Cases Flashcards
What happened in Stretch v UK 2003
The Human Rights Act 1998
Dorchester Borough Council granted a 22year lease of a light industrial estate to a businessman called Michael Stretch.
□ The contract contained an option for him to renew the lease for a further 21 years once the original term expired.
□ Stretch always planned to do so in order to ensure adequate return on his investment.
® However, when he requested a renewal he was told that this option was not available because the Council had exceeded their powers when granting the original lease.
® Having exhausted his UK rights of appeal
◊ (note – this case occurred BEFORE the HR Act came into force)
® Stretch appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Council’s refusal to renew the lease breached his right to property.
§ The decision in the English courts was that the Council couldn’t offer Stretch a new lease as it would be illegal for them to do so (a breach of their powers).
Stretch v Uk 2003 Held
§ Held: The Council would be acting illegally if it renewed the lease BUT
□ It was wrong that Stretch was left without a remedy due to the failure of the Council
This was a breach of Stretch’s right to property and he should be awarded damages (compensation) for the fact that he had been misled by the Council
What happened in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
§ Defendant is carbolic smoke Co = produces product called smoke ball designed to prevent flu (/ cure from other aliments)
§ To promote- advert (handout) in national newspaper
□ £100 Reward given to someone who uses as directed and catches flu
□ £1000 deposited with a named bank as gesture of good faith that they will pay-out
§ Claimant- Carlill
□ Used the product and caught the flu- but recovered
§ Carbolic had multiple claims over their 1000 - so Carlill went to court for breach on contract
Defence arguments for Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
§ The advert was too vague to form the basis of a contract
§ It is not possible to make an offer to the whole world
§Mrs Carlill did not accept the offer as she did not notify the company that she was doing so
Held: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Co
• Mrs Carlill lost her case at the first instance trial and appealed to the Court of Appeal.
§ The decision: The Court of Appeal found that there was a legally enforceable agreement (a contract) between Mrs Carlill and the company and the company must pay damages (compensation) to Mrs Carlill.
Ratio decidendi
- Offers must be sufficiently clear in order to allow courts to enforce agreements that follow from them
- This offer was a distinct promise expressed in very clear language
- An offer may be made to the whole world at large and the advert was such an offer
- The fact that £1,000 was deposited in the bank showed that the offer was intended to be taken seriously
- The offer was accepted by any person (like Mrs Carlill) who bought the product and used it as prescribed
- It was not necessary to let the Company know that she was accepting the offer as her conduct in doing what was asked was sufficient acceptance
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Co Obiter Dicta
® These extra comments are the obiter dicta which do not have to be followed in future cases but may be useful in assisting judges in future disputes.
◊ An example of obiter dicta found in the Carlill case was the following statement:
- If I advertise to the world that I’ve lost my dog and that if anyone finds it and returns it to me I will pay them a £100 reward…
- I would not expect anyone to sit down and write me a note accepting my offer before returning the dog.’
This is obiter dicta rather than ratio decidendi because it is not directly related to the facts of the Carlill case –
□ it is simply an example used by the Judge to explain his/her thinking.
□ It is only statements which form part of the actual decision in the case that make up the ratio decidendi
What happened in R v Clegg 1995?
Clegg was a soldier serving in Northern Ireland.
○ He was manning a vehicle checkpoint when a vehicle approached.
○ As Clegg indicated that he wanted the vehicle to stop, the driver speeded up instead and crashed straight through the checkpoint barrier.
○ As he drove away Clegg fired his gun at the car.
○ A bullet entered the rear of the vehicle and hit and killed a back seat passenger.
○ Clegg was charged with murder.
Held R v Clegg 1995
® Held (at first instance):
○ Clegg was guilty of murder as he had committed an act (firing the gun at the car) knowing that it was highly likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
○He was sentenced to life imprisonment (mandatary sentence for anyone convicted of murder).
Appeal of R v Clegg 1995
Court of Appeal:
- The C/A expressed sympathy with the Def but, applying the common law, they held that the first instance conviction should stand.
- The C/A expressed the view that the law would be improved if soldiers and policemen who killed in the course of their duties should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder (obiter dicta) but felt bound to apply the law as it stood
Clegg’s appeal to the House of Lords (now supreme court)
- H/L also upheld the murder conviction (by applying the law)
- The H/L was reluctant to make such a significant change in the law (i.e a manslaughter verdict rather than murder)
but the H/L suggested that a review of this area of the law should be undertaken by Parliament
What happened in IRC v Hinchy 1960
The defendant failed to disclose part of his Post Office interest and was convicted of the criminal offence of failing to deliver a correct tax return.
Held IRC v Hinchy 1960
□ Interpreting the words in the statute literally, the Def was liable to pay £20 PLUS
□ treble the whole tax chargeable for the year and not merely treble the tax on the undisclosed income.
□ Parliament would have specified that it was just the ‘undisclosed’ income if that was its intention.
Held Re Sigsworth 1935
Held: On a literal interpretation of the Act, Sigsworth would inherit the money.
® But Parliament would never have intended such a result
- So the Golden Rule would be applied to allow the courts to deviate from the literal interpretation and avoid an absurd result.
What happened in Smith v Hughes 1960
- Although prostitution itself is NOT illegal the Street Offences Act specifies a number of acts associated with prostitution which are classed as illegal.
- For example, under the Street Offences Act it is a criminal offence for a prostitute to SOLICIT IN THE STREET.
◊ To solicit is to try to attract customers. - The Defendant was a prostitute who attracted customers by leaning out of her bedroom window and calling or beckoning them in.
◊ She was charged with the offence of ‘soliciting in the street’ under the Street Offences Act.
◊ Her defence was that as she was in her bedroom window then she was not soliciting in the street.
Held Smith v Hughes 1960
The purpose of the legislation was to prevent annoyance to people in public places.
- Although she was not actually physically in the street, her actions were annoying to people in the street.
- It would be absurd not to find her guilty so she was convicted of the offence.
What happened in Smith v Hughes 1960
§ The Defendant wished to purchase a particular company but before the purchase was completed an advisor to the company told him that the company had agreed to accept a rival offer instead.
§ Within 10 minutes of receiving that information the Def began purchasing shares in the company which he subsequently sold at a significant profit.
§ He was charged with the criminal offence of ‘insider dealing’ under the Insider Dealing Act 1985.
□ According to this Act the offence is committed when anyone enters into transactions using information not known to the general public, which has been ‘knowingly obtained’.
§ The Defendant argued that as he had merely received the information and had taken no positive steps to acquire the information then he had not ‘obtained’ the information and so should not be guilty of the offence charged.
- The Attorney General applied to court for clarification of the meaning of ‘knowingly obtained’ as the Defendant’s position was dependent on what was meant by this phrase in the statute
