Month: July 2015

Skelton v Collins; 7 Mar 1966

References: (1966) 115 CLR 94, [1966] HCA 14
Links: Austlii
Coram: Kitto, Taylor, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen JJ
(High Court of Australia) Damages – Personal Injuries – Loss of earning capacity – Loss of expectation of life – Loss of amenities during reduced life span – Pain and suffering – Plaintiff rendered permanently unconscious by injuries – Basis of assessment.
Precedent – Decisions of House of Lords – Applicability – High Court – Other Australian courts.
This case is cited by:

  • Followed – Pickett -v- British Rail Engineering HL ([1980] AC 136, Bailii, [1978] UKHL 4)
    The claimant, suffering from mesothelioma, had claimed against his employers and won, but his claim for loss of earnings consequent upon his anticipated premature death was not allowed. He began an appeal, but then died. His personal representatives . .

Flight v Booth; 24 Nov 1834

References: [1834] 1 Bing NC 370, [1834] 1 Scott 190, [1834] 131 ER 1160, [1834] EngR 1087
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ
The auction particulars stated that the land was subject to covenants restricting use of the property for certain offensive purposes. After successfully bidding it was shown to be subject to other substantial restrictions against non-ofensive trades also.
Held: The purchaser was entitled to rescind the contract and recover his deposit. Even though a misdescription may be unintended, where it is a material and substantial point, and a court could infer that the purchaser would not have bid for the property, the purchaser is not restricted to recovering compensation but may choose to rescind.
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – In re Puckett & Smith’s Contract CA ([1902] 2 Ch 258, [1902] 71 LJ Ch 666, [1902] LT 189)
    Land was sold for redevelopment after being described as fit for building, and the vendor knew that this was the purchaser’s intention. The contract said that the purchaser should rely on his own inspection, and that the vendor should not be liable . .
  • Cited – Cleaver and Others -v- Schyde Investments Ltd CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 929)
    The parties had contracted for the sale of land. The purchaser secured the rescinding of the contract for innocent misrepresentation. A notice of a relevant planning application had not been passed on by the seller’s solicitors. The seller appealed . .

Morrell v Fisher; 22 Dec 1849

References: (1849) Exch 591, [1849] EngR 1242, (1849) 4 Exch 591, (1849) 154 ER 1350
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Alderson B
A devise of ‘all my leasehold farm-house, homestead, lands, and tenements at Headington, containing about 170 acres, held under Magdalen College, Oxford, and now in the occupation of Thomas Burrows’ was construed as excluding two parcels of land not occupied by Thomas Burrows at Headington, the words relating to the acreage being rejected as a false description. The court considered the maxim ‘that if there be an adequate and sufficient description, with convenient certainty of what was meant to pass, a subsequent erroneous addition will not vitiate it. The characteristic of cases within the rule is that the description, so far as it is false, applies to no subject at all; and so far as it is true, applies to one only.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rogers and Rogers -v- Freeguard and Freeguard CA (Times 22-Oct-98, Gazette 25-Nov-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1572, [1999] 1 WLR 375)
    The parties had drawn up ands executed an option agreement. When a court considered an option to purchase ‘land known as . .’, it was able to consider extrinsic evidence to establish just what was included where the identification in the deed was . .

Overend v Gurney; 25 Jul 1834

References: , [1834] EngR 941, (1834) 7 Sim 128, (1834) 58 ER 785
Links: Commonlii
The testator gave real property and a sum of stock to A for her life, and after her death to his brother absolutely: and he gave legacies, which he directed to be paid as soon as convenient after hie death, to his nephews and nieces, and the residue of his property to his brother absolutely. The brother having died, the testator, by a codicil reciting that fact, and that, thereby, the devises and bequests to his brother had lapsed, gave an annuity to his brother’s widow, and directed his trustees to pay the income of the residue of his personal estate to A. for life, and gave to her all his real estates for life, and, after her death, to his trustees in trust to sell, and the proceeds to fall into his personal estate : he then gave £10,000 to each of his nieces, in addition to the legacies given to them by the will, and directed that that sum for each of them should be held by his trustees for their separate use : and he gave all the clear residue of his estate (after providing for the before-mentionedlegacies, and also those given by his will) to his nephews. Held, that the legacies given to the nieces by the codicil were not payable till after A’s death.

