt to frustrate the courts attempt properly to protect the identity of a witness by publications after the hearing, but in this case, the witness had himself given information in evidence which was capable of leading to his identity, and the appeal succeeded. lip - Lord Diplock: "As a general rule the English system of administering justice does require that it be done in public: Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417. If the way that courts behave cannot be hidden from the public ear and eye this provides a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy and maintains the public confidence in the administration of justice. The application of this principle of open justice has two aspects: as respects proceedings in the court itself it requires that they should be held in open court to which the press and public are admitted ... As respects the publication to a wider public of fair and accurate reports of proceedings that have taken place in court the principle requires that nothing should be done to discourage this." and "However, since the purpose of the general rule is to serve the ends of justice it may be necessary to depart from it where the nature or circumstances of the particular proceeding are such that the application of the general rule in its entirety would frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice or would damage some other public interest for whose protection Parliament has made some statutory derogation from the rule.'
	Link to full text judgment: - [1979] 2 WLR 247 - [1978] 3 All ER 731 - [1979] AC 44001 February 1979 - lip
	Attorney-General v. Butterworth [1963] 1 Q.B. 696; L.R. 3 R.P. 327; [1962] 3 W.L.R. 819; [1962] 3 All E.R. 326, C.A. - (Cited) Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 298; [1973] 3 All E.R. 54, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) F. (orse. A.) (A Minor) (Publication of Information), In re [1977] Fam. 58; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 307; [1976] 3 All E.R. 274; [1977] Fam. 58; [1976] 3 W.L.R. 813; [1977] 1 All E.R. 114, C.A. - (Cited) Johnson v. Grant. 1923 S.C. 789. - (Cited) Reg. v. Border Television Ltd., Ex parte Attorney-General, The Times, January 18, 1978, D.C. - (Cited) Reg. v. Newcastle Chronicle & Journal Ltd., Ex parte Attorney-General, The Times, January 18, 1978, D.C. - (Cited) Reg. v. Socialist Worker Printer.s and Publishers Ltd., Ex parte Attorney-General [1975] Q.B. 637; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 801: [1975] 1 All E.R. 142, D.G. - (Cited) Rex v. Blumenfeld, Ex parte Tupper (1912) 28 T.L.R. 308. - (Cited) Rex v. Davies, Ex parte Delbert-Evans [1945] 1 K.B. 435 sub nom. Delbert-Evans v. Davies and Watson [1945] 2 All E.R. 167; D.C. - (Cited) Scott v. Scott [1913] A.C. 417, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Taylor v. Attorney-General [1975] 2 N.Z.L.R. 675. - (Cited) Thomas (P. A.) & Co. v. Mould [1968] 2 Q.B. 913; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 737; [1968] 1 All E.R. 963. - (Cited) Rex v. Governor of Lewes Prison, Ex parte Doyle [1917] 2 K.B. 254 - (Cited) - (Appeal from)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 174079 ]
Whitehouse -v- Lemon; Whitehouse -v- Gay News Ltd
HL 21 February 1979 Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Russell of Killowen and Lord Scarman	Crime - Defamation - Ecclesiastical
	lip - The appellants challenged their conviction for blasphemous libel. They had published a poem which described homosexual acts carried out on the body of Christ after his death. Held: For a conviction, it was necessary to show that the defendant had published the material, and that it was of the necessary character, namely that it vilified Christ in his life and crucifixion. It was not necessary to show that the defendant intended the blasphemy. A blasphemous libel is a publication of material calculated to shock or outrage the feelings of Christians. There is no need to show additionally a tendency to cause a breach of the peace.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1979] AC 617 - [1979] 2 WLR 28121 February 1979 - lip
	Rex v. Dean of St. Asaph (1784) 21 St.Tr. 847 - (Applied) Regina v. Hetherington (1841) 4 St.Tr.N.S. 563 - (Applied) Regina v. Bradlaugh (1883) 15 COX C.C. 217 - (Applied) - (Dicta approved)
	[ Top ] [ 178149 ]
Khera -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; Khawaja -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department
HL 10 February 1983 Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Templeman	Evidence - Immigration - Judicial Review
	lip - The appellant Khera's father had obtained leave to settle in the UK. The appellant obtained leave to join him, but did not disclose that he had married. After his entry his wife in turn sought to join him. The appellant was detained as an illegal immigrant. Held: The term 'illegal immigrant' included anyone entering unlawfully. This could include those obtaining leave to enter by deception as well as those entering clandestinely. There is no duty of absolute candour upon someone applying for entry, but silence as to certain important facts might amount to fraud: "it would be wrong to construe the Immigration Act 1971 as if it imposed on persons applying for leave to enter a duty of candour approximating to uberrima fides. But, of course, deception may arise from silence as to a material fact in some circumstances; for example, the silence of the appellant Khawaja about the fact of his marriage to Mrs Butt and the fact that she had accompanied him on the flight to Manchester were, in my view, capable of constituting deception, even if he had not told any direct lies to the immigration officer." Habeas Corpus is available to all, not just British Nationals. When reviewing the decision of the immigration officer the court should go beyond asking only whether there was evidence on which the officer could have reached his decision, and look also at the sufficiency of that evidence. On a judicial review it was for the administrative authority to prove the facts upon which the decision it had reached had been made. The house was free to not follow its earlier decisions. The decision in Zamir was too narrow. lip - Lord Scarman: "My Lords, I would adopt as appropriate to cases of restraint put by the executive upon the liberty of the individual the civil standard flexibly applied in the way set forth in the cases cited: and I would direct particular attention to the words of Morris LJ already quoted. It is not necessary to import into the civil proceedings of judicial review the formula devised by judges for the guidance of juries in criminal cases. Liberty is at stake: that is, as the court recognised in Bater v. Bater [1951] P. 35 and in Hornal v. Neuberger Products Ltd.