Cases Flashcards
Memorise key cases in CIE A-Level Law
R v Wood
[1855]
The Public Health Act 1848 (The Parent/Enabling Act) gave power to local health boards to make by-laws requiring the removal of “dust, ashes, rubbish, dung and filth” from pavements. Wood was prosecuted for non-compliance with a by-law that required the removal of snow, but freshly-fallen snow could be pure, so snow could not be regarded as “filth”
Attorney-General v Wiltshire United Dairies
[1922]
Wartime legislation allowed the Food Controller to regulate the supply of food as he wishes. He made regulations restricting the transportation of milk to those holding a special licence. The House of Lords declared this regulation ultra vires: it was equivalent to a tax, and no tax can be levied without the express consent of Parliament.
R (Haw) v Home Secretary
[2005]
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 ) made it a criminal offence to start a demonstration in a defined area around Parliament without police authorisation, and authorised the Home Secretary to make by order of “transitory, transitional or saving”. The Home Secretary made an order intending to extend the offence to demonstrations started before the commencement date and continuing thereafter, and the applicant appealed, arguing this was not a ‘transitory or transitional’ order.
R v Somerset CC ex p Fewings
[1995]
A local authority voted to ban stag hunting on land which it owned, and officers of the hunt sought judicial review of this decision. It was held that the majority of councillors in voting for the ban had been swayed by irrelevant factors (namely, their belief that hunting was immoral); they should have considered only whether the proposed measure would be for the benefit or improvement of the area. The decision should therefore be quashed
Strickland v Hayes
[1896]
Worcestershire CC, under under the Local Government Act 1888 , made it an offence to sing or recite any profane or obscene song, or to use any profane or obscene language “in any street or public place or on land adjacent thereto”. The court said this went beyond the scope of the parent Act (which was concerned with the prevention of annoyance to others) and was consequently invalid.
Nash v Finlay
[1901]
A woman who used abusive language to another person was convicted by magistrates under a Stafford Borough by-law providing that “no person shall wilfully annoy passengers in the streets”. The Divisional Court allowed her appeal on the basis that the by-law did not give an adequate indication of what conduct it was meant to prohibit.
R v Secretary of State for Social Security
[1996]
An asylum-seeker sought judicial review of regulations withdrawing all social security benefits from those who sought asylum after having been admitted to the UK, rather than at the moment of entry. This reversed the Divisional Court ruling, granting a declaration that the regulations in question were ultra vires
R (Bono) v Harlow DC
[2002]
Applicants sought to challenge the decision of the district housing review board that they were not entitled to housing benefit, and argued that since the board consisted of councillors appointed by Harlow DC they had been denied the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This on the grounds of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998
The Earl of Oxford’s Case
[1615]
The Earl of Oxford’s Case [1615] decided that if there was conflict between the Common Law and Equity, Equity would prevail
This was enshrined into Section 25 Judicature Act 1873
Combe v Combe
[1951]
Equity must be used as a shield and not wielded as a sword
A husband promised to make maintenance payments to his estranged wife but failed to do so. The wife brought an action to enforce the promise invoking promissory estoppel. This failed as there was no pre-existing agreement modified by a promise. She tried to use the equitable remedy promissory estoppel as a sword and not a shield
High Trees
[1947]
High trees leased a block of flat from the plaintiffs, Central London Property Trust. The property suffered from falling occupancy rates due to the outbreak of World War II in 1940, so CLP agreed to reduce the rent during the war years. This was put in writing. The defendants continued to pay the rent at this new rate. By 1945 the war had ended and the flats were at full occupancy. CLP sought to retrieve the remaining rent from these years, at the original price
Berry v Berry
[1929]
Equity looks to the intention and not the form
A deed was held to have been altered by a simple contract. Under common-law rules, a deed could only be altered by another deed. Equity decided that as the parties had intended to alter the deed, it would be fair to look at the intention rather than the fact that they got the formalities wrong
D&C Builders v Rees
[1966]
He who comes to equity must do so with clean hands
D&C Builders (hereafter referred to as C) did work for Rees (hereafter referred to as D) at his home. C reduced the bill upon payment of a deposit but there was still an outstanding sum. C wrote several times pressing for payment—no complains had been made about the work that had been done. C was in dire financial need and D knew this. D then made a complaint and said she would give them less than the final amount, but C refused and took the money saying he would accept the rest within a year. Rees demanded that the defendant wrote on the receipt ‘in completion of the account’ otherwise she would pay him nothing, he reluctantly did so due to his financial hardship but stated he fully intended to pursue the balance as the money paid did not cover the costs he had incurred. Rees sought to rely on estoppel from the written receipt as a promise to accept the lesser sum.