Smith v Brooksbank; 25 Jun 1834

References: , [1834] EngR 880, (1834) 7 Sim 18, (1834) 58 ER 743 (B)
Links: Commonlii
A bequeathed a reversionary interest, expectant on his wife’s death, in a sum of stock to B. B. bequeathed it to C., and C. bequeathed it to D, who, on the death of A’s wife, filed a bill against the trustees to have the stock transferred to him, alleging that the executors of A. and B, and C. had successively assented to the bequests.
Held: that the executors were not necessary parties.
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Brooksbank -v- Smith (, Commonlii, [1836] EngR 447, (1836) Donn Eq 11, (1836) 47 ER 193 (B))
    In this case, trustees under a will, who were solicitors, had by mistake transferred stock to a person not entitled. Baron Alderson said, this being under circumstances of mistake, it appeared clear to him that the Plaintiffs were entitled to . .
  • See Also – Brooksbank And Another -v- Smith (, Commonlii, [1836] EngR 446, (1836) 2 Y & C Ex 59, (1836) 160 ER 311)
    The testatrix died in 1818 leaving a fund in trust, subject to a life interest, for her children in equal shares, with substitutional gifts if any child predeceased her leaving issue. Her daughter Elizabeth did predecease her by two months, but on . .

In Re Fenton; 27 May 1835

References: , [1835] EngR 741, (1835) 3 Ad & E 404, (1835) 111 ER 467 (A)
Links: Commonlii
Thie Court will not, in a summary way compel an attorney of the Court to pay over money to a party entitled to it, though the attorney has received it from a client to be paid to such party, if the application is not made on behalf of the client.

Brooksbank v Smith; 24 Feb 1836

References: , [1836] EngR 447, (1836) Donn Eq 11, (1836) 47 ER 193 (B)
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Baron Alderson
In this case, trustees under a will, who were solicitors, had by mistake transferred stock to a person not entitled. Baron Alderson said, this being under circumstances of mistake, it appeared clear to him that the Plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief ; for, on looking into the authorities he found that fraud or mistake were each of them grounds for relief in equity. Then came the question, whether the Statute of Limitations was a bar? The Statute of Limitations did not apply to Courts of Equity so as to bind them, Undoubtedly, they had exercised discretion, and very rightly, upon the rules laid down. For instance, in cases of fraud, Courts of Equity did not apply the rule in the same manner as Courts of law, which were so bound by the words of the statute, that if the cause of action bad occurred more than six years before, however equitabIe it might be, they could not permit the statute to run. Courts of Equity held, that in cases of fraud, the statute of Limitations ran from the discovery of the fraud, It appearet to jim that cases of mistake fell under the same rule, and that it would be inequitable to apply the Statute of Limitations, except in cases where a party had lain by after the mistake had been discovered, more than six years ; in this case the mistake had been discovered within six years, the statute did not, therefore, bar the Plaintiff’s claim.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Smith -v- Brooksbank (, Commonlii, [1834] EngR 880, (1834) 7 Sim 18, (1834) 58 ER 743 (B))
    A bequeathed a reversionary interest, expectant on his wife’s death, in a sum of stock to B. B. bequeathed it to C., and C. bequeathed it to D, who, on the death of A’s wife, filed a bill against the trustees to have the stock transferred to him, . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Brooksbank And Another -v- Smith (, Commonlii, [1836] EngR 446, (1836) 2 Y & C Ex 59, (1836) 160 ER 311)
    The testatrix died in 1818 leaving a fund in trust, subject to a life interest, for her children in equal shares, with substitutional gifts if any child predeceased her leaving issue. Her daughter Elizabeth did predecease her by two months, but on . .
  • Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation -v- Inland Revenue SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 19, [2012] WLR(D) 161, [2012] STC 1362, [2012] 2 WLR 1149, [2012] 3 All ER 909, [2012] BTC 312, [2012] 2 AC 337, [2012] Bus LR 1033, [2012] STI 1707)
    The European court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .

Harwood v Fisher; 23 Dec 1834

References: [1834] EngR 1176, (1834) 1 Y & C Ex 110, (1834) 160 ER 46
Links: Commonlii
Where the first husband of a woman entitled to a legacy of 600l, chargeable, in default of personalty, on the testator’s real estate, verbally agreed with the three devisees of the real estate to sell the legacy to them for 200l a piece, but received the consideration from one only of the devisees, taking interest on the 400l, due from the two others. Held, that to the extent to 400l. this was not a reduction of the legacy into possession, and that to a suit instituted by the woman and her second husband to recover what was due on the legacy, the representatives of the first husband were not necessary parties. Where facts are stated in the answer which are not contradicted, and which, if true, would lead to a material alteration in the frame of the suit, the Court will, on motion, permit the minutes of the decree to be amended, with a view to ascertain the truth of those facts.

Fowler v Fowler; 12 May 1859

References: [1859] EngR 598, (1859) 4 De G & J 250, (1859) 45 ER 97
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Chelmsford LC
Lord Chelmsford LC said that a party seeking rectification must establish clearly ‘that the alleged intention to which he desires’ (the instrument) ‘to be made conformable continued concurrently in the minds of all parties down to the time of its execution, and also must be able to shew exactly and precisely the form to which the deed ought to be brought’.

Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs; FTTx 16 Jan 2009

References: [2009] UKFTT 135 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTx VAT – supply by Appellant of face value vouchers to its employees under contracts of employment – is art. 2(1) of Sixth Directive [now art. 2(1)(a) of Principal VAT Directive] to be interpreted as indicating that provision of vouchers constitutes a supply of services for consideration? – if no, is art. 6(2)(b) [now art. 26(1)(b)] to be interpreted as requiring provision of vouchers to be treated as supply of services where vouchers to be used by employees for private purposes? – if provision of vouchers neither supply of services for consideration within art. 2(1) nor is to be treated as supply of services under art 6(2)(b), is art. 17(2) to be interpreted as permitting employer to recover VAT incurred in purchasing and providing vouchers to employees in circumstances where vouchers to be used for employees’ private purposes – reference to ECJ of all 3 questions

Bassford v Blakesley; 27 Jan 1842

References: [1842] EngR 189, (1842) 6 Beav 131, (1842) 49 ER 775
Links: Commonlii
Where deeds are impeached for fraud, the mere allegation of fraud by the bill will not entitle the Plaintiff to an order for their production ; on the other hand, in order to obtain a production, it is not necessary that the fraud should be admitted by the answer, the Court must look at the circumstances of each case.
Order made for the production of a deed impeached for fraud, though the fraud was denied by the answer, the case on the whole being such as to render an inspection proper.

Malone of Rathcaslin In The County Of Westmeath v Malone Of Coburg Place In The City Of Dublin, O’Connor, Tuite, Ardill, O’Connor, Thomas Richard Rooper, John Conroy Browne, L’Estrange, L’Estrange,; 27 Jun 1841

References: [1841] EngR 890, (1841) West 637, (1841) 9 ER 627
Links: Commonlii
JM brought his bill against an infant and several other defendants, claiming, as against them, certain estates, upon two points, one of law, upon the construction of Lord Sunderlin’s will, the other of fact, that he was the heir male of Lord Sunderlin, charging by his bill that the marriage between his father and mother took place in or about the month of January 1801. With the consent of all parties, one of them being an infant, an issue was directed to inquire whether the plaintiff was the heir at law of his father; and the plaintiff, by the evidence of his mother, proved that the marriage took place in January 1801, and that her son Anthony was born in July of the same year (which would have negatived the claim of the plaintiff, by proving that he had an elder brother); but she swore that Anthony was the last child born before and the plaintiff the eldest son born after her marriage. The infant, having afterwards attained twenty one, was permitted to put in a new answer, and make a new defence ; and it was afterwards ordered that a new trial of the issue should take place, with liberty for him and other defendants to appear by counsel on the trial, and to give the judges report in evidence in respect of those witnesses who, having given evidence in the first trial, bud died. Held, that though it is a matter of discretion in a court of equity whether it will first decide the law or the fact, that the Court had, in the present instance, exercised a sound discretion in adopting the latter mode, inasmuch as all but one had concurred in that course, and a different course as to one might have led to different deterniinations upon the same point: That the issue directing the jury to inquire whether the plaintff was the heir at law was the proper issue to be tried: That though the date of the marriage proved was at variance with that alleged on the record, the Court was right in not dismissing the bill, but granting a new trial, on the ground of their being a misapprehension of the date or the facts: That the infant, though strictly speaking not a party to the issue, being permitted to make a new defence, was bound by the issue: That the judges report was properly directed to be received in evidence, being evidence between the same parties and to the same point.