[1957] 1 Q.B. 247, a grave matter. The reviewing court will therefore require to be satisfied that the facts which are required for the justification of the restraint put upon liberty do exist. The flexibility of the civil standard of proof suffices to ensure that the court will require the high degree of probability which is appropriate to what is at stake. " the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue": Dixon J. in Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191, 210. I would, therefore, adopt the civil standard flexibly applied in the way described in the case law to which I have referred. And I completely agree with the observation made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich, that the difficulties of proof in many immigration cases afford no valid ground for lowering the standard of proof required. Accordingly, it is enough to say that, where the burden lies on the executive to justify the exercise of a power of detention, the facts relied on as justification must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. A preponderance of probability suffices: but the degree of probability must be such that the court is satisfied. The strictness of the criminal formula is unnecessary to enable justice to be done: and its lack of flexibility in a jurisdiction where the technicalities of the law of evidence must not be allowed to become the master of the court could be a positive disadvantage inhibiting the efficacy of the developing safeguard of judicial review in the field of public law." lip - Lord Bridge: "the civil standard of proof by a preponderance of probability will suffice, always provided that, in view of the gravity of the charge of fraud which has to be made out and of the consequences which will follow if it is, the court should not be satisfied with anything less than probability of a high degree."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1982] UKHL 5 - [1984] 1 AC 74 - [1983] 2 WLR 32110 February 1982 - Bailii 10 February 1983 - lip
	Immigration Act 1971 33(1)
	Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Zamir [1980] AC 930, HL - (Not followed) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174755 ]
In Re American Greetings Corporation's Application
HL 26 January 1984 Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Brightman	Intellectual Property
	lip - The applicant owned an American Trade Mark in the name 'Holly Hobbie". They sought to register the same mark here. Objection was made that the applicant intended to license the use of the mark to others, rather than use it itself, and would this be trafficking in the mark. Held: The appeal against refusal of registration failed. The intended trade would not seek to identify the mark with its owner, but rather to make money from mere ownership of the mark by licensing its use to third parties unconnected with the applicant. This would be an abuse of the trade mark system. The mere attempt to seek quality control over the goods was not enough to remove the suspicion of trafficking.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1984] 1 WLR 18926 January 1984 - lip
	Trade Marks Act 1938 28(6)
	Bowden Wire Ltd. v. Bowden Brake Co. Ltd. (1914) 31 R.P.C. 385, H.L.(E.) - (Applied) In re J. Batt & Co.'s Trade Marks (1898) 15 R.P.C. 262; (1898) 15 R.P.C. 534, C.A.; (1899) 16 R.P.C. 411, H.L.(E.) - (Applied)
	[ Top ] [ 178638 ]
Gillick -v- West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security
HL 17 October 1985 Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook and Lord Templeman	Administrative - Children - Health
	lip - The claimant had young daughters. She challenged advice given to doctors by the second respondent allowing them to give contraceptive advice to girls under 16, and the right of the first defendant to act upon that advice. She objected that the advice infringed her rights as a parent, and would lead to what would be an unlawful assault. Held: "It is abundantly plain that the law recognises that there is a right and duty of parents to determine whether or not to seek medical advice in respect of their child, and, having received advice, to give or withhold consent to medical treatment." Nevertheless, the policy was capable of being lawful. A court could correct unlawful advice given by a government department. A doctor could give such advice to a girl under 16 where she would understand it, where she could not be persuaded to involve her parents, she was likely to have sex irrespective of advice, her health was at risk, and it was in her nest interests. A parent's rights of control over a child diminished as that child's understanding grew approaching adulthood.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1986] 1 FLR 229 - [1985] UKHL 7 - [1985] 3 WLR 830 - [1986] AC 112 - [1985] 3 All ER 40217 October 1985 - Bailii 17 October 1985 - lip
	Family Law Reform Act 1969 8(1) National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967 1 National Health Service Act 1977 5(1)(b) National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 4
	O'Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 - (Applied) Agar-Ellis, In re (1878) 10 ChD. 49, (1883) 24 ChD. 317, CA - (Reversed) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; - (Cited) P (A Minor), In re (1981) 80 LGR 301 - (Cited) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] 1 All ER 643 HL; [1985] 2 WLR 480 - (Cited) - (At first instance) - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 237677 ]
Regina -v- Shivpuri
HL 01 January 1986 Lord Bridge of Harwich	Crime
