Cases

Question 1

R v Wood

Answer 1

[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”

Question 2

Attorney-General v Wiltshire United Dairies

Answer 2

[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.

Question 3

R (Haw) v Home Secretary

Answer 3

[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.

Question 4

R v Somerset CC ex p Fewings

Answer 4

[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

Question 5

Strickland v Hayes

Answer 5

[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.

Question 6

Nash v Finlay

Answer 6

[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.

Question 7

R v Secretary of State for Social Security

Answer 7

[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

Question 8

R (Bono) v Harlow DC

Answer 8

[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

Question 9

The Earl of Oxford’s Case

Answer 9

[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

Question 10

Combe v Combe

Answer 10

[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

Question 11

High Trees

Answer 11

[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

Question 12

Berry v Berry

Answer 12

[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

Question 13

D&C Builders v Rees

Answer 13

[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

Question 14

American Cyanmid v Ethicon

Answer 14

[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?

Question 15

Leaf v International Galleries

Answer 15

[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

Question 16

Ashby v White

Answer 16

[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.

Question 17

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd

Answer 17

[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

Question 18

R v R

Answer 18

[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).

Question 19

What was overruled in the cases of

Pepper v Hart [1993]&raquo_space; Davis v Johnson [1979] ?

Answer 19

The House of Lords departed from Davis v Johnson [1979] and took a purposive approach to interpretation, holding that Hansard may be referred to

Question 20

Gillick v West Norfolk

Answer 20

[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

Question 21

Balfour v Balfour

Answer 21

[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

Question 22

Merrit v Merrit

Answer 22

[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

Question 23

Whitely v Chappel

Answer 23

[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

Question 24

R v Harris

Answer 24

[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.

Question 25

R v Allen

Answer 25

[1872]

The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute states ‘whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence’. Under a literal interpretation of this section, this offence is impossible to commit as civil law will not condone a second marriage

It was held that the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as ‘to go through a marriage ceremony’. The defendant’s conviction was upheld

Question 26

Alder v George

Answer 26

[1964]

Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited palace. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than ‘in the vicinity’ of it, at the time of obstruction.

It was held that it would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. His conviction was therefore upheld.

Question 27

Smith v Hughes

Answer 27

[1960]

The defendants were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to solicit in a public place.

The prostitutes were soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by the public.

The court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.

Question 28

DPP & Bull

Answer 28

[1995]

A man was charged with an offence under the Street Offences Act 1959 which makes it an offence for a ‘common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public place for the purposes of prostitution’.

The magistrates found him not guilty on the grounds that ‘common prostitute’ only related to females and not males.

The court held that the Act only applied to females. The word prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule. The Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work of the Wolfenden Report into homosexuality and prostitution. The Report only referred to female prostitution and did not mention male prostitutes. The QBD, therefore, held the mischief the Act was aimed at was controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.

Question 29

Pickstone v Freemans PLC

Answer 29

[1989]

Miss Pickstone brought a claim against her employer under the Equal Pay Act 1970.

She was employed as a warehouse operative and was paid the same as male warehouse operatives.

Miss Pickstone claimed that the work of the warehouse operatives was of equal value to that done by male warehouse checkers who were paid more than she was.

The House of Lords decided that the literal approach would have left the United Kingdom in breach of its Treaty obligations to give effect to an EU directive. It therefore used the purposive approach and stated that Miss Pickstone was entitled to claim on the basis of work of equal value even though there was a male employee doing the same work as her

Question 30

Pepper v Hart

Answer 30

[1992]

A teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees

The teacher sought to rely upon a statement in Hansard made at the time the Finance Act was passed in which the minister gave his exact circumstance as being where tax would not be payable. Previously the courts were not allowed to refer to Hansard

HOL took a purposive approach to interpretation holding that Hansard may be referred to and the teacher was not required to pay tax on the perk he received.

Question 31

Powell v Kempton Park

Answer 31

[1897]

The Betting Act [1853] made it an offence to “keep a house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting”
The question in hand was whether Tattersall’s enclosure at Kempton Park Racecourse was included in this list.

The House of Lords held that it was not, because all places in the list were indoors whereas the enclosure was outside.

Question 32

Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council

Answer 32

[1982]

The word “economic” was to be interpreted of its meaning, and whether it would inhibit the Greater London Council from operating a cheap fare scheme on transportation, putting them at a financial loss
The phrase to be used was “integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services.”
This led the court to hold that “economic” was to be used in line with business application. Hence, it was held that this would not be legal as it deliberately precipitates a loss for the transport system.

Question 33

R v Inhabitants of Sedgely

Answer 33

[1831]

A statute increased taxes on “lands, houses and coalmines”
The statute did not leave it open to interpretation as there was no use of “and similar”. The statute explicitly stated “lands, houses and coalmines” but not limestone mines, which the case was examining. Hence, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius was applied and it was held that limestone mines were not included

Question 34

Hunter v Canary Warf

Answer 34

[1997]

A tower was erected near a primary television transmitter. This interfered with reception for several people living nearby.
It caused interference until it was fixed half a year later.

It was held that one can build what they wish to on their own land. If this interferes with the light, air or view of nearby residents, that is unfortunate for them. Interference with television signal does not amount to nuisance.

Question 35

Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands

Answer 35

[2011]

Richardson, a teacher, claimed he was unlawfully arrested and detained following allegations of assaulting a pupil. He voluntarily attended an interview at the police station and claimed the arresting officer had no reasonable grounds for arrest. He wished to claim damages for false imprisonment. He wishes for his DNA samples and fingerprints to be destroyed

The question at hand was whether he was unlawfully detained under PACE 24(4), and whether he could request the destruction of his DNA samples and fingerprints

Question 36

Taylor v CC Thames Valley Police

Answer 36

[2004]

The claimant was videoed committing an offence. CC appealed findings that officers had wrongfully arrested Taylor. The claimant was 10 years old and said officers had not given him a reason as to why he was being arrested

Question 37

Airdale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 37

[1993]

Bland was reduced to a vegetative state. His brain stem was functioning, hence was still alive. There was no prospect of recovery. The NHS applied for a declaration to end all life-sustaining treatment

Question 38

R v Bassett

Answer 38

[2008]

Bassett was spotted watching a man swimming with his young daughter. He was holding a plastic bag with a hole at the bottom. Bassett confessed to videoing the pair, but this focus was on the man, not the daughter as previously believed

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, voyeurism is an offence. He was convicted

Question 39

Colchester Estates v Carlton Industries

Answer 39

[1984]

This case established the principle that where there are two conflicting decisions of the High Court, the latter decision is to be preferred

Question 40

Fisher v Bell

Answer 40

[1961]

The defendant displayed a flick knife accompanied by a price ticket in his shop window

A statute made it a criminal offence to ‘offer’ such flick knives for sale.

His conviction was quashed as goods on display in shops are not ‘offers’ in the technical sense but an invitation to treat.

The court applied the literal rule of statutory interpretation

Question 41

London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman

Answer 41

[1946]

A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track. No look out man had been provided. A statute provided compensation payable on death for those ‘relaying or repairing’ the track. Under the literal rule, oiling did not come into either of these categories

Question 42

Lees v Secretary of State

Answer 42

[1985]