Cases (all topics) Flashcards
CASES FOR EACH TOPIC INDIVIDUALLY!!
UNIT 1
Judicial independence - Sirros v Moore (suit), Pinochet (case)
Stat. Interpretation:
Literal: Whiteley v Chappell, LNER v Berriman, Fisher v Bell
Golden: Allen (narrow), Adler v George + Re Sigsworth (broad)
Mischief: Heydon’s (!!), Smith v Hughes, RCN v DHSS
Purposive: Ex Parte Smith, R v Secretary of State, Fitzpatrick v SHA
EU law: Human Rights Act 1998, Mendoza v Ghaidan
Judicial Precedent:
Ratio Decidendi: R v R, R v Bentham
Obiter Dicta: R v Howe, Hill v Baxter
Original: Donoghue v Stevenson, Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
London Street Tramways v London City Council
Herrington v British Railways Board
Overruling: Shivpuri / Anderton v Ryan, R v R, R v Gemmell and Richards / MPC v Caldwell
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co
Distinguishing: Balfour v Balfour / Merritt v Merritt
Sirros v Moore 1975
Defendant found guilty incorrectly and attempted to sue the judge. Couldn’t because judges are immune from being sued.
Pinochet 1998
Head of State of Chile was to be extradited. Amnesty international were witnesses for the prosecution, and it was found that one of the judges was an unpaid director of this company. This meant that the judge had interest in the case and therefore the decision couldn’t stand.
Whiteley v Chappell 1868
It is an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote. The defendant impersonated a dead person and was found not guilty because dead people can’t vote (literal rule).
LNER v Berriman 1946
A widow can claim damages if her husband is killed by a train whilst repairing or relaying tracks. The husband was killed whilst maintaining the tracks and therefore widow couldn’t claim damages (literal rule).
Fisher v Bell 1961
It is an offence to offer flick knives for sale. The defendant displayed flick knives in his shop window. The courts held that it was an invitation to treat rather than an offer of sale and therefore the defendant was found not guilty (literal rule).
