Month: July 2015

Benito Di Luca v Juraise (Springs) Limited; Adrian Clifford Walter Amess and Kathleen Frances Amess: CA 6 Oct 1997

References: [1997] EWCA Civ 2419
Links: Bailii
This case cites:

  • Cited – Lord Ranelagh -v- Melton ((1864) 2 Drew & Sm 278)
    The tenants were given an option in the lease to purchase the freehold: ‘if . . the lessees . . should give three months notice . . and should at the expiration of such notice pay . .’,
    Held: Time was of the essence: ‘I apprehend the rule of . .
  • Cited – Dibbins -v- Dibbins ([1896] 2 Ch 348, [1896] 65 LJ Ch 724, 75 LT 137, 44 WR 595, 40 Sol Jo 599)
    A partnership deed provided an option for a surviving partner to purchase a deceased’s partner’s share upon giving notice within three months of the death. The partner who survived was not of sound mind, but his solicitor gave timely notice, later . .

Mohammad Rashid Ahmad Raza Mirza v The Joint Regulations Committee; IoC 14 May 1997

References: [1997] EWCA Civ 1685
Links: Bailii
The applicant appealed a decision of the Joint Regulation Committee. He had been admitted, and had practised as a barrister in Pakistan. He had qualifications and experience which he asserted should give some exemption from the normal examination and pupillage requirements for admission to the English Bar. The Visitors pointed out that the academic qualifications had not been recognised by the Committee. Although the applicant did indeed have considerable experience, the court could not criticise the decision of the Committee as unreasonable. They faced clear requirements which the applicant did not meet.

Elizabeth Ann Jameson and Alan William Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited: CA 13 Feb 1997

References: Times 25-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1008
Links: Bailii
Executors may sue for a dependency claim despite a full and final settlement having been made by the deceased.
This case cites:

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society v Aaron Krausz and Rebecca Krausz: CA 22 Oct 1996

References: Gazette 20-Nov-1996, Times 20-Nov-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 780, [1997] 1 WLR 1558
Links: Bailii
The County court may not suspend a possession order pending an application to the High Court for an order for sale. The court considered the protection given by s15(1) of the 1970 Act, and found the protection to be limited, but nevertheless of considerable value to mortgagors who are in default.
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 91(2), Administration of Justice Act 1970 15(1)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ropaigealach -v- Barclays Bank plc CA (Times 06-Jan-99, Gazette 10-Feb-99, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1960, [2000] QB 263, [1999] 4 All ER 235)
    The applicant’s property was charged to the defendant. At the time it was not occupied. The mortgage fell into arrears, and after serving notice at the property, the bank took posssession and sold the property at auction. The claimants said the bank . .

George Fisher Holding Limited (Formerly George Fisher (Great Britain) Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Plc, Davis Langdon and Everest: TCC 6 Apr 1998

References: [1998] EWHC Technology 329
Links: Bailii
This case cites:

Caisse de maladie des C F L Entr’aide medicale” and Societe nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois v Compagnie belge d’assurances generales sur la vie et contre les accidents (Judgment): ECJ 12 Nov 1969″

References: C-27/69
Links: Europa
Europa 1. Social security for migrant workers – community rules – persons entitled to benefit – concept (regulation no 3, article 4) 2. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for an injury sustained in the territory of another state – subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit – connection between the injury sustained by the worker and his professional or trade activity not required (regulation no 3, article 52) 3. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state for injury sustained in the territory of another state – subrogation of the institution liable for payment of benefit – legal proceedings before the national court of that institution – conformity with the application of article 52 of regulation no 3. 4. Social security for migrant workers – benefit payable under the legislation of one member state in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another state – purpose of article 52 of regulation no 3 – direct application of the first paragraph of that article – bilateral agreements within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 52 – function. 1. Regulation no 3 is applicable to any wage – earner or assimilated worker who finds himself in one of the situations involving international elements as provided for in the said regulation, as well as to his survivors. 2. The provisions of article 52 of regulation no 3 are applicable even when the injury sustained by the worker has no connection with his professional or trade activity. 3. Article 52 of regulation no 3 of the council of the EEC is also applicable to cases in which the institution liable for payment of benefit commences proceedings before its national court. 4. The object of article 52 is to secure the recognition by each member state of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit acting against the third party liable, either by means of subrogation or any other legal method. The provisions of the first paragraph of article 52 are worded in peremptory terms and are capable of direct application. The sole function of bilateral agreements as referred to in the second paragraph of that article is to provide for their implementation, where necessary, without however rendering the direct effect of the provision in question subordinate to them.

