Cases Flashcards
Corkery vs Carpenter (1951)
Man found drunk in charge a bicycle. Is a bicycle a carriage?
Mischief Rule applied to use the intent of the law, and found that a bicycle should be considered a carriage.
Quintavalle vs Sec of State for Health (2003)
What is the definition of Embryo and does it include cloned eggs?
Major early use of the Purposive Approach and ability of courts to re-i repeat statute (and make law)
Whitely vs Chappell (1868)
Impersonating a dead voter. Squirted on the literal rule - that a dead person was not eligible to vote so not voter fraud.
LNER vs Berriman (1946)
Death while maintaining railway lines. Aquitted due to literal reading of law referring to “repairing” of railway lines only.
Adler vs George (1964)
Obstructing armed forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Defendant argued he wasn’t in the vicinity as he was actually ON the army base. Golden Rule was applied to avoid an absurdity.
Litster vs Forth Dry Dock (1990)
Employees dismissed one hour BEFORE transfer of business to new owner.
Law says that a termination cannot be carried out as part of the transfer.
Purposive Approach used to meet the intent of the law, which is to protect employees in the event of a sale of a business.
Wood v Comissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1986)
Does a piece of broken glass meet the definition of an offensive weapon under the Vagrancy act?
Eiusderm Generis was used to argue no, as the glass was not designed or intended as a weapon.
Pengelley v Bell Punch Co (1964)
Does a floor used for storage fall under the Factories Act requirement to be kept clear at all times?
Noscitur a Sociis used to argue no - as the examples given in the Act are all passageways, not storage areas.
R v Inhabitants of Sedgely (1831)
Can the “poor rate” levied on coal mines specifically be applied to other mines?
Expressio unius used to argue no - if the intent was to cover all mines, it would not say coal mines specifically.
Pepper vs Hart (1995)
Established that Hansard was a valid Extrinsic Source for Statutory Interpretation
Donogue v Stevenson (1932)
Dead snail in a bottle of ginger beer.
No breach of contract as claimant did not purchase drink herself.
But damages owed as a person owes a duty to take reasonable care that they do not commit any act which they could reasonably forsee as injuring another person
Crossley v Rawlinson (1982)
Man injured while rushing to put out a truck on fire.
Was the truck driver liable?
Judge said no - as the injury was not a foreseeable result of the driver’s actions.
Smith v Hughes
Prostitutes soliciting through a window, not “on the street”
Mischief Rule used to apply the law broadly and convict
Caparo v Dickman 1990
Established the 3 part test for a Novel Duty of Care
Case regarding economic loss from financial auditors
Bourhill v Young 1943
No duty of care for psychiatric harm for victims not reasonably foreseeable
Stovin v Wise 1996
No duty of Care for Omissions
Hedley Byrne v Heller 1967
Set the conditions under which a claim can be made for pure economic loss
Miller v Jackson 1977
Cricket Ball case - the social benefit of sport was a relevant consideration
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management
Bolam Test - Professionals can be judged by the reasonable standard of a competent professional
Nettleship v Weston 1971
A learner driver is held to the same standard as a qualified driver
Baker v TE Hopkins & Sons
Established Duty to the Rescuer (if defendant caused the dangerous situation)
Blyth v Birmingham 1856
Reasonable man test.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
“But for” Test for Causality
Would the result have occurred but for the act or omission of the defendant?
Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (Wagon Mound)
Established test for Remoteness of Damage.
Would a reasonable person have foreseen the damage?
Robinson v Post Office 1974
Egg Shell Rule
Defendant must take claimant as he finds him.
If the type of injury is foreseeable, details don’t need to be precise
Damn v Hamilton 1939
Knowledge of risk is not consent to the risk
Weller v FMDRI 1965
Exclusionary Rule - Pure Economic Loss
Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co 1973
CONSEQUENTAL economic loss were recoverable
Wheat v Lacon 1966
Definition and Test of Occupier
Occupational Control