Clarke v Tipping; 18 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 548, (1846) 9 Beav 284, (1846) 50 ER 352
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Wigram VC
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff’s agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant’s answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that Clarke had filed another bill in the Rolls Court, and had obtained in that suit an inspection of those books; and therefore the bill was dismissed. But the principle that an agent could not be allowed to communicate the contents of his employer’s books to another person, and that that person could not publish the information so improperly obtained, was directly admitted by the Vice-Chancellor. A person guilty of bribery takes the knowledge he obtains with no better right to use it than the party communicating it; but here there is neither bribery nor fraud.
This case cites:

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: . .
  • See Also – Clarke -v- Tipping ([1852] EngR 434 (A), Commonlii, (1852) 16 Beav 12)
    . .

Mary Griffiths v Lewis; 27 Apr 1846

References: [1846] EngR 593, (1846) 8 QB 841, (1846) 115 ER 1091
Links: Commonlii
Where a declaration in slander sets out words alleged to have been uttered, some in one discourse, and the remainder in a second discourse, and there are in form but two counts, each containing only the words alleged to have been uttered in one discourse, the declaration will be treated as containing only two counts, though each of such two counts contains a separate allegations of the uttering of different words in the particular discourse. Therefore, if in each count there be any words set out which are slanderous, judgment for plaintiff will not be arrested after verdict, though the damages be general and some of the separate allegations recite only words not actionable.
The original publisher of a defamatory statement had no privilege to repeat it when asked for an explanation.
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Watts -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling & Lom CA (Times 22-Sep-95, [1997] QB 650, Bailii, [1995] EWCA Civ 45, [1996] 2 WLR 427, [1996] EMLR 1, [1996] 1 All ER 152)
    The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .

Crossley v Crowther; 20 Nov 1851

References: [1851] EngR 898, (1851) 9 Hare 384, (1851) 68 ER 556
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Turner V-C
A, who was an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds ot property belonging to the estate of B, was paid off by C, on an agreement with the executors of B. (as their solicitor stated) that proceedings should be taken in A’s name to enforce the mortage security, and thereby to effect a sale of the whole or part of the mortgaged property; and the solicitor of the executors filed a claim for foreclosure in the name of A against the representatives of B. A denied that he had given authority to file the claim in his name, and moved that it might be taken off the file. Held that, there being only assertion against assertion, and the solicitor alone stating that the instructions were given in the presence of A, the case was to be governed by Allen v. Bone, and the claim was dismissed, with costs, to be paid by the solicitor.
That, in such a case, the Court could not adjudicate between the solicitor, by whom the claim was filed, and the Defendants, the representatives of B, by whom the instructions were given to file the claim in A’s name; and the Court left the solieitor to any legal remedy he might have against such parties.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Griffiths -v- Evans CA ([1953] 2 All ER 1364, [1953] 1 WLR 1424)
    The parties disputed the terms on which the solicitor had been engaged, and in particular as to the scope of the duty undertaken by and entrusted to the solicitor as regards advising the client.
    Held: Where there is a dispute between a . .

Egerton v Lord Brownlow; 20 Aug 1851

References: [1851] EngR 789, (1851) 1 Sim NS 464, (1851) 61 ER 180
Links: Commonlii
John WilIiam Earl of Bridgewater devised his freehold estates to trustees, in trust to convey them to the use of Lord Alford, his great-nephew, for ninety-nine years, if he should so long live ; remainder to trustees and their heirs doring the life of Lord Alford, in trust to preserve contingent remainders ; remainder to the use of the heirs male of the body of Lord Alford, with diverse remainders over: provided that, if Lord Alford should die not having acquired the title of Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater, the estate directed to be limited to the heirs male of his body should cease, and the estates should thereupon go over and be enjoyed according to the subsequent uses and limitations directed by his will. Lord Alford died leaving a son, but without having acquired the title. Held, that the proviso was valid.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Egerton -v- Earl of Brownlow HL ([1853] 4 HLC 484, [1853] 4 HLC 1, [1853] EngR 885, Commonlii, (1853) 10 ER 359)
    The House considered a challenge to the terms of a trust on the basis that it offended public policy. The House therefore considered the nature and importance of public policy.
    Held: Public policy ‘has been confounded with what may be called . .