Threlfall v Jones Inspector of Taxes, Gallagher v Same; Chd 1 Mar 1993

References: Gazette 10-Mar-1993, Ind Summary 01-Mar-1993
The taxpayer had acquired capital assets under a financing arrangement in which payments were spread over several tax periods. It was appropriate to treat those payments in according with normal accounting practice, rather than to seek to pull them into the one period.
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
    Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Gallagher -v- Jones (Inspector of Taxes) Threlfall -v- Same CA (Gazette 08-Sep-93, Ind Summary 26-Jul-93, Times 01-Jul-93, [1994] Ch 107)
    Commercial Practice is to be followed in apportioning payments under a lease between different tax years. There is no requirement that expenditure must be charged to year it in which technically falls due, but tax accounts must not give a misleading . .

Steele, Ford, and Newton v Crown Prosecution Service and Another Etc (Consolidated Appeals): HL 28 May 1993

References: Independent 10-Jun-1993, Times 28-May-1993, [1994] 1 AC 22, [1993] 2 All ER 769
The Court of Appeal Civil Division has no power to make an award of costs out of central funds. The court referred to: ‘the special constitutional convention which jealously safeguards the exclusive control exercised by Parliament over the levying and the expenditure of the public revenue’.

Regina v Schot; Regina v Barclay: CA 14 May 1997

References: Times 14-May-1997, [1997] 2 Cr App Re 303
Guidance was given on finding jurors in contempt of court; basic law and procedure are to be followed.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Attorney General -v- Fraill and Another CACD ([2011] EWCH 1629 (Admin), [2011] EWCA Crim B2, Bailii, [2011] EWCA Crim 1570)
    The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
    Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .

Regina v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex parte Dyer: QBD 18 Oct 1993

References: Gazette 19-Jan-1994, Times 27-Oct-1993, Independent 26-Oct-1993, [1994] 1 WLR 621
Parliamentary Commissioners decisions are reviewable, but range of the discretion given to him by the Act is very wide, and his decisions will only rarely be susceptible to review. He is answerable to Parliament.
Statutes: Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
This case is cited by:

Regina (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another etc: CA 24 May 2001

References: Times 24-May-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001, [2002] QB 129
The fact that subordinate legislation had been enacted by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, did not make a decision made under that regulation immune from challenge in the courts. The question of whether a country was in general safe, was a matter of fact and for rational judgement. The Secretary made the decision, and a challenge was to that decision, and not to Parliament. It was possible that the applicants might bring sufficient evidence to show that a large part of the general population of Pakistan was not safe. If that was established then the court would have power to set aside a designation made by the Secretary under the Act.
Statutes: Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Countries) Order 1996 No 2671
This case is cited by:

Neste Chemicals SA and Others v DK Line Sa and Another (The Sargasso”): CA 4 Apr 1994″

References: Times 04-Apr-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 180
Coram: Steyn LJ, Peter Gibson LJ and Sir Tasker Watkins
An English Court becomes seised of a case on the service of the writ. Steyn LJ: ‘the general thrust of the Dresser UK Ltd case is not only binding on us but . . . is correct’. There were no ‘exceptions to the rule that date of service marks the time when the English court becomes definitively seised of proceedings’. The ECJ in the Zelger case had ’emphasise[d] the importance of certainty in national procedural laws’, and that ‘a ‘date of service’ rule would be readily comprehensible not only in England but also in other Contracting States.’
Statutes: Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
This case cites:

  • Considered – Dresser UK -v- Falcongate Freight Management Ltd; The Duke of Yare CA ([1992] 5 CL 373, [1992] QB 502)
    In England the court was first seised of a matter at the point when the proceedings were served, not when they were issued. Article 21 was metaphorically described as a ‘tie-break rule’ which operates on the basis of strict chronological . .
  • Cited – Siegfried Zelger -v- Sebastiano Salinitri ECJ (Europa, C-129/83, R-129/83, Bailii, [1984] EUECJ R-129/83, [1984] ECR 2397)
    Article 21 of the Convention of 28 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that the court ‘first seised’ is the one before which the requirements for proceedings to become definitively pending are first fulfilled, such requirements to be . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Nussberger and Another -v- Phillips and Another (No 4) CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 654, Times 17-Jul-06, [2006] 1 WLR 2598, Gazette 08-Jun-06)
    A claim was issued in London in December 2004, and then served in part in Switzerland in January 2005. One copy was removed from the bundle by a Swiss official, seeing that it had been marked ‘Nor for service out of the jurisdiction.’ That marking . .
  • Cited – Canada Trust Co and Others -v- Stolzenberg and Others (No 2) HL (Times 17-Oct-00, House of Lords, Gazette 02-Nov-00, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 51, [2000] 4 All ER 481, [2000] 3 WLR 1376, [2002] 1 AC 1, [2001] CLC 118, [2001] IL Pr 40)
    The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined . .
  • Cited – Phillips and Another -v- Symes and others HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All ER 537, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 918, [2008] 1 WLR 180, [2008] 1 CLC 29, [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 344)
    Various parties had sought relief in the English courts and in Switzerland after an alleged fraud. There had been a mistake in service of the proceedings in England. The high court had dispensed with service an backdated the effect of the order to . .

Neary and Neary v Dean of Westminster; 9 Jun 1999

References: Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] IRLR 288
Coram: Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Financial wrong-doing short of dishonesty can be a basis for summary dismissal. Gross misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal must in the particular circumstances so undermine the trust and confidence of an employer that he should no longer be required to continue the employment. The identity of the employer and employee were relevant factors.
Lord Jauncey said: ‘The character of the institutional employer, the role played by the employee in that institution and the degree of trust required of the employee vis-a-vis the employer must all be considered in determining the extent of the duty and the seriousness of any breach thereof.’ and ‘conduct amounting to gross misconduct justifying dismissal must so undermine the trust and confidence which is inherent in the particular contract of employment that the master should no longer be required to retain the servant in his employment.’ and ‘The question of whether there has been a repudiatory breach of that duty justifying instant dismissal must now be addressed. Whether misconduct justifies summary dismissal of a servant is a question of fact.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Clouston and Company Limited -v- Corry PC (Bailii, [1905] UKPC 70, [1906] AC 122)
    (New Zealand) . .
  • Cited – Laws -v- London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd CA ([1959] 1 WLR 698, [1959] All ER 285)
    Lord Evershed MR discussed the justification for summary dismissal: ‘It follows that the question must be – if summary dismissal is claimed to be justified – whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the . .
  • Cited – Sinclair -v- Neighbour CA ([1967] 2 QB 279)
    The manager of a betting shop took £15 from the shop till for the purpose of gambling; he knew that he would not have been given permission to do so if he had asked. He put an IOU in the till and repaid the money next day. He was summarily . .
  • Cited – Lewis -v- Motorworld Garages Ltd CA ([1986] ICR 157, [1985] IRLR 46)
    The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
    Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – C Lo Sterzo -v- London Borough of Lewisham EAT (EAT/1223/99)
    The applicant had been dismissed for gross misconduct in his supervision of building works carried out for his respondent employer. He appealed dismissal of his claim on the basis that no tribunal could properly find the employers decision to be . .
  • Cited – Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd -v- Tigana CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 895)
    The defendant had acted as manager of the claimant. The claimant appealed dismissal of its claim for breach of contract and of fiduciary duty, and his claim for payment of sums due under share options granted to him.
    Held: The appeal failed. . .
  • Cited – Mars UK Ltd T/A Masterfoods -v- K Parker EAT (Bailii, [2006] UKEAT O412_05_1801, UKEAT/0412/05/SM, EATn)
    EAT Whether an Employment Tribunal took a permissible approach to determining that a dismissal was unfair, in circumstances in which it did not clearly set out the terms of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act . .
  • Cited – Coulson -v- Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 3482 (QB))
    The claimant had been employed by the defendant as editor of a newspaper. On leaving they entered into an agreement which the claimant said required the defendant to pay his legal costs in any action arising regarding his editorship. The defendant . .
  • Cited – Mason -v- Huddersfield Giants Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 2869 (QB))
    The claimant rugby league player complained of his dismissal under a clause allowing such for behaviour which might bring the club into disrepute. He had engaged in a celebratory evening out involving a naked run. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22-Feb-16 Ref: 84238

Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc; Chd 17 Mar 1993

References: Gazette 17-Mar-1993
Evidence given to a liquidator was not discoverable in civil proceedings.
Statutes: Companies Act 1985
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Macmillan Inc -v- Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc CA (Times 17-May-93, Gazette 01-Sep-93)
    A subpoena ad duces tecum issued against a third party was to be used to bring evidence before the court, not as an equivalent to discovery.
    Judge’s discretion not to order production not to be interfered with. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Macmillan Inc -v- Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc CA (Times 17-May-93, Gazette 01-Sep-93)
    A subpoena ad duces tecum issued against a third party was to be used to bring evidence before the court, not as an equivalent to discovery.
    Judge’s discretion not to order production not to be interfered with. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 11-Nov-15 Ref: 83282

In Re Melinek (A Bankrupt); Bristol and West Building Society v Alexander (The Trustee Of The Property of Back) (A Bankrupt); Melinek (A Bankrupt): ChD 10 Apr 1997

References: Times 10-Apr-1997, (1998) 1 BCLC 485
Coram: David Young QC
The applicants sought leave to proceed in actions against the defendants against whom bankruptcy proceedings were pending. Consnet should have been obtained before proceedings were issued, but application was now made nunc pro tunc.
Held: The court has a free hand in these situations to do what was right and fair. Leave was granted.
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 285(3)
This case cites:

  • See also – Scotlife Home Loans (No 2) Limited -v- Melinek and Melinek CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2335)
    The second defendant sought leave to appeal against a possession order obtained by the claimant. The loan obtained had been misapplied by the first defendant, her husband. She had been advised in the transaction by his partner in their solicitors’ . .

This case is cited by:

  • See also – Scotlife Home Loans (No 2) Limited -v- Melinek and Melinek CA (Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2335)
    The second defendant sought leave to appeal against a possession order obtained by the claimant. The loan obtained had been misapplied by the first defendant, her husband. She had been advised in the transaction by his partner in their solicitors’ . .

Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer: CA 15 Nov 1993

References: Gazette 08-Dec-93, Times 18-Nov-93, Ind Summary 15-Nov-93
A freelance vision mixer remained self-employed despite having had a series of short term contracts.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hewlett Packard Ltd -v- M O’Murphy EAT (EAT/612/01, Bailii, [2001] UKEAT 612_01_2609, EATn)
    The applicant, a computer programmer, worked through his own limited company. That company contracted with an agency to provide his services, and the agency contracted with appellant to supply on those services. The contracts did contain some . .
  • Cited – Professional Contractors’ Group and Others -v- Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA (Times 14-Jan-02, Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 1945, [2002] STC 165)
    Legislation had been enacted to tax under Schedule E, people employed through one man service companies and similar. Representatives of such taxpayers sought review of the legislation as incompatible with European law being a hindrance to the . .
  • Appealed to – Hall (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Lorimer ChD (Gazette 08-Jul-92)
    A skilled vision mixer who was working for several companies was self employed. . .

Banque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd and Others Appeals: CA 24 Feb 1995

References: Times 24-Feb-95, Gazette 22-Mar-95, Times 21-Feb-95, [1995] QB 375
Damages payable to a secured lender for a negligent valuation included losses attributable to general market. Discussing liability where two causes contributed to the damages: ‘the event which the plaintiff alleges to be causative need not be the only or even the main cause of the result complained of: it is enough if it is an effective cause’
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – South Australia Asset Management Corporation -v- York Montague Ltd etc HL (Gazette 04-Sep-96, Times 24-Jun-96, [1997] AC 191, [1996] PNLR 455, [1996] 27 EG 125, [1996] 3 WLR 87, Bailii, [1996] UKHL 10, [1996] 3 All ER 365, [1996] 2 EGLR 93, 80 BLR 1, [1996] 5 Bank LR 211, [1996] CLC 1179, [1996] 50 Con LR 153)
    Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
  • Cited – Paterson and Another -v- Humberside County Council QBD (Times 19-Apr-95, [1995] CLY 3661, [1996] Const LJ 64)
    A local authority was liable for nuisance for damage (cracks to house) caused by tree roots once it could be shown that it knew of the soil condition, by virtue of the council’s own warnings to residents of the danger in the area meant that the . .
  • Cited – Helmsley Acceptances Ltd -v- Hampton CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 356)
    The claimant lender sought damages from an allegedly negligent valuation by the defendant. It had syndicated its loan, and the defendant now argued that it could only claim for that part of the loan for which it retained ownership.
    Held: The . .