	lip - Drugs had been imported, and the sentencing would vary according to their classification. Held: Lord Bridge: "It follows from this, applying the reasoning in R v Courtie that each of the three distinct offences has different ingredients and, leaving aside considerations of impossibility arising under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, part of the actus reus of the offence which must be proved in each case is the importation, actual or attempted, of goods which were in fact of the appropriate category to sustain the offence charged. So far the argument seems to be irrefutable and is not challenged by the Crown." and "It is the next step in the argument which is the critical one. If each of the three offences involves proof of a different element as part of the actus reus, that is importation of the appropriate category of prohibited goods, it follows, so it is submitted, that 'knowingly' wherever it appears in section 170(1) and (2) of the Act of 1979 connotes a corresponding mens rea, that is, knowledge of the importation of goods in the appropriate category. I recognise the force of this submission. The point may be put in the form of a rhetorical question. Can it be supposed that Parliament intended that the mens rea appropriate to an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment should equally be sufficient to sustain a conviction for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment?" He explained the history of the 1971 Act: "The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 repealed the earlier legislation and enacted a new and comprehensive code intended, one may reasonably suppose, to arm the courts with all the criminal sanctions they would need to counter the growing drugs problem. Section 8 brought together a number of offences capable of being committed by the occupier or manager of premises and somewhat broadened their scope. "
	Link to full text judgment: - [1986] 1 All ER 334 - [1986] 2 WLR 988 - [1987] AC 115 May 1986 - lip
	Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
	- (Cited) - (Cited) - (Overruled) - (Applied)
	[ Top ] [ 178043 ]
Regina -v- Shivpuri
HL 15 May 1986 Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C., Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Mackay of Clashfern	Crime - Customs and Excise
	lip - The appellant had been convicted of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substance was not in fact heroin. Held: Where a person was charged with an offence under the 1979 Act, it was sufficient that what was to be imported was unlawful, even if the exact nature was not known. The actus reus of attempt was an act more than merely preparatory. The distinction previously drawn between 'objectively innocent' acts and others could not be sustained.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1986] 2 WLR 98815 May 1986 - lip
	Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)
	Anderton v. Ryan [1985] AC 560; [1985] 2 WLR 968; [1985] 2 All ER 55, HL(E) - (Cited) Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234; [1966] 3 All ER 77, HL(E) - (Cited) Reg. v. Courtie [1984] AC 463; [1984] 2 WLR 330; [1984] 1 All ER 740, HL(E) - (Cited) Reg. v. Hennessey (Timothy) (1978) 68 Cr.App.R. 419, CA - (Cited) Reg. v. Hussain [1969] 2 QB 567; [1969] 3 WLR 134; [1969] 2 All ER 1117, CA - (Cited) Reg. v. Hyam [1975] AC 55; [1974] 2 WLR 607; [1974] 2 All ER 41, HL(E) - (Cited) Reg. v. Smith (Roger) [1975] AC 476; [1974] 2 WLR 1; [1973] 3 All ER 1109, HL(E) - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 178245 ]
City of London Building Society -v- Flegg And Another
HL 14 May 1987 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley	Land - Registered Land
	lip - A couple bought a property and registered it in their own names with substantial financial assistance from the parents of one of them. The parents occupied the house with them. Without telling the parents, the owners borrowed again, executing further charges. Held: The fact of occupation did not add to the parents' rights as equitable chargees, or as tenants in common. A balance was to be found between making property available to be traded, and protecting the rights of equitable owners. The parents' rights were overreached by the charges. lip - Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: "… the philosophy behind both the Land Registration Act 1925 and the Law of Property Act 1925 was that they should operate in parallel, and it would, therefore, be surprising if it were found that the two systems were not constructed so as to dovetail into one another." and "If then, one asks what were the subsisting rights of the respondents [the occupying beneficiaries] referable to their occupation, the answer must, in my judgment, be that they were rights which, vis-à-vis the appellants [the mortgagee], were, eo instante with the creation of the charge overreached and therefore subsisted in relation to the equity of redemption."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1987] UKHL 6 - [1988] AC 5414 May 1987 - Bailii 14 May 1987 - lip
	Land Registration Act 1925 70(1)(g) Law of Property Act 1925 14
	Williams & Glyn's Bank Ltd. v. Boland [1981] AC 487 - (Distinguished) - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 175509 ]
Regina -v- Stephen William Gold, and Robert Jonathan Schifreen [1988] 2 WLR 984
HL 21 April 1988 Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley	Crime - Information
	lip - The defendants had hacked a remote computer system, by the unauthorised use of the passwords and IDs of other users of the system. The ID and password were immediately cleared by the computer once authorisation for access had been granted. They had been charged under the 1981 Act of uttering a false instrument. Held: It was artificial to treat the temporary record held by the computer as a false instrument. The information was held only temporarily and neither recorded nor stored within the Act.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1988] 2 WLR 98421 April 1988 - lip
	Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 1 8(1)(d)
	[ Top ] [ 178601 ]
In Re Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd
HL 09 February 1989 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Lowry	Intellectual Property
	lip - The plaintiffs had applied for a product licence for a patented drug. To support its application, it supplied the authority with confidential information which the authority now sought to make use of the confidential information when considering later applications for licences for similar products. Held: The authority had a duty of public safety, and to ensure fair treatment of all applicants. That duty required it to make use of such information where required. EU law did not prevent such use since the regulations allowed the restrictions on such use to be overridden by national law.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1989] 1 WLR 109 February 1989 - lip
	Council Directive (65/65/E.E.C.) 4.8 Medicines (Medicines Act 1968 Amendment) Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977 No. 1050) 4(3) Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), 6 7(2) 20(1)(b)