In Re Dimes; 26 Jul 1850

References: [1850] EngR 769, (1850) 3 Mac & G 4, (1850) 42 ER 162
Links: Commonlii
The claimant challenged his committal to prison saying that the order was invalid in that although made under an order of the Vice-Chancellor, the warrant had been endorsed with the letters CC.
Held: Such an endorsement did not mean that the warrant ceased to be the order of the Vice-Chancellor, and it could not be challenged. On the return of a writ of habeas corpus, the court’s task is limited to ensuring that the custody arises under a court having authority in that behalf.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Dimes -v- The Company of Proprietors of The Grand Junction Canal CExC ([1846] EngR 55, Commonlii, (1846) 9 QB 469, (1846) 115 ER 1353, [1846] EngR 1072, Commonlii, (1846) 15 Sim 402, (1846) 60 ER 675)
    By a local Act of Parliament a company was incorporated and empowered to purchase certain lands ; and all persons seised, possessed of or interested in those lands were empowered to conveyed their right and interest therein to the company, in the . .
  • See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company -v- Dimes ([1849] EngR 576, Commonlii, (1849) 12 Beav 63, (1849) 50 ER 984)
    In a suit in which an incorporated company were Plaintiffs, a decree was pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor for England, and was affirmed, on appeal, by the Lord Chancellor. It was afterwards discovered that the Lord Chancellor was a shareholder in . .
  • See Also – The Grand Junction Canal Company -v- Dimes CA ([1850] EngR 242, Commonlii, (1850) 2 Mac & G 285, (1850) 42 ER 110)
    The defendant had been committed for the breach of an injunction which he believed had been unlawfully granted in that the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, had decided in favour of the plaintiff company in which he held shares. The defendant again . .
  • See Also – Dimes -v- Lord Cottenham ([1850] EngR 499 (A), Commonlii, (1850) 5 Exch 311)
    The Court will not, on the application of the plaintiff, grant a trial at bar merely because the defendant is Lord Chancellor and the plaintiff an attorney of the Court. . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Dimes -v- Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others HL ((1852) 3 HL Cas 759, [1852] EngR 789, Commonlii, (1852) 3 HLC 759, (1852) 10 ER 301)
    The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, owned a substantial shareholding in the defendant canal which was an incorporated body. He sat on appeal from the Vice-Chancellor, whose judgment in favour of the company he affirmed. There was an appeal on the . .
  • See Also – Dimes -v- The Proprietors Of The Grand Junction Canal and Others ([1852] EngR 793, Commonlii, (1852) 3 HLC 794, (1852) 10 ER 315)
    The plaintiff had brought an action to recover land. His appeal failed, but the House later decided that the Lord Chancellor who heard the appeal should have disqualified himself, because he held shareholdings in the defendant company, and his . .

In Re Strother, A Solicitor And In Re The Act 6 and 7 Vict c 73; 11 Jul 1857

References: [1857] EngR 761, 7 Vict c 73, (1857) 69 ER 1214
Links: Commonlii
The Act 10 & 11 Vict. s. 69 does not deprive this Court of its jurisdiction to order taxation of a solicitor’s bill of costs for Parliamentary business. To entitle a client to an order for taxation of his solicitor’s bill of costs after the expiration of twelve months from its delivery he must shew either pressure or gross overcharge, amounting to what this Court designates as fraud. But it is not necessary to shew both.

Bolton v Powell, Howard v Earle; 11 Mar 1852

References: [1852] EngR 352, (1852) 2 De G M & G 1, (1852) 42 ER 771
Links: Commonlii
An administrator of an intestate died in 1817 indebted to a large amount in respect of his receipts as administrator, but leaving sufficient personal estate to pay this amount, and also leaving freehold estates. In the same year a suit was instituted for the administration of his personal estate, and in 1832, it appeared from the report in that suit, that his personal estate had been misapplied, and that his executor had become bankrupt. Thereupon, and in the same year (1832), an administratrix de bonis non of the intestate instituted a suit against the administrator’s heir and the sureties, in the usual administration bond, and against the representatives of the Archbishop (who had died), praying to have the benefit of the bond, and to charge by means of the administrator’s freehold estates. No decree was made in this suit, the Plaintiff having married in 1838, and having died in 1847, without the suit having ever been revived. In 1848 another of the next of kin, who had been a Defendant to the suit of 1833, took out administration de bonis non of the intestate, and filed a bill of revivor and supplement, claiming to have the benefit of the suit of 1832. Held, that the suit of 1833 must be considered as having been abandoned, and that the suit of 1848 must be considered an original suit, and as such barred by length of time and laches.