Gyles v Wilcox, Nutt and Barrow; 6 Mar 1740

References: [1740] EngR 77, (1740) Barn C 368, (1740) 27 ER 682, [1740] EngR 78, (1740) 2 Atk 141, (1740) 26 ER 489 (C), [1740] EngR 90, (1740) 3 Atk 269, (1740) 26 ER 957 (A)
Links: Commonlii, Commonlii, Commonlii
Coram: Lord Hardwicke LC
Ratio The plaintiff bookmaker was publisher of Matthew Hale’s Pleas of the Crown. The first and second defendants hired the third to abridge it and they began to published the result as Modern Crown Law. The plaintiff sought to restrain further publication.
Held: The application failed. ‘The Stat. of 8 A. cannot be said to tend to a monopoly. The Stat, of 8 A. shall be said to be made for the publick Benefit and Advantage, by reason that it tends to the Advancement of Learning. This Statute must not be construed strictly, but according to the Intention of the Legislature. When Complaints have been made of a Book’s being printed contrary to the Statute, the only Question has been, Whether it is the same Book with the former?’
Ratio The Lord Chancellor said of the Act: ‘ . . When Complaints of this Sort have come before the Court,the single Question has constantly been, Whether the second Book has been the same Book with the former ? And where the second Book has no otherwise differ’d from the former than by reducing or shortning the Stile, or by leaving out some of the Words of the first Book, the second Book has been construed the same with the former. But where the second Book has been an abridgment of the former, it has been understood not to be the same Book, and therefore to be out of the Act.’
. . and ‘Whether the second Book is the same Book with the former is a Matter of Fact, and a Fact of Difficulty to be determined. It is hard to say in what manner the Court ought to determine this Fact ; and his Lordship said he could not see how it could be determined but by reading both the Books over, and that would be hardly proper for him to do.’
Statutes: Statute of Anne 1708
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Prince Albert -v- Strange ChD ((1849) 1 H & Tw 1, 2 De G & SM 293, (1849) 1 Mac & G 25, Bailii, [1849] EWHC Ch J20, [1849] EngR 255, Commonlii, (1849) 41 ER 1171, [1849] EngR 261, Commonlii, (1849) 47 ER 1302, (1849) 2 De Gex & Sim 652)
    The Prince sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from or by one Brown. A personal confidence was claimed.
    Held: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 385122

Smith v Clay; 10 May 1767

References: [1767] EngR 55, (1767) 3 Bro CC 646, (1767) 29 ER 743
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Camden LC
Ratio Review was sought of a decree pronounced some thirty or forty years before. The defect was apparent on the face of the record.
Held: The review was barred by the length of time elapsed.
Ratio Lord Camden LC applied the doctrine of laches, saying: ‘A Court of Equity has always refused its aid to stale demands, where a party has slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing can call forth this Court into activity, but conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence; where these are wanting, the Court is passive, and does nothing.’ Equity would not countenance laches beyond the period for which a legal remedy had been limited by statute, and that where the legal right had been barred, the equitable right to the same thing was also barred: ”Expedit reipublicae ut sit finis litium’, is a maxim that has prevailed in this court at all times, without the help of parliament.
But, as the Court has no legislative authority, it could not properly define the time of bar, by a positive rule, to an hour, a minute, or a year; it was governed by circumstances.
But as often as parliament had limited the time of actions and remedies, to a certain period, in legal proceedings, a Court in Chancery adopted that rule, and applied to similar cases in equity.
For when the Legislature had fixed the time at law, it would have been preposterous for equity (which, by its own proper authority, always maintained a limitation), to countenance laches beyond the period, that law had been confined to by parliament.
And therefore in all cases where the legal right has been barred by parliament, the equitable right to the same thing has been concluded by the same bar.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Smith -v- Clay (Commonlii, [1767] EngR 54, (1767) Amb 645, (1767) 27 ER 419)
    Bill of review for error apparent will not lie after twenty years from the making of the decree. The time runs from the decree, not from the inrolment. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Adamson and Others -v- Paddico (267) Ltd SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 7, [2014] 1 AC 1072, [2014] 1 P & CR 24, [2014] 2 WLR 300, [2014] 2 All ER 1, [2014] JPL 745, [2014] WLR(D) 51, [2014] BLGR 249, [2014] 1 P &CR 24, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2012/0089)
    Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
    Held: The appeal were solely as to . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 374834