	Allen & Hanburys Ltd. v. Generics (U.K.) Ltd. [1988] 2 All ER 454 - (Cited) British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd. v. Armstrong Patents Co. Ltd. [1986] AC 577; [1986] 2 WLR 400; [1986] 1 All ER 850, HL - (Cited) Butler v. Board of Trade [1971] Ch 680; [1970] 3 WLR 822; [1970] 3 All ER 593 - (Cited) Castrol Australia Pty. Ltd. v. EmTech Associates Pty. Ltd. (1980) 51 FLR 184 - (Cited) Coca-Cola Co., In re [1986] 1 WLR 695; [1986] 2 All ER 274, HL - (Cited) Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc. [1988] 3 WLR 678; [1988] 3 All ER 949, PC - (Cited) Keene, In re [1922] 2 Ch 475, CA - (Cited) Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193, HL - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174247 ]
Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
HL 28 November 1991 Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry	Damages - Personal Injury
	lip - The plaintiffs sought damages for nervous shock. They had watched on television, as their relatives and friends died at a football match, for the safety of which the defendants were responsible. They appealed a decision that they had been insufficiently proximate to claim for nervous shock. Held: The personal relationships were close enough for some claimants, but the scenes were broadcast in such a way that no individuals were capable of being identified. Foreseeability of injury does not of itself, and automatically, lead to a duty of care. The House (Lord Oliver) distinguished between primary and secondary victims: "There is, to begin with, nothing unusual or peculiar in the recognition by the law that compensatable injury may be caused just as much by a direct assault upon the mind or the nervous system as by direct physical contact with the body. This is no more than the natural and inevitable result of the growing appreciation by modern medical science of recognisable causal connections between shock to the nervous system and physical or psychiatric illness. Cases in which damages are claimed for directly inflicted injuries of this nature may present difficulties of proof but they are not, in their essential elements, any different from cases where the damages claimed arise from direct physical injury and they present no very difficult problems of analysis where the plaintiff has himself been directly involved in the accident from which the injury is said to arise. In such a case he can be properly said to be the primary victim of the defendant’s negligence and the fact that the injury which he sustains is inflicted through the medium of an assault on the nerves or senses does not serve to differentiate the case, except possibly in the degree of evidentiary difficulty, from a case of direct physical injury." The claim failed.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1991] UKHL 5 - [1992] 1 AC 310 - [1991] 3 WLR 105728 November 1991 - Bailii 28 November 1991 - lip 29 November 1991 - Times (Ref) 22 January 1992 - Gazette (Ref)
	Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 4(5)
	Bourhill v. Young [1943] A.C. 92 - (Cited) McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410 - (Cited) Jaensch v. Coffey (1984) 55 C.L.R. 549 - (Cited) Hinz v. Berry [1970] 2 Q.B. 40 - (Cited) Hevican v. Ruane [1991] 3 All E.R. 65 - (Doubted) Ravenscroft v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1991] 3 All E.R. 73 - (Doubted) Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 77972 ]
Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) -v- Brotherton [1991] 3 WLR 1126
HL 05 December 1991 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Lowry	Land
	lip - The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river. Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a right of way over a feature of the land; this could not include a river, and accordingly, the Act does not govern questions of public rights of navigation over a river, as regards the acquisition of public rights of way by long user. "A river...is more complex consisting as it does not only of the bed and banks which contain the water and which are capable of ownership, but of the running water which, so long as it flows within the banks, is res nullius.” The 1932 Act was modelled on the Prescription Act 1832. In the 1932 Act the phrase right of way 'can only be used in the sense of a physical feature on land which the public has used for the purposes of passage.' but the Act clearly distinguished (1(8)) between land and water. '. . . section 1 of the Act of 1932 does not apply to navigable rivers.'
	Link to full text judgment: - [1991] 3 WLR 112615 January 1992 - Gazette (Ref) 15 January 1992 - lip
	Rights of Way Act 1932 1(1)(8)
	- (Appeal from) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 175101 ]
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032
HL 26 November 1992 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Emslie, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Mackay of Clashfern L.C., Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Ackner	Constitutional - Income Tax
	lip - The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school, in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or the cost of a school place. Debates in Parliament had discussed this issue, and the parties sought to refer to the debate. Held: It was not an impeachment of Parliament or an infringement of the Bill of Rights to examine Hansard to resolve issues provided the legislation was ambiguous, obscure or suffered an absurdity, and the material referred to comprised statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill or supporting material, and the statements referred to were themselves clear. Having so referred to Hansard in this case, the taxable cost was the additional marginal cost of providing the service, the profit the school would normally have made.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1992] UKHL 3 - [1993] 1 All ER 42 - [1993] AC 593 - [1992] 3 WLR 103226 November 1992 - Bailii 26 November 1992 - lip
	Bill of Rights 1688 9 Finance Act 1976 23 61 63
	Pickstone v. Freemans Plc. [1989] A.C. 66, H.L.(E.) - (Applied) Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 A.C. 696, H.L.(E.) - (Applied) Davis v. Johnson [1979] A.C. 264, H.L.(E.) - (Considered) Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton [1983] 1 A.C. 191, H.L.(E.) - (Considered) Reg. v. Secretary of State for Trade, Ex parte Anderson Strathclyde Plc. [1983] 2 All E.R. 233, D.C. - (Overruled) Ash v. Abdy (1678) 3 Swans. 664 - (Cited) Assam Railways and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1935] A.C. 445, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Beswick v. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 932; [1967] 2 All E.R. 1197, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Church of Scientology of California v. Johnson-Smith [1972] 1 Q.B. 522; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 434; [1972] 1 All E.R. 378 - (Approved) - (Appeal from)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 88013 ]