Patrick v Shedden; 29 Apr 1853

References: [1853] EngR 496, (1853) 2 El & Bl 14, (1853) 118 ER 674
Links: Commonlii
S raised an action against P before the Lords of Session in Scotland, who dismissed the action, and found P entitled to his expenses. S appealed to the House of Lords. Pending the appeal, P petitioned the Lords of Session for decree arid interim execution, under stat, 48 G 3, c 151, s. 17, for the expences. The Lords of Session allowed the decree, pronouncing an interlocutor and interim decree for payment upon security to repay (‘caution to repeat’}in the event of a reversal of the original judgment in the House of Lords, with warrant, in failure of payment after a time named, to poind S’s goods. – Security having been given, and the time havirig expired, P now sued for the amount of the expences.
Held: The action was not maintainable, the decree for payment not being in the nature of a final judgment.

Charles Jefferys v Thomas Boosey; 1 Aug 1854

References: [1854] EngR 816, (1854) 4 HLC 815, (1854) 10 ER 681, [1854] UKPC 28
Links: Commonlii, Bailii
Coram: Brougham, St Leonard LL
The object of 8 Anne, c. 19, was to encourage literature among British subjects, which description includes such foreigners as, by residence here, owe the Crown a temporary allegiance; and any such foreigner, first publishing his work here, is an ‘author’ within the meaning of the statute, no matter where his work was composed, or whether he came here solely with a view to its publication.
Copyright commences by publication; if at that time the foreign author is not in this country, he is not a person whom the statute meant to protect.
An Englishman, though resident abroad, will have copyright in a work of his own first published in this country.
B, a foreign musical composer, resident at that time in his own country, assigned to R, another foreigner, also resident there, according to the law of their country, his right in a musical composition of which he was the author, and which was then unpublished. The assignee brought the composition to this country, and, before publication, assigned it, according to the form required by the law of this country, to an Englishman. The first publication, took place in this country :
Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that the foreign assignee had not, by the law of this country, any assignable copyright here in this musical composition.
Per Lords Brougham and St. Leonards.-Copyright did not exist at common law; it is the creature of statute.
This case cites:

Rolin And Another v Steward, Public Officer of The East of England Bank; 8 May 1854

References: [1854] EngR 492, (1854) 14 CB 595, (1854) 139 ER 245
Links: Commonlii
Substantial damages may be recovered against a banker, for dishonouring an acceptance and cheques of a customer, there being sufficient assets in his hands at the time to meet them.
This case is cited by:

  • Followed – Wilson -v- United Counties Bank Ltd HL ([1918-19] All ER Rep1035, [1920] LR AC 102, [1920] AC 102)
    Major Wilson had left England on active service soon after the beginning of the great war, leaving his business affairs, in a fairly precarious state, with his bank. The jury found that the bank had failed in its duty to supervise his business . .

Pyer v Carter; 21 Feb 1857

References: (1857) 1 H&N 916, [1857] EngR 291, (1857) 1 H & N 916, (1857) 156 ER 1472
Links: Commonlii
Where the owner of two or more adjoining houses sells and conveys one of them to a purchaser, such house is entititled to the benefit and is subject to the burthen of all existing drains communicating with the other house, without any express reservation or grant for that purpose. The plaintiff’s and defendant’s houses adjoined each other. They had formerly been one house and were converted into two by the owner of the whole property. Subsequently the defendant’s house was conveyed to him, and after that the plaintiff took a conveyance of his house. At the times of these conveyances, a drain ran under the plaintiff’s house and thence under the defendant’s, and discharged itself into the common sewer. Water from the eaves of the defendant’s house fell on the plaintiff’s house, and then ran into a drain on the plaintiff’s premises and thence through the drain into the common sewer. The plaintiff’s house was drained through this drain.
Held: The plaintiff was, by implied grant, entitled to have the use of the drain as it was used at the time of the defendant’s purchase of the house. A drainage easement is deemed to be continuous and apparent.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – McAdams Homes Ltd -v- Robinson and Another CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 214, Gazette 11-Mar-04, [2005] 1 P&CR 520, [2004] 3 EGLR 93)
    The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .

Gurney v Gurney; 15 Mar 1855

References: (1855) 3 Drew 208, [1855] EngR 306, (1855) 61 ER 882
Links: Commonlii
The will gave first a legacy then divided the residue between two. The will was witnessed correctly, but the two residuary beneficiaries witnessed a later codicil revoking the prior legacy.
Held: Although the revocation did increase the residue, the original gifts of residue had been validly made.
Statutes: Wills Act 1937 15

Falcke v Gray; 13 Jun 1859

References: [1859] EngR 710, (1859) 4 Drew 651, (1859) 62 ER 250
Links: Commonlii
The Court will enforce specific performance of a contract to purchase chattels, if damages will not be an adequate compensation.
But where the contract, although not actually fraudulent, was one in which the parties were not on an equal footing, the Plaintiff knowing, and the purchaser being ignorant, of the value of the thing sold, and the price appeared to be inadequate, the Court refused relief.

In The Matter Of The British Sugar Refining Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856; 18 Feb 1857

References: [1857] EngR 280, (1857) 3 K & J 408, (1857) 69 ER 1168
Links: Commonlii
The 25th section of the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict, c. 47), enabling a shareholder whose name is without sufficient cause omitted to be entered in the company’s register to apply by motion for an order that the register may be rectified was not meant to give to every shareholder ex debito justiciae this summary remedy. The object of that section was to enable the Court to avoid the inconvenience and injustice which occasionally arise from capricious or frivolous objections on the part of companies to complete the registration of their shareholders. It was not intended by the Act that, in the event of there being a serious question to be tried, the matter should be disposed of summarily.
A resolution for a call may be good, though resolutions for calls for smaller sums had been previously negatived at the same meeting.
Whether, provided shareholders have had notice by means of circulars of a meeting for the purpose of making calls, a shareholder who has attended such meeting can object to calls made thereat, on the mere ground that the company omitted to advertise the meeting in any newspaper, as required by their deed of settlement – quaere.
But where a shareholder, having so attended at such meeting, had allowed others to pay their calls, and after lying by for six months assigned his shares : Held, that his assignee could not, by motion under the 25th section of the Act, apply to have his name entered on the register, so long as the calls remained unpaid; and his motion was dismissed with costs.
Statutes: Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 25

Cook And Another v Lister; 19 Jan 1863

References: [1863] EngR 154, (1863) 13 CB NS 543, (1863) 143 ER 215, (1863) 1 New Rep 280, (1863) LJCP 121, (1863) 7 LT 712
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Willes J
Three parties including the defendant had drawn bills against each other, which bills came to the plaintiff as bona fide holder for value indorsee. Various sums had been paid on account, and the plaintiff sued the defendant but giving him credit only for the sums he had paid, saying that any excess would be held for the use of the drawers. The defendant offered to pay the sums he owed and the balance outsanding under all the bills, but no more, and paid that sum into court.
Held: Though the bills were not accomodation bills as such, the defendant could not be called on to pay the sum already paid again.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hirachand Punamchand -v- Temple CA ([1911] 2 KB 11, [1911] 2 KB 330)
    The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .

The Queen v Gompertz, Lewis, William Witham, Robert Witham And Francis Witham; 17 Dec 1846

References: [1846] EngR 1219, (1847) 9 QB 824, (1846) 115 ER 1491
Links: Commonlii
A count in an indictment is good which simply charges that defendants, unlawfully, &c., did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together, by divers false pretences and indirect means to cheat and defraud R. of his moneys. Where an indictment for conspiracy Contains several counts, if only a single conspiracy be proved, the verdict may nevertheless be taken on so many of the counts as describe the conspiracy consistently with the proof. In the course of proving a conspiracy to defraud, carried into effect by prevailing upon the prosecutor to accept bills, a warrant of attorrney, given to him for the purpose of inducing him to accept, reciting the acceptance may be given in evidence though unstamped. An indictment for conspiring to defraud the the prosecutor may be supported by proof of a conspiracy to obtain his acceptances, though the prosecutor part with no money, and though he never has intended to take up the acceptances, and though the bills were never in his hands except for the purpose of his accepting. Where all of several defendants in an indictment for conspiracy are found guilty, if one of them shew himself entitled to a new trial on grounds not affect ing the others, the new trial will nevertheless be granted as to all.