Harms Offshore AHT ‘Taurus’ Gmbh and Co KG v Bloom and Others: CA 26 Jun 2009

References: [2009] EWCA Civ 632, [2009] Bus LR 1663, [2010] 1 Ch 187, [2010] 2 WLR 349
Links: Bailii, Times
Coram: Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Sir John Chadwick
The court had granted to the liquidators of a company a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant German companies to attempt to obtain the release of assets from attachment by the court in new York.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The statutory prohibition against creditors bringing proceedings against a company being wound up by the court is not extra-territorial. The protection of the assets of a company in administration is not to be regarded by the Court as differing in substance from the protection of the assets of a company in compulsory liquidation. In both cases, the assets of the company are dealt with by an officer appointed by the Court in accordance with statutory duties.
The conduct of the Appellants and the circumstances of the attachments brought it into the exceptional category in which the grant of injunctive relief is justified, notwithstanding comity and notwithstanding the outstanding application of the Administrators in New York.
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986
This case cites:

  • Cited – In Re Oriental Inland Steam Company ex parte Scinde Railway Company CA ((1874) LR 9 Ch App 557)
    The liquidator obtained an order requiring a creditor who had attached assets in India to return them to the company in liquidation.
    Sir W M James LJ said: ‘The winding-up is necessarily confined to this country. It is not immaterial to . .
  • Cited – Mitchell -v- Carter ChD ([1997] 1 BCLC 673)
    Section 183 of the 1986 Act, which precludes a creditor who levies execution or attaches a debt after commencement of a winding up, from retaining the benefit of his execution or attachment, does not apply to executions or attachments in foreign . .
  • Cited – Re Vocalion (Foreign) Ltd ([1932] 2 Ch 196)
    The section only applies only to proceedings pending in the UK, and not to proceedings in a foreign Court. The Court has an equitable jurisdiction in personam to restrain a respondent properly served in this country from proceeding with an action . .
  • Cited – Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and another PC ([1987] 1 AC 871)
    The Board was asked where a civil claim should be tried.
    Held: The court stated some principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings. The inconvenience of a forum is of itself not a sufficient . .
  • Cited – Polly Peck International Plc -v- The Marangos Hotel Company Ltd & Others CA (Times 18-May-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 789, [1998] 3 All ER 812, [1998] 2 BCLC 185)
    Leave had been given for the insolvent plaintiff company to bring proceedings. The defendant now challenged that leave.
    Held: A claim that a massively insolvent company had wrongfully occupied Turkish Cypriot property would not allow a claim . .
  • Cited – Barclays Bank -v- Homan CA ([1993] BCLC 680)
    If the conduct of a creditor can be castigated as oppressive or vexatious the Court can and should grant relief in order to protect the performance by administrators of their functions and duties. . .

Rex v Edmeads And Others; 4 Mar 1828

References: [1828] EngR 441, (1828) 3 Car & P 390, (1828) 172 ER 469
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Baron Vaughn
(Berkshire Assizes) an indictment charged Edmeads and others with unlawfully shooting at game keepers.
Held: The learned Baron ruled on the question of common intent, ‘that is rather a question for the Jury; but still, on this evidence, it is quite clear what the common purpose was. They all draw up in lines, and point their guns at the game-keepers, and they are all giving their countenance and assistance to the one of them who actually fires the gun. If it could be shown that either of them separated himself from the rest, and showed distinctly that he would have no hand in what they were doing, the objection would have much weight in it.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina -v- Becerra and Cooper CACD ((1975) 62 Cr App R 212, Bailii, [1975] EWCA Crim 6)
    The defendants sought leave to appeal against their convictions for a brutal and horrific murder. Becerra suggeste dtat he had wanted to withdraw from the event before the murder took place.
    Held: The appeal failed: ‘ in the circumstances then . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 04-Feb-16 Ref: 323205

