Law Making Cases (invalid but look to be sure) Flashcards
EU law
Filler
Marshall V Southampton W14P2
She had passed the retirement age for a women and was required to retire. Her dismissal ran contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive, which wasn’t implemented by the UK. Mrs Marshall worked for a hospital, which is an emanation (something which originates or issues from a source) of the state. The EJC said that if the state has not implemented the directive in time, anyone who worked for the state could enforce the law anyway.
Francovutch V Italy
Company had gone bust and she had unpaid salaries - directive to give people in this situation a min amount of money.
Instead of enforcing the directive, Mrs Francovitch could sue the state for not implementing the directive. She could not sue the same as Marshall as she worked for a private company.
Vangendenloos
Man went to import goods from Germany into the Netherlands ad the asked for import taxes. The ECJ made a ruling that EU was more important than German constitution. This was an early decision of the ECJ and was important as it was the first time the supremacy of the law was fully explained.
Factorame
Spanish ship owners made use of UK fishing permits, which allowed them to fish in the UK and sell the fish in Spain. The UK attempted to make the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which prevented Spanish ship owners using UK fishing permits. The EJA said that UK laws must not be discriminatory. Confirmed the superiority of the EU law and that EU can require an injunction against the government.
Precedent
Filler
Hill V Baxter
A man fell asleep while driving, he claimed the accident wasn’t his fault as he didn’t mean to fall asleep - the court held he was guilty as he should have stopped driving.
The court explained that if he crashed because he was stung by bees it wouldn’t have been his fault. This is an example of obiter - it just helped to explain their decision.
Example of where the HOL/SC used the Practice Statement to avoid injustice
In Anderson V Ryan - someone thought they had purchased stolen goods, but in fact were not because the goods weren’t stolen, they could not be guilty of trying to commit an offence.
In R V Shivpuri - S thought he was bringing drugs into the country, he hid them in a suitcase and arranged to meet a dealer. He was caught at Heathrow and admitted what he had done. The drugs were powdered cabbage, so were harmless.
Following the previous case he should not be guilty, but the HOL decided it would be an injustice, so they overruled their decision and found him guilty.
Where the HOL used the Practice Statement to avoid the law becoming out of date
Addie V Dumbreck (1929) - the HOLs decided that an occupier of land was not liable in negligence to a child who trespassed onto that land and was injured.
Herrington V British Railway Board/BRB (1972) - Addie was overruled because attitudes towards children’s safety had changed since 1929, the occupier was liable if they hadn’t done enough to keep out child trespassers.
