cases Flashcards
Bukton v Tounesende (1348)
- Trespass on the case, a ferry man who agreed to transport horses from one side of the river to the other. He overloaded, the ferry sank, and the horses drowned. The question was about the damages, who was liable. The owner of the sheep wanted damages, but there was a problem at the court of common pleas. It was a covenant and had to ask for a writ of covenant, but the court had decided not to accept if there was no deed of covenant. So he didnt ask for covenant but for a writ of trespass. Strange in this case, because trespass doesnt succeed certain deals made. So trespass law was used to enforce covenant law.
o In other words, a tort complaint can be used to enforce a covenant, instead of only covenant law accepted.
Earl of Oxford case (1615)
- Magdalene college challenged the Earl of Oxford his title to the land he bought based on the prohibition of the sale of college lands, even though they sold it to him. The Earl of Oxford was convicted and would not have adequate compensation under common law for breaching a statute. However, under equity he would. This led to the decision that in a conflict between common law and equity, equity would prevail.
o Facts are complicated, most important is the hierarchy between common law and equity.
Priestley v Fowler (1837)
Court decided if an employee mishandles a machine, he has to pay for damages himself if he’s injured. Because the person who works with the machine knows the machine best. The problem with this is that this decision became difficult to overturn because of a binding precedent in the English legal system.
o This case showcases the inflexibility of the precedence system, in which it is difficult to overrule precedent (stare decisis)
Inland revenue commissioners v Hincy, AC 748 (1960)
- Hinchy had forgotten to mention income and paid too little tax and committed tax fraud. The statute that stated the penalty, You will have to pay treble the tax. The judge took the wording as the intention of parliament so three times the tax and not just the difference.
o This shows that judges interpret the statutes literally, not teleological.
Fisher v Bell, 1 QB 395 (1961)
- Shopkeeper displayed a knife and the question was if this was an offer or not. He was prosecuted for having ‘on offer’ a knife which was not allowed. The statute describing the offense named a knife on offer. Shopkeeper didnt have it on offer, and it means in English law that the offer was only an invitation to negotiate. In addition, the buyer makes the offer to buy it at the counter.
o This case shows again, literal interpretation of a statute and the interpretation of when something can be considered on offer and who makes the offer.
NB: National society v Scottish society (1915)
- Deceased man had left his belongings to the national society, whether he meant the English one or Scottish one was not clear. Judge said we have to follow the words of the person literally and cannot infer other words than used by the deceased so the national society in a will went to England and not to Scotland.
o Again important to understand that words are used in a literal sense in the English legal system.
R(ex/egina) v Allen (1872)
- Make it possible to look at the purpose of the statute in society and not dogmatically and grammatically. In this case, the statue included the word ‘marry’, this ought to be seen as ‘going through the ceremonial process of marriage’, since no one would be able to actually marry if bigamy was prohibited.
o This shows the golden rule, which in essence modifies the literal rule to make sense in society.
Authority: Heydon’s case (1584)
- First case to introduce the mischief rule for statutory interpretation, to remedy the mischief that is present in the statue. Heydon’s case developed four points to be taken into consideration
o What was the common law before making the act
o What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide
o What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth
Fourthly: the judges to make such a construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief.
Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
- was charged for bicycling drunk. Was able to be convicted on being drunk ‘in charge of a carriage. This is exceptional.
o This is where the mischief rule is used in practice; where it was held that carriage could also include bicycle.
Smith v Hughes (1960):
- soliciting from a balcony and illegal for prostitution soliciting from public space. Because the effect went into public space.
o Again use of mischief rule, holding that activities of the defendant could fall under public space, because it could be seen from public, even if they occurred in a private place. In a literal reading this would not be possible.
Pinnel’s case (1602)
- The defendant, Cole, owed the plaintiff, Pinnel, the sum of £8 10s. Pinnel sued Cole for recovery of the debt. Cole had, at Pinnel’s request, paid £5 2s 6d one month before the debt was due to be paid and stated that they had an agreement that this part payment would discharge the entire debt.
o This retroactively became the rule for consideration since the judges held:
The court confirmed the general rule that part payment of a debt cannot be satisfaction for the whole. However, since the payment had been made early this was sufficient to discharge he debt. Therefore, by paying some money early the defendant had provided the plaintiff with a further benefit and had not just repaid the money which he already owed. Consequently, this was good consideration, and the court found for the defendant.