Regina -v- Shephard [1993] 2 WLR 102
HL 16 December 1992 Lord Griffiths, Lord Emslie, Lord Roskill, Lord Ackner and Lord Lowry	Criminal Practice - Evidence
	lip - The defendant had been convicted of theft from a supermarket. The evidence was that the till rolls did not include the goods the subject of the charge. She argued that it should not have been admitted as evidence, without supporting evidence that the computer which produced the till rolls was working accurately. Held: The evidence needed to be given in support of a computer print out varies with the complexity of the situation and the case. Affirmative evidence was always needed whether oral or in the form of a certificate under the Act, but in this case the evidence of a store detective was sufficient.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1993] AC 380 - [1993] 2 WLR 10216 December 1992 - lip 27 January 1993 - Gazette (Ref)
	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69(1)(b) Sch3 Para 8
	- (Disapproved) - (Disapproved)
	[ Top ] [ 174705 ]
Airedale NHS Trust -v- Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316
HL 04 February 1993 Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lowry, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Mustill	Administrative - Crime - Health - Health Professions
	lip - The patient had been severely injured in the Hillsborough disaster, and had come to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The doctors sought permission to withdraw medical treatment. The Official Solicitor appealed an order of the Court of Appeal permitting the action. Held: The appeal failed. The practitioners sought to act in accordance with medical practice, but until the practice was universally accepted, applications should continue to be made to the Family Division. The issues should be considered urgently by Parliament. Any justification for invasive treatment no longer existed, and the doctors were correct to seek to discontinue treatment. The patient could himself no longer choose. It would not be unlawful to cease to provide the treatment which it had previously been a duty to perform.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1992] UKHL 5 - [1993] 2 WLR 316 - [1993] AC 78904 February 1993 - Bailii 04 February 1993 - lip
	Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582; [1957] 2 All E.R. 118 - (Cited) F. (Mental Patient: Sterilisation), In re [1990] 2 A.C. 1; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 1025; [1989] 2 All E.R. 545, C.A. and H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Finlayson v. H.M. Advocate, 1978 S.L.T. (Notes) 60 - (Cited) Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Attorney-General [1981] A.C. 718; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 466; [1980] 1 All E.R. 866, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) J. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), In re [1991] Fam. 33; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 140; [1990] 3 All E.R. 930, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Adams (unreported), 8 April 1957, Devlin J. Reg. v. Arthur (unreported), 5 November 1981, Farquharson J. - (Cited) Reg. v. Blaue [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1411; [1975] 3 All E.R. 446, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Brown (Anthony) [1992] Q.B. 491; [1992] 2 W.L.R. 441; [1992] 2 All E.R. 552, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Cox (unreported), 18 September 1992, Ognall J. - (Cited) Reg. v. Malcherek [1981] 1 W.L.R. 690; [1981] 2 All E.R. 422, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Stone [1977] Q.B. 354; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 169; [1977] 2 All E.R. 341, C.A. - (Cited) Rex v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr.App.R. 134, C.C.A. - (Cited) Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v. Department of Health and Social Security [1981] A.C. 800; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 279; [1981] 1 All E.R. 545, C.A. and H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] A.C. 871; [1985] 2 W.L.R. 480; [1985] 1 All E.R. 643, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) T. (Adult: Refusal of Treatment), In re [1992] 3 W.L.R. 782; [1992] 4 All E.R. 649, C.A. - (Cited) Airedale N.H.S. Trust -v- Bland - (Appeal from) Regina -v- Arthur - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 86245 ]
Regina -v- Brown (Anthony); Regina -v- Lucas; Regina -v- Jaggard; Regina -v- Laskey; Regina -v- Carter; Conjoined Appeals
HL 11 March 1993 Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry, Lord Mustill and Lord Slynn of Hadley	Crime - Human Rights
	lip - Lord Mustill (dissenting) ". . . As a matter of policy the courts have decided that the criminal law does not concern itself with these activities, provided that they do not go too far. It also seems plain that as the general social appreciation of the proper role of the state in regulating the lives of individuals changes with the passage of time, so we shall expect to find that the assumptions of the criminal justice system about what types of conduct are properly excluded from its scope, and what is meant by 'going too far' will not remain constant." lip - Lord Jauncey: " I prefer the reasoning of Cave J. in Coney and of the Court of Appeal in the later three English cases which I consider to have been correctly decided. In my view, the line properly falls to be drawn between assault at common law and the offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm created by s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, with the result that consent of the victim is no answer to anyone charged with the latter offence or with a contravention of s. 20 unless the circumstances fall within one of the well known exceptions such as organised sporting contest and games, parental chastisement or reasonable surgery." lip - The appellants had been convicted of assault, after having engaged in consensual acts of sado-masochism in which they inflicted varying degreees of physical self harm. They had pleaded guilty after a ruling that the prosecution had not needed to prove the absence of consent. They said it was their human right to give consent to such acts, as an expression of their sado-masochistic libido. Held: It was not in the public interest that injuries should be allowed to be inflicted on others without good reason. Sado-masochisim was not a good reason. Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention have no application in these circumstances.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1993] 2 All ER 75 - [1993] 2 WLR 556 - [1992] UKHL 7 - [1994] 1 AC 21211 March 1993 - Bailii 11 March 1993 - lip 12 March 1993 - Independent (Ref)