Mrs Rees could not rely on estoppel as there was no true agreement to accept less and because Mrs Rees had taken advantage of the builder’s position and mislead them as to her financial position
A party will not receive an equitable remedy if they have not acted fairly
American Cyanmid v Ethicon
[1975]
He who seeks equity must do equity
Guidelines set out to establish whether an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of an interiminjunction. The guidelines consider
- Is there a serious issue to be tried?
- If so, what is the balance of convenience?
Leaf v International Galleries
[1950]
Delay defeats equity
The claimant purchased a painting from the defendant. Both parties believed that the painting was by the artist Constable. 5 years later the claimant discovered the painting was not a Constable. The claimant brought an action based both on misrepresentation and mistake.
Since it was an innocent mistake, the claimant had lost the right to rescind the contract through lapse of time
Ashby v White
[1703]
Ashby (Plaintiff), was stopped from being able to exercise his right to vote by the actions of another, and he brought suit when he sustained injury. The issue of this case is whether one party may recover damages when one of his civil rights is hindered by the action of another.
When the actions of one person serve to hinder the rights of another, a cause of action may arise.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
[1936]
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd followed the precedent set in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
Dr Grant had bought an undergarment from Australian Knitting Mills LTD and subsequently contracted dermatitis.
It was found Australian Knitting Mills LTD were negligent in the manufacturing process due to excess sulphite
The decision of this case is bound to the Donoghue v Stevenson case since these are similar in scope
R v R
[1991]
The defendant was charged with the attempted rape of his wife. At the time of the offence the couple had separated although no formal legal separation existed and neither party had partitioned for a divorce. It was previously legal to rape your wife. This case overruled previous precedent
It was illegal for a man to rape his wife (later in Sexual Offences Act 2003).
What was overruled in the cases of
Pepper v Hart [1993]»_space; Davis v Johnson [1979] ?
The House of Lords departed from Davis v Johnson [1979] and took a purposive approach to interpretation, holding that Hansard may be referred to
Gillick v West Norfolk
[1986]
Mrs Gillick was a mother with five daughters under the age of 16. She sought a declaration that it would be unlawful for a doctor to prescribe contraceptives to girls under 16 without the knowledge or consent of the parent
Balfour v Balfour
[1919]
A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement
The agreement was a purely social and domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be legally bound
Merrit v Merrit
[1970]
A husband left his wife and went to live with another woman. The husband signed an agreement where he would pay the wife a monthly sum to enable her to meet the mortgage payments and if she paid all the charges in connection with the mortgage until it was paid off he would transfer his share of the house to her. When the mortgage was fully paid she brought an action for a declaration that the house belonged to her
The agreement was binding. The parties were separated, and this with their written agreement showed intent for this to be legally binding
Whitely v Chappel
[1868]
A statute made it an offence ‘to impersonate any person entitled to vote.’ The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote.
It was held that the literal rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted
R v Harris
[1836]
The defendant bit off his victim’s nose. A statute made it an offence ‘to stab cut or wound’. The court held that under the literal rule the act of biting did not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. Therefore the defendant’s conviction was quashed.