Kemble v Farren; 6 Jul 1829

References: [1829] EngR 590, (1829) 5 Bing 141, (1829) 130 ER 1234
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindall CJ
The manager of Covent Garden sought damages from an actor (a principal comedian) in the form of liquidated damages for breach of a contract. He had contracted to perform for four seasons, but had refused to continue after the first.
Held: Liquidated damages cannot be reserved on an agreement containing various stipuations, of various degrees of importance, unless the agreement specify the particular stipulation or stipulations to which the liquidated damages are to be confined.
Tindall CJ said: ‘We see nothing illegal or unreasonable in the parties, by their mutual agreement, settling the amount of damages, uncertain in their nature, at any sum upon which they may agree. In many cases, such an agreement fixes that which is almost impossible to be accurately ascertained; and in all cases, it saves the expense and difficulty of bringing witnesses to that point.’
If the terms had been limited to breaches which were of an uncertain nature and amount, it would have been good. But the provision extended to any term including the payment of small amounts of money, or other trivial non-money breaches: ‘But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the nonpayment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered as a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms; the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by breach of the agreement.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Kemble -v- Farren CCP (Commonlii, [1829] EngR 519, (1829) 3 Car & P 623, (1829) 172 ER 574 (A))
    Where it appeared on the record, that an agreement sued on was made by the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other proprietors of a theatre, evidence of the declarations of one of such other proprietors was held admissible on the part of the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd -v- New Garage and Motor Company Ltd HL ([1915] AC 67, Bailii, [1914] UKHL 1, (1904) 12 SLT 498, (1904) 7 F (HL) 77)
    The appellants contracted through an agent to supply tyres. The respondents contracted not to do certain things, and in case of breach concluded: ‘We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, . .
  • Cited – Parkingeye Ltd -v- Beavis CA (Bailii, [2015] EWCA Civ 402)
    The appellant had overstayed the permitted period of free parking in a retail park by nearly an hour. The parking was managed by the respondent who had imposed a charge of £85.00. The judge had found that the appellant was in breach of a . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 04-Feb-16 Ref: 322458

Thomas v Thomas; 5 Feb 1842

References: [1842] EngR 260, (1842) 2 QB 851, (1842) 114 ER 330
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Patteson J, Lord Denman CJ
A promisee can only enforce a promise if in return for it he gave something of value in the eyes of the law. Consideration need not be ‘valuable’ for it to be valid or effective to form the basis for a contract. It merely needs to be ‘legally sufficient’; and this criterion may be met even by purely nominal consideration.
Lord Denman CJ said: ‘There is nothing in this case but a great deal of ingenuity, and a little wilful blindness to the actual terms of the instrument itself. This is in terms on express agreement, and shews a sufficient legal consideration quite independent of the moral feeling which disposed the (defendant) to enter into such a contract.’
Last Update: 11-Jan-16 Ref: 307215

Davies v East; 8 Jan 1788

References: Times 08-Jan-1788
Ratio The plaintiff sold 13 mahogany logs to the defendant. The defendant was to use them for cabinet making and inspected a sample, declaring them not to be of the best but adequate for chairs. When the entire consignment was delivered, he refused to pay saying that they had holes ‘so big you could put your head in them’. Held; The plaintiff succeeded. The logs delivered were of the same quality as inspected, and so the buyer knew what he was getting.

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 270278

Payne v Cave; 2 May 1789

References: (1789) 3 TR 148, [1789] EngR 2443, (1789) 100 ER 502 (B)
Links: Commonlii
Ratio The defendant’s bid for a worm-tub, and a pewter worm was highest at the auction, but he withdrew his bid before the hammer fell. The auction was under standard conditions.
Held: No contract had been made. The bid was an offer which could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance by the auctioneer’s hammer. The auctioneer’s request for bids is not an offer which can be accepted by the highest bidder.

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 252546

Lindsay Petroleum Company v Hurd: 1873

References: (1874) LR 5 PC 221, [1873] 5 AC 221
Coram: Sir Barnes Peacock, Lord Selbourne LC
The court discussed the basis of the equitable doctrine of laches.
Lord Selbourne LC said: ‘Now the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case if an argument against relief which otherwise would be just is founded upon mere delay that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantial equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such case, are the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Mcivor -v- The Northern Bank Executor and Trustee Company Ltd ChNI (Bailii, [2002] NICh 12)
    . .
  • Cited – Fisher -v- Brooker and Another ChD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3239 (Ch))
    The claimant said that he had contributed to the copyright in the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ but had been denied royalties. He had played the organ and particularly the organ solo which had contrbuted significantly to the fame of the record.
  • Cited – Brooker & Another -v- Fisher CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 287, [2008] Bus LR 1123, [2008] FSR 26, [2008] EMLR 13)
    The claimant had asserted a joint authorship of the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ written in the sixties. The defendant appealed saying that the claim had been brought too late, and that the finding ignored practice in the music industry. The . .
  • Cited – Fisher -v- Brooker and Others HL (Bailii, [2009] UKHL 41, Times, [2009] 1 WLR 1764, [2009] FSR 25, [2009] Bus LR 1334, [2009] 4 All ER 789, [2009] ECDR 17, [2010] EMLR 2)
    The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future . .
  • Cited – Adamson and Others -v- Paddico (267) Ltd SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 7, [2014] 1 AC 1072, [2014] 1 P & CR 24, [2014] 2 WLR 300, [2014] 2 All ER 1, [2014] JPL 745, [2014] WLR(D) 51, [2014] BLGR 249, [2014] 1 P &CR 24, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2012/0089)
    Land had been registered as a town or village green but wrongly so. The claimant had sought rectification, but the respondents argued that the long time elapsed after registration should defeat the request.
    Held: The appeal were solely as to . .