	European Convention on Human Rights 7 8 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20 47
	Wilson v. Pringle [1987] Q.B. 237; [1986] 3 W.L.R. 1; [1986] 2 All E.R. 440, C.A. - (Cited) Rex v. Taverner (1616) 3 Bulstr. 171 - (Cited) Attorney-General's Reference (No. 6 of 1980) [1981] Q.B. 715; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 125; [1981] 2 All E.R. 1057, C.A. - (Cited) Collins v. Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172; [1984] 3 All E.R. 374, D.C. - (Cited) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith [1961] A.C. 290; [1960] 3 W.L.R. 546; [1960] 3 All E.R. 161, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Fairclough v. Whipp [1951] 2 All ER 834 DC - (Cited) J.J.C. (A Minor) v. Eisenhower [1983] 3 All ER 230 DC - (Cited) Reg. v. Boyea (unreported), 28 January 1992, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Bradshaw (1878) 14 Cox C.C. 83 - (Cited) Reg. v. Bruce (1847) 2 Cox C.C. 262 - (Cited) Reg. v. Ciccarelli (1989) 54 C.C.C. (3d) 121 - (Cited) Reg. v. Clarence (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 23 - (Cited) Reg. v. Coney (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 534 - (Cited) Reg. v. Griffin (1869) 11 Cox C.C. 402 - (Cited) Reg. v. Hopley (1860) 2 F. & F. 202 - (Cited) Reg. v. Jones (Terence) (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 375, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. McCoy, 1953 (2) S.A. 4 - (Cited) Reg. v. Moore (1898) 14 T.L.R. 229 - (Cited) Reg. v. Mowatt [1968] 1 Q.B. 421; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1192; [1967] 3 All E.R. 47, C.A. - (Cited) Reg. v. Orton (1878) 39 L.T. 293 - (Cited) Reg. v. Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C. 699; [1991] 3 W.L.R. 914; [1991] 4 All E.R. 698, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Reg. v. Wollaston (1872) 12 Cox C.C. 180 - (Cited) Reg. v. Young (1866) 10 Cox C.C. 371 - (Cited) Rex v. Donovan [1934] 2 K.B. 498; 25 Cr.App.R. 1, C.C.A. - (Cited) - (Appeal from) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 78841 ]
Cambridge Water Company -v- Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 WLR 53
HL 09 December 1993 Sir Stephen Brown P. Mann and Nolan L.JJ. Lord Templeman, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry and Lord Woolf, Lord Goff of Chieveley	Environment - Nuisance - Torts - Other
	lip - The claimants sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company pumped chemicals from their borehole which seeped into the water it itself supplied. Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under Rylands for escape of materials from land is dependant upon proof of the foreseeability of damage of the relevant type. Here, it was not established that the defendants could have foreseen the damage which was in fact caused. Neighbours had to use the rule of give and take and live and let live. lip - (Lord Goff of Chieveley) "Like the judge in the present case, I incline to the opinion that, as a general rule, it is more appropriate for strict liability in respect of operations of high risk to be imposed by Parliament, than by the courts. If such liability is imposed by statute, the relevant activities can be identified, and those concerned can know where they stand. Furthermore, statute can where appropriate lay down precise criteria establishing the incidence and scope of such liability." Lord Goff approved what he suggested was the tenor of what Blackburne J's statement of the law had meant in Fletcher v Rylands (1866) LR 1 Ex 265: "The general tenor of his statement of principle is therefore that knowledge, or at least foreseeability of the risk, is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages under the principle; but that the principle is one of strict liability in the sense that the defendant may be held liable notwithstanding that he has exercised all due care to prevent the escape from occurring". He reviewed the law of nuisance: "Of course, although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principal of reasonable user-the principal of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which "those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action": see Bamford v. Turnley [1862] 3 B & S, 62, 83, per Bramwell B." and "It is not necessary for me to identify precise differences which may be drawn between this principle [in Rylands] and the principle of reasonable user as applied in the law of nuisance. It is enough for present purposes that I should draw attention to the similarity of function."
	Link to full text judgment: - [1994] 2 AC 264 - [1994] 2 WLR 53 - (1994) 1 All ER 5309 December 1993 - lip 10 December 1993 - Independent (Ref) 10 December 1993 - Times (Ref) 16 March 1994 - Gazette (Ref)
	Rylands v Fletcher ((1866) 1 LR 1 Ex 265) ((1866) LR 3 HL 330) - (Cited) Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound) [1961] A.C. 388; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 126; [1961] 1 All E.R. 404, P.C. - (Cited) Cambridge Water Company -v- Eastern Counties Leather Plc: Cambridge Water Company -v- Hutchings & Harding Ltd - (Appeal from) Read -v- Lyons & Co Ltd - (Applied) - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 85820 ]
Re M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions)
HL 07 June 1994 Lord Mackay of Clashfern L.C., Lord Templeman, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Nolan	Children
	lip - The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the child's mother. Application was made for the child to be made subject to a care order. The father appealed refusal of an order. When an application was made on the basis that a child was suffering significant harm after making interim arrangements for his protection which were in place at the date of the hearing, the relevant date at which the court had to be satisfied as to the presence of threshold conditions was the date on which protective arrangements were put in place. The court could not work from that date where, after that date, the need had passed. Where a court had to choose a care order or a residence order, 1(3)(g) required it to be satisfied that the power to make an order was still available.