Humblin v Field (2000)
- Parties appearing in court should resist the temptation to quote too many cases. Where the reference was to a summary, and where it was not clear that the words in the summary were those of the judge or of a reporting practitioner, particular care must be taken, and such summaries should not be used in court.
London street tramways v London county council, AC 375 (1898
- This ruling implement the stare decisis rule. If a case has been decided and was not founded on a mistake of fact, the House of lords is not component to reargue a question which already has been decided. (Lord Halsbury).
o This means that its own precedents bind the house of lords.
Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944):
- Case that founded that the court of appeals was bound by their own decisions except when:
o Two decisions conflict, in this case, it is at the court its discretion to decide which rule will be followed.
o The court is bound to refuse to follow a decisions of its own if it cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords
o The court is not bound to follow a decision of its own if the decision was given per incuriam (literally through lack of care, for example not including a relevant statute in the ruling).
Froom v Butcher (1976)
- Contributory negligence; The plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving because he did not like seatbelts and because he had seen drivers being trapped after a crash because they wore a seatbelt. After a crash, the plaintiff suffered head and chest injuries and a broken finger. Had he worn his seatbelt, the head and chest injuries would have been avoided. The crash was entirely the defendant’s fault. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The Queen’s Bench held in favour of the plaintiff on grounds that there was no statutory compulsion to wear a seatbelt at the time. The defendant appealed. Appeal was allowed
o Determining whether on is guilty of contributory negligence is a matter of the damage, not cause
o Plaintiffs injuries, except broken finger, were caused by his failure to wear a seatbelt and was therefore guilty of contributory negligence.
So if you contribute to your own accident, you cannot claim damages on the other party, for damage you could have avoided yourself.
England v Cowley (1873), Oakley v Lyster (1931)
- Case example of distinguishing on the facts even though both were on conversion (land) (then the precedent is not binding):
In both cases about property on the land there were objects that did not belong to seller of the land so also not the buyer. The owner of the objects, the buyer refused to remove the objects. This was allowed. So conversion was granted. And could take property. The owner of the land was the owner of the land and also of the objects. Here conversion was not granted, not really physical appropriation of the objects.
o However in Oakly v Lyster, the same argument was not used, conversion was granted here and therefore England v Cowley was not used as precedent. So two cases with the same cases are decided differently because of reasoning.
This means that there is no binding precedent in case the plaintiff or defendant argues a similar case on different arguments.
Household fire insurance company v Grant (1879):
- concluding a contract by distance, by mail. When was the offer accepted? When someone has put a letter in the mail box, this is when it was decided that the offer was accepted.
o This means that an agreement and the principle of law is established when acceptance is effective, in this case the acceptance of buying shares in a company by posting a letter. That the letter was never received, does not hinder the establishment of the agreement.
Rondel v Worsley (HoL 1969)
- The appellant had obtained the services of the respondent barrister to defend him on a dock brief, and alleged that the respondent had been negligent in the conduct of his defence. The HoL held that barristers should be considered immune from negligence in court, since making assertions of liability against barristers might undermine the willingness of barristers to carry out their duties to the court.
Hedley Byrne & co. Ltd v Heller & partners (1964)
- Bank was brought before the court because they sold an investment that was not very good. Therefore, the defendant claimed damages. The bank was liable but still, they were not convicted to pay it, because they had a disclaimer. The ratio decidendi, in principle the bank is liable but not applied because of the disclaimer to the general rule. Resulted in the fact that the RD was not binding. Is only binding if used as the basis for the outcome
R v Howe (1987), R v Gotts (1992)
- Obiter dicta ‘ripening into’ ratio decidendi.
criminal case where defendant was prosecuted for murder. Defense out of necessity killed. Under enormous stress etc. The judges took a fundamental decision; duress can never be a defense against murder. Your life is never worth more than that of another. That would be the case if you were under enormous stress, and attempted murder but not actually killed someone. Not RD, because R.v Howe was about actual murder. - In R v Gotts (father told boy to kill mom or he would be shot himself, mother survived) this was used because of duress used as a defense and because of the notes in R v Howe. There was said that in attempted murder, duress could not stand because judges were persuaded. Furthermore, attempted murder can only be established where there is an intention to kill.