National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer”): 1993″

References: [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68
Coram: Cresswell J
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation Whitehouse v. Jordan
2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise . . An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.
3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion . . 4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise. . . 5. If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one . . In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Whitehouse -v- Jordan HL ([1981] 1 WLR 246, Bailii, [1980] UKHL 12, [1981] 1 All ER 267)
    The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
    Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
  • Cited – Polivitte Ltd -v- Commercial Union Assurance Co plc ([1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379)
    An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. . .
  • Cited – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd -v- Swansea Corporation ([1928] 1 Ch 31)
    Tolmin J considered the duties of an expert witness: ‘long cases produce evils . . In every case of this kind there are generally many ‘irreducible and stubborn facts’ upon which agreement between experts should be possible and in my judgment the . .
  • Mentioned – In Re J ([1990] FCR 193)
    An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the . .

This case is cited by:

Bilbie v Lumley and Others; 28 Jun 1802

References: (1802) 2 East 469, [1802] EngR 245, (1802) 102 ER 448
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Ellenborough CJ
Ratio An underwriter paid a claim under a policy which he was entitled in law to repudiate for non-disclosure. Although he knew the relevant facts, he was not aware of their legal significance. He claimed back the money he had paid.
Held: A contract cannot be set aside on the grounds of a mistake as to the law. Whereas money paid under a mistake of fact is generally recoverable, as a general rule money is not recoverable on the ground that it was paid under a mistake of law.
Lord Ellenborough asked counsel for the plaintiff: ‘whether he could state any case where if a party paid money to another voluntarily with a full knowledge of all the facts of the case, he could recover it back again on account of his ignorance of the law.’ In the absence of an answer, judgment was given for the defendant: ‘Every man must be taken to be cognisant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance might not be carried. It would be urged in almost every case.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Lowry -v- Boirdeau ((1780) 2 Doug KB 468)
    ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ – ignorance of the law is no excuse. . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Overruled – Hazell -v- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL ([1992] 2 AC 1, [1991] 2 WLR 372, [1991] 1 All ER 545)
    The authority entered into interest rate swap deals to protect itself against adverse money market movements. They began to lose substantial amounts when interest rates rose, and the district auditor sought a declaration that the contracts were . .
  • Cited – Andre & Cie -v- Michel Blanc CA ([1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 427)
    The court criticised the doctrine that a mistake as to the law, common to the parties, does not vitiate a contract. . .
  • Cited – The Amazonia CA ([1991] Lloyd’s Rep 236)
    The court rehearsed the doctrine that a common mistake as to the law would vitiate a contract, Though the rule was well established, the particular contract was void on the basis of a mistake as to foreign law because foreign law is to be treated by . .
  • Cited – Brennan -v- Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day & Co CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1017, Times 27-Aug-04, [2005] QB 303, [2004] 3 WLR 1321)
    The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
  • Overruled – Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Lincoln City Council etc HL (Gazette 18-Nov-98, Gazette 10-Feb-99, Times 30-Oct-98, House of Lords, Bailii, [1998] UKHL 38, [1999] 2 AC 349, [1998] 4 All ER 513, [1998] 3 WLR 1095, [1998] Lloyds Rep Bank 387)
    Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap agreements were . .
  • Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society -v- Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL ([1993] AC 70, [1992] 3 All ER 737, (1992) 3 WLR 366)
    The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
  • Applied – Brisbane -v- Dacres ((1813) 5 Taunt. 143)
    The commander of a naval vessel, HMS Arethusa, had paid to the Admiral in command a proportion of freight received for the carriage of publicly owned bullion on board the Arethusa in the belief that this was due to the Admiral as a matter of usage. . .
  • Cited – Kelly -v- Solari CexC ((1841) 9 M & W 54)
    Recovery was sought of money (£200) paid an error of fact. There had been a life policy, but it had lapsed before the death of the life assured. The policy had been marked ‘lapsed’ but the marking had been overlooked.
    Held: Where money . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 25-Mar-16
Ref: 199748