	Link to full text judgment: 07 June 1994 - lip 22 July 1994 - Times (Ref) 18 August 1994 - Independent (Ref) 12 October 1994 - Gazette (Ref)
	Children Act 1989 1(3)(g) 31(2)
	Northamptonshire County Council v. S. [1993] Fam 136 - (Approved) In re D (A Minor) [1987] A.C. 317, H.L.(E.) - (Applied) Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v. E - (Overruled) In re W. (An Infant) [1971] A.C. 682, H.L.(E.) - (Distinguished) - (Appeal from)
	[ Top ] [ 175507 ]
Mutual Life And Citizens' Assurance Co Ltd And Another -v- Clive Raleigh Evatt [1971] 2 WLR 23
PC 16 November 1971 Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, Lord Guest and Lord Diplock	Financial Services - Negligence
	lip - The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence. Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such advice. The advice had been gratuitous. The company had appreciated that he might act on the advice. However they owed him no duty of care, and therefore were not liable in damages. The company made no claim to have the necessary skill to give advice on investments, and their only duty was to give honest advice, which they had done. Lord Reid and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest dissenting.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1971] 2 WLR 2316 November 1971 - lip
	Low v. Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch. 82, C.A - (Applied) Anderson (W. B.) & Sons Ltd. v. Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd. [1967] 2 All E.R. 850. - (Cited) Candler v. Crane, Christmas & Co. [1951] 2 K.B. 164; [1951] 1 All E.R. 426, C.A. - (Cited) Cann v. Willson (1888) 39 Ch.D. 39. - (Cited) Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App.Cas. 337, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1969] 2 Q.B. 412; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1008; [1969] 2 All E.R. 564, C.A.; [1970] A.C. 1004; [1970] 2 W.L.R. 1140; [1970] 2 All E.R. 294, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Fish v. Kelly (1864) 17 C.B.N.S. 194. - (Cited) Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1962] 1 Q.B. 396; [1961] 3 W.L.R. 1225; [1961] 3 All E.R. 891, C.A.; [1964] A.C. 465; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575; H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 491, C.A. - (Cited) Low v. Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch. 82, C.A. - (Cited) Nocton v. Lord Ashburton [1914] A.C. 932, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Parsons v. Barclay & Co. Ltd. and Goddard (1910) 103 L.T. 196. - (Cited) Shiells v. Blackburne (1789) 1 H.B1. 158 - (Cited) Woods v. Martins Bank Ltd. [1959] 1 Q.B. 55; [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1018; [1958] 3 All E.R. 166 - (Cited)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]
	[ Top ] [ 174751 ]
Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others -v- Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193
PC 13 October 1980 Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill	Commonwealth - Intellectual Property
	lip - (Australia) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the trade mark to be deregistered. The judge held that there was enough of a difference to keep the defendants innocent of passing off, and though they had sought to ride on the back of the plaintiff's advertising there was no misrepresentation. Held: The get up and style of a product could be used as part of a passing off where it had come to be closely associated with a product, but there was evidence to support the judge's finding that there had been no misrepresentation, and the claim in passing off was not made out. The date which mattered was that date at which the conduct complained of commenced. The judge had correctly used that date, and a mistaken reference to the date of commencement of the hearing did not vitiate the decision. Appeal dismissed.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1981] RPC 429 - [1981] 1 WLR 19313 October 1980 - lip
	Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corporation (1929) 35 F. 2d. 279. - (Cited) Felton v. Mulligan (1971) 124 C.L.R. 367. - (Cited) Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. v. Sydney Building Information Centre Pty. Ltd. (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 392. - (Cited) International News Service v. Associated Press (1918) 248 U.S. 215. - (Cited) Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. v. American Leather Cloth Co. Ltd. (1865) 11 H.L.Cas. 523, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Kark (Norman) Publications Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1962] 1 W.L.R. 380; [1962] 1 All E.R. 636 [1962] R.P.C. 163. - (Cited) Reddaway & Co. Ltd. v. Banham & Co. Ltd. [1896] A.C. 199, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Slazenger & Sons v. Feltham & Co. (1889) 6 R.P.C. 531, CA - (Cited) Spalding (A.G.) and Brothers v. A.W. Gamage Ltd. (1915) 32 R.P.C. 273; 84 L.J. Ch. 449, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co. Ltd. v. Taylor (1937) 58 C.L.R. 479. - (Cited) Warnink (Erven) Besloten Vennootschap v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. [1979] A.C. 731; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 68; [1979] 2 All E.R. 927, HL - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 178081 ]
Salford City Council -v- McNally
QBD 19 December 1974 Widgery LCJ, Melford Stevenson, Watkins JJ	Housing - Nuisance
	lip - The local authority compulsorily acquired a house in a clearance area under the 1957 Act. They then decided that it provided an adequate level of accommodation and postponed demolition under the 1936 Act. The tenant claimed that it was a nuisance and that by virtue of what had already occurred, the council were fixed with notice. Held: The property was unfit for habitation. The standards in the two Acts were not of a different level.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1975] 1 WLR 365 - [1976] AC 37919 December 1974 - lip
	Housing Act 1957 48(1) 188 Public Health Act 1936 94(2) 99
	Nottingham City District Council v. Newton [1974] 1 W.L.R. 923, D.C. - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 178042 ]
G & K Ladenbau (UK) Ltd -v- Crawley & De Reya
QBD 25 April 1977 Mocatta J	Damages - Land - Professional Negligence