R v Jordan (div. crt 1967)
- Appeal against race relations act of 1965, on the grounds that this was an infringement on freedom of speech. Judges were unwilling to question validity of the act.
o This concept crystalizes parliamentary sovereignty, that parliament can make rules and statutes about whichever topic they please. - Judges are not allowed to rule if Acts of Parliament are compatible with principles of natural law
Factortame I & II (HL 1990, 1991)
- House of Lords made a reference to the ECJ on the legalitiy of the merchant shipping act of 1988. (factortame I), This was a sign of confirmation of EU law primacy. Factortame II was where the ECJ held that the provisions of the MCA or any act would have to be disapplied if they contravened with EU law.
o This is irrelevant since Brexit.
Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke (PC 1968)
- Madzimbamuto was detained during the Rhodesian revolutionary. Was detained based on the Rhodesian constitution, adopted by the revolutionaries. His wife went to the Privy Council in order to get the detention undone. British parliament had adopted an act, declaring the Rhodesian constitution null and void. Is the British parliament allowed to do this? The Privy Council had to follow the act of parliament or declare it void. The privy council followed the parliamentary sovereignty and that parliament could decide anything and declare any constitution null and void, so also that of Rhodesia. And the judges were not allowed to test that act of parliament. They had to follow it and the constitution had to be treated as null and void and the detention was declared illegitimate
o This again underlines parliamentary sovereignty from the UK
Ellen Street Estates LTD v The minister of Health (CA 1934) 1 KB 590
- A man who had to forcibly sell his land. And the question was, what kind of compensation he would get. Two possible statues
o act of 1919 (acquisition of land) this was preferred for the seller, because it would give him more
o housing act 1925, newer rule and surpassed in principle the previous act. Lex posterior rule. The issue was that the act of 1919 had a clause that all acts or orders shall have effect according to that act. The argument for the seller was that the housing act qualified under the act of 1919. And that the idea was of 1919, to bind parliament in the future.
This is impossible, this case shows that parliament is sovereign but it cannot bind its successor, this body is always allowed to change
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002) 4 all ER 156:
- Thoburn wanted to sell bananas by the pound and not kg. Wanted to use the imperial system. Britain adopted the ECA (European community act 1972), with the Henry VIII clause, allowed the minister to harmonize to change the imperial system and turn it into the metric system. This would circumvent parliament
Weights and measures act was adopted in 1985. Had a clause stipulating parity of imperial and metric system. Parity of pound and kg, from that moment both could be used.
Statutory instrument of 1994, outlawed the use of pound and only kg could be used, using the Henry VIII clause.
Thoburn his argument was that the govt used the VIII clause and was implicitly revoked by government by the weights and measures act in 1985. The newer act prevails over an older act. But the judges found that in principle Thoburn is right but the ECA is not an ordinary statute but one of constitutional nature and can only be revoked explicitly. Implicitly does not count with constitutional statutory clause.
o This leads to the rule that statutes can be revoked implicitly, unless they are constitutional statutes, then they can only be revoked explicitly.
Edinburgh & Dalkeith railway v Wauchope (HL 1842):
- The case revolves around a railway that was built by through a private land owner’s property (Wauchope). The railway was built under the power of a private act of Parliament – it gave the builders right of way through private property, and also provided for a ‘compensatory’ scheme of levies on the freight using the railway. The provision for the levy did not contain a fixed sum for carriages containing passengers, however there was provision for the levy concerning tonnage of goods. For several years Wauchope was paid levy sums concerned with the tonnage of goods passing on the railway, but nothing for those carrying passengers.
o On appeal, the Lords found for Wauchope. It was held that the contrary provisions in the second Act could not apply as they had not been communicated to him – specific to this being a Private act of Parliament. However it was also noted that wherever an Act has been properly enacted by Parliament, it’s the duty of the courts to interpret it as representing the will of Parliament.