	lip - The defendant solicitors acted for the plaintiff in the purchase of land, but failed to undertake a commons search which would have revealed an entry which would prevent the client pursuing his development. The defect was discovered only when purchasers from their clients later undertook a commons search. In fact the registration was erroneous, but the question took some time to resolve. Held: In the light of the defendants' knowledge about the plantiff intending to develop the land, any loss of profits was an appropriate head of damages including the cost of making good the error. Registration of common rights was conclusive evidence of the matters registered. Evidence was admitted from four solicitors as to best conveyancing practice as to whether commons searches were necessary. If the land is open land, a search of the commons registers should normally be undertaken to check that land is not subject to undisclosed rights of common. The fact that the land was vacant, and that it had previously been in the ownership of a lord of the manor should have alerted the defendants. However, a solicitor should not search in every case, but exercise a discretion.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1977] 2 All ER 118 - [1978] 1 WLR 26625 April 1977 - lip
	Commons Registration Act 1965 10
	Attorney-General v. Hanmer (1858) 27 L.J.Ch. 837. - (Cited) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582; [1957] 2 All E.R. 118. - (Cited) Britford Common, In re [1977] 1 W.L.R. 39; [1977] 1 All E.R. 532. - (Cited) Central Electricity Generating Board v. Clwyd County Council [1976] 1 W.L.R. 151, [1976] 1 All E.R. 251. - (Cited) Chewton Common, In re [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1242; [1977] 3 All E.R. 509. - (Cited) Czarnikow (C.) Ltd. v. Koufos [1969] 1 A.C. 350; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1491; [1967] 3 All E.R. 686, H.L.(E.). - (Cited) Fletcher & Son v. Jubb, Booth & Helliwel [1920] 1 K.B. 275, C.A. - (Cited) Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341. - (Cited) New Windsor Corporation v. Mellor [1975] Ch. 380; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 25; [1975] 3 All E.R. 44, C.A. - (Cited) Simmons v. Pennington & Son [1955] 1 W.L.R. 183; [1955] 1 All E.R. 240, C.A. - (Cited) Yateley Common, Hampshire, In re [1977] 1 W.L.R. 840; [1977] 1 All E.R. 505 - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174704 ]
Attorney-General -v- Able and Others [1983] 3 WLR 845
QBD 28 April 1983 Woolf LJ	Administrative - Crime - Criminal Practice - Media
	lip - The Attorney General sought a declaration as to whether it would be the crime of aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring suicide, to distribute a booklet published by the respondent which described various effective ways of committing suicide. The stated aim of the booklet was to help readers overcome the fear of dying. Held: The offence would be committed only in the particular circumstances of the booklet being supplied to a particular individual considering suicide and with the intent of assisting or encouraging him. The offence was not committed by the general distribution of the booklet. However the court should also be reluctant to make declarations in advance as to the legality or otherwise of particular acts. That risked usurping the function of the court which considered a particular set of circumstances.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1984] 1 QB 795 - [1983] 3 WLR 84528 April 1983 - lip
	Suicide Act 1961 2(1)
	Imperial Tobacco Ltd v Attorney-General [1981] A. C. 718 - (Cited) Attorney-General v. Bastow [1957] 1 Q. B. 514 - (Cited) Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] A. C. 435 - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 175510 ]
Regina -v- Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman [1990] 1 WLR 277
QBD 30 March 1988 Lloyd L.J. and French J.	Crime - Evidence - Extradition - Police
	lip - The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international borders, if he had committed the acts alleged in the UK an offence would not have been committed, since the funds were transmitted from abroad, and the offences were extra-territorial. Held: The act of appropriation occurred when the defendant assumed the rights of an owner. His sending of the telex was the last act he needed to do, and that would not be extra territorial. The evidence required was that upon which a properly directed jury could commit. Last, the procedure under the 1967 Act was to be similar to that in the 1870 Act. Accordingly the list of offences could be phrased in general terms, and was capable of amendment. As regards evidence from computer printouts, the provisions of subsection 2 were alternatives, and not cumulative, since section 68(1)(b) required any one of them to be present. If there was no internal evidence of malfunction, such a printout should be admitted under section 69. Once documents which may have had legal professional privilege had been produced that did not affect their later admission. Police powers of arrest and search were the same on a domestic crime as under the 1967 Act.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1990] 1 WLR 27730 March 1988 - lip
	Extradition Act 1870 Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 5 7(5) 8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 68(1)(2) Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) 3(1)
	Reg. v. Morris (David) [1984] A.C. 320, H.L.(E.) - (Cited) Reg. v. Navvabi [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1311, C.A - (Cited) Chan Man-sin v. The Queen [1988] 1 W.L.R. 196, PC - (Cited) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation ([1948] 1 KB 223) CA - (Applied) Reg. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling (1978) 70 Cr.App.R. 77, HL - (Distinguished) Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Gardner [1968] 2 Q.B. 399, DC - (Cited) Calcraft v. Guest [1898] 1 Q.B. 759, CA - (Cited)
	[ Top ] [ 174245 ]
Alcock and Others -v- Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1991] 2 WLR 814]
QBD 31 July 1990 Mr Justice Hidden	Damages - Negligence - Personal Injury - Police
	lip - Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant's employees had charge of safety at the match. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for personal injuries by way of nervous shock, having seen the match on television, and knowing that their relatives were in the crowd. Held: It was reasonably foreseeable that close family members of the deceased who saw the events on television would suffer nervous shock, as also would those themselves involved as rescuers. Others who were not physically present, or who were not close family members should not recover.
	Link to full text judgment: - [1991] CLY 2671 - [1991] 2 WLR 814]31 July 1990 - lip
	McLoughlin v. O'Brian [1983] 1 A.C. 410, H.L.(E.) - (Applied)
	[ Home ] [ Top ]

lawindexpro is a trading name of David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG England
Tel: 0795 457 9992 or 01484 717380. email: dswarb@gmail.com or ds@lawindexpro.co.uk
Copyright and Database Rights: David Swarbrick 2010. No copyright is asserted in any material subject to Crown, Parliamentary or other copyright. We give full and grateful acknowledgment to the many judges who have applied their learning, wisdom and literary skills to develop our laws, and whose words we have so freely borrowed.