This means that if parliament adopts private acts, but does not communicate them properly, it cannot be applied. If this is however done properly, the court can only follow it as representing the will of parliament (parliamentary sovereignty).
Inland revenue commissioners v National federation of self-employed and small businesses (HL 1981)
- The NFSE a group of taxpayers, claimed that levying tax on casual wages for fleet street newspaper staff was unlawful. Employees had given fictious names to evade tax, and the IRC agreed on a tax collection scheme, and not investigate the previous years. The NFSE argued the scheme was unlawful and never got the favour they asked for.
o Locus standi (interest sufficient) wasnt granted here because it was said that the national federation of self employed had not enough interest to appeal
This means that a case has to be of enough interest before even judged on its merits.
A-G v Fulham Corporation (CH 1921)
- Under the baths and washhouses act of 1846, the Fulham corporation operated 60 throughs where people could bring their laundry with their own soap. This changed in 1920, where customers had to pay for a bag to put their clothes in and then give it to the corporation, bringing it of their own control. The legality of the new 1920 scheme was challenged on an ultra vires basis.
o Above all, the court held that the Corporation had gone beyond its statutory duty in that it was subsidising its operations with the ratepayers’ money. Therefore, the court granted injunction. ‘That is an instance… in which operations are conducted by persons who have not their own pockets to consider, but who have behind them what they regard as the unlimited or nearly unlimited purse of the ratepayers.’ There was breach of a fiduciary duty.
A corporation cannot go beyond its duties, otherwise it is acting ultra vires and will be recalled by the courts.
Dimes v Grand junction canal (HL 1852)
- Judges deciding on the case also had shares in the junction canal company. Since this is an infringement of the impartiality of the judges, a case like this cannot stand. Judges have to be removed from the bench, in case of partiality.
Associated provincial picture houses v Wednesbury corporation (1948)
- APPH was granted a license by Wednesbury to operate a cinema, where no kids under 15 were allowed on Sunday. Cinemas could be open from Mondays to Saturdays and not on Sundays. This changed in 1932, where opening cinemas could be opened on Sunday on conditions the local authority may think to impose. APPH challenged the condition Wednesbury that no kids were allowed on Sunday and outside of the power of the corporation to impose.
o Court held that for the court to adopt any remedies against decisions of public bodies, it would have to find that the decisions maker:
Has given undue relevance to facts that in reality lacked the relevance for being considered in the decisions making process.
Had not given relevance to facts that were relevant and worthy of being considered in the decision-making process
Had made a decisions that was completely absurd, a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have possibly made it
o In this case the court ruled that the corporations conduct was not inappropriate, and complied with standards.
• These are the rules laid out when a regulation may be considered unreasonable.
The countess of Rutland’s case (1604) 77 ER 89 (90)
- It would be inconvenient, that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of the parties should be controlled by averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory.
o The laying out of (the parol evidence rule and) an estoppel principle; which prevents someone from arguing or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law - The Countess wanted to use the oral testimony of trustees to the documents to prove that her late husband really meant to give the property to her at his death
Carlill v Carbolic smoke ball co (1893)
- 100 Pounds to anyone contracting influenza after use of smoke ball.
Carlill bought a smoke ball and caught influenza after the use of it. And then went to the company and claimed the 100 Pounds. Company refused to give the money because used in a negligent way etc. In the end the company claimed that an offer has to be offered to a specific person.
o Court decided there was an offer at large to the world to sell the smoke balls. There were no rules about false marketing. So court decided there was a contract here
Harris v Nickerson (1873)
- advertisement: auction sale of office furniture at Bury St. Edmunds; Harris traveled from London; furniture withdrawn from sale. He sued the auction claiming there was on offer and planning to accept and the offerer cannot withdraw it. If this cannot stand, there is a claim of damages and wanted his expenses paid by the defendant.
o Court said this is not an offer but merely a declaration to inform potential purchasers that the sale was taking place. the bid is the offer in this case which is made by the potential purchaser and the bid can be accepted by the auctioneer. Then the offer made by the bidder is accepted. The auctioneer can also conclude that the bid is not accepted.
Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots cash chemists (southern) ltd (1953)
- Pharmaceutical products could only be sold when a licensed pharmacist was present when selling the articles. The government had offices to check if the regulations were met. There government officials found that products could be found in the store which could be accepted before you reach the cashier/pharmacist which would be accepted when payment is taken. This analysis was supported by the fact that the customer would have been free to return any of the items to the shelves before a payment had been made
o Court decided the price of a product in a store does not constitute an offer, but merely a statement of price. The offer is putting it on the counter. It is merely an invitation to treat
Harvey v Facey (1893)
- lowest price for Bumper Hall pen for 900 pounds via telegram communicated. Was this an offer? It was accepted and the defendant said it was merely an invitation to treat. To invite to negotiate. No contract had been concluded .
o court held that there was no contract held, it only could be concluded when the offer was accepted and the contract would have been concluded.
Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153:
- Lizardi & Co. sold a number of bills of exchange to Mr. Misa, drawn from a banking firm owned by Mr. Currie, and were to be paid on the next day. However, Lizardi was in substantial debt to Mr. Currie’s bank and was being pressed for payment. A few days later, upon paying in the cheque, Mr. Mirsa learned of Lizardi’s stopped payments and outstanding debts, instructing his bankers not to honour the cheque. The question arose as to whether the cheque was payable, particularly as to whether the sale of an existing debt formed sufficient consideration for a negotiable security, so as to render the creditor to whom it was paid, Mr. Currie, a holder for the value of the cheque.
o This led to the court holding that consideration should be: some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party (promisor), or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party (promisee). The pre-existing debt did not in and of itself form a sufficient consideration for the negotiable security. Accordingly, there was an absence of any consideration or the making or payment of the cheque by Mr. Misa.
Dunlop v Selfridge (1915) AC 847
- Lord Dunedin
o an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable. –> so the promise has to be of value. - In between company (D) and retailer (Selfridge) there was a dealer, with whom Selfridge had a contract not to sell the tires below 5 pounds because that is what D wanted down the whole chain. When Selfridge did, it was sued damages from Dunlop. Does Dunlop have the right to access damages without a contractual relationship? –> No, not a party to the contract so not possible.
White v Bluett (1853)
- A father sued his son, if the son would stop fighting with his father, the father wouldnt sue on the promissory note. The father sued anyway. The son claimed there was a promise from the son, to not complain, in return for his promise not to sue. Thats a contract. Hes bound by it.
o Court rejected it because it has no value, it needs value not adequate value. But there has to be some value in the contract.
Collins v Godefroy (1831)
- 6 guineas for promise to testify, Collins testified but Godefroy didnt pay.
o Promise to do something which you are already bound to do under general law. If you are a witness, you are bound to appear, and can even be held in contempt of court. So the promise to testify was not sufficient consideration. So Collins could not claim the amount in court. –> has to be sufficient, cannot constitute a duty you already have.
Glasbrooks bros v Glamorgan County Council (125)
- Company feared that miners would go on strike so requested that the police would keep an eye on it. After the police showed up, the county council sued the collary for payment of the police. Was this good consideration? Not just doing their public duty (Glassbrooks argument).
o Court held that if law enforcement exceeds public duty, the police are not there to stand as guards over a mine. So they exceeded their public duty and by doing so, they provided sufficient consideration to be seen as consideration. So the police can sue for costs if they exceed their public duty.
Perera v Vandiyar (1953)
- A landlord wanted to evict a tenant and cut off gas and electricity from the house. Family that lived there, went after the owner of the property. This was a matter of contract law and the could go after the landlord but wanted something extra. Exemplary (punitive) damages. So not just awarded the real damages but also a sum which is meant to deter tort feasors from ever committing tort again. The court didnt go with the claim and didnt create tort of eviction
Hargreaves v Bretherton (1958), affirmed in Roy v Prior (1969):
- Witness perjured himself but the victim wanted damages paid and punitive damages for the perjury. The court denied it. Perjury is a criminal offense and the court decided that this was enough and no tort was needed here.