Spoor v Green; CExC 1874

References: (1874) LR 9 Ex 99
Coram: Kelly CB, Cleasby, Bramwell BB
There had been an assignment of a lease of coal mines but at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff, the coals had already been substantially worked out. The grantor did not have title in the coals and was in breach of the covenant of title. The plaintiff bought the land and built houses upon it. The houses were damaged by subsidence caused by the underground mining.
Held: There had been no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment which had been given by the vendor.
Cleasby B said: ‘It seems to me impossible to say that there is a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment by reason of the subsidence of the house in consequence of the previous removal of the coal. This subsidence of the house was a necessary consequence of the condition of the property bought by the plaintiff.’
Bramwell B took the view that a breach of covenant for title was a once for all breach and completed at the time when the assignment was executed and hence would have been statute-barred. Kelly CB differed, held that it was a continuous breach. He drew a distinction between a covenant for title and a covenant for quiet enjoyment.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Southwark London Borough Council -v- Mills/Tanner; Baxter -v- Camden London Borough Council HL (Times 22-Oct-99, Gazette 10-Nov-99, Gazette 03-Nov-99, House of Lords, Bailii, [1999] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 1 AC 1, [1999] UKHL 40, [1999] 3 WLR 939, [1999] 3 EGLR 35, [2000] 32 HLR 148, [1999] 45 EG 179, (2000) 79 P & CR D13, [1999] EGCS 122, [2000] Env LR 112, [1999] NPC 123, [2000] L & TR 159, [2000] BLGR 138)
    Tenants of council flats with ineffective sound insulation argued that the landlord council was in breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in their tenancy agreements.
    Held: A landlord’s duty to allow quiet enjoyment does not extend to a . .

Uttley v Uttley; 18 Jul 2001

References: Unreported, 18 July 2001
Coram: Hallett J
The Claimant complained about the late disclosure of surveillance evidence.
Held: Balancing the Defendant’s entitlement to use surveillance evidence effectively, against the general case management goal of openness and a ‘cards on the table’ approach, the court found in favour of the Defendant.
Hallett J said: ‘In my judgment, in the circumstances of this case -and I emphasise in the circumstances of this case -the defendant’s solicitors were entitled to hold on to the video recording for a reasonable period of time. This was not simply a case of trying to ambush the claimant at trial. The defendant’s insurers not surprisingly wished to assess the evidence in their possession with the claimant’s up-to-date account before disclosing it. I say not surprisingly in the light of the history of the litigation as I have outlined it. They wanted to use it effectively as cross-examination material. I accept therefore the explanation from Mr Curtis to which I have already referred.
What therefore is a reasonable time in the circumstances of this litigation?
Mr Curtis made it plain in August 2000 that although the defendant’s insurers were prepared to wait for the witness statement until the report from the doctor was available, they wished to have the claimant’s up-to-date witness statement at the same time. They were operating on the basis the medical report would be available within a reasonable time.
They also indicated they had no objection to there being an interim statement from the claimant which could be updated if necessary. They wished to have this material, as they said in their letter, to assess their position when it came to possible negotiations and attempts at settlement. They continued to press for the witness statement and up-to-date schedule, but the claimant’s solicitors seemed to indicate that one would be available as soon as possible. Despite that fact, no up-to-date witness statement or schedule was produced until December.
In my judgment the defendant’s solicitors were entitled to press for an up-to-date witness statement and schedule, and to press for documents of that kind in the summer of 2000. They were entitled to know what the claimant was saying himself, not merely what he had reported to Dr Supramamian. It is right to say that on receipt of the doctor’s report in October the defendant’s insurers would know what the claimant had told him, but it is not unknown in my experience for a claimant to say that a doctor has misunderstood what he or she has said or has failed to record other significant matters that have been said. I entirely understand and sympathise therefore with Mr Curtis’ attitude that he wished to know what the claimant himself was saying.
In any event, it became clear in October that the doctor had to reconsider the question of how the accident occurred yet the trial date was looming in January 2001. I agree entirely with the Master that the claimant’s solicitors should and could have served an up-to-date witness statement from the claimant long before the time that they did. Once served, I have no doubt the video recording would have been served upon them.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Douglas -v- O’ Neill QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 601 (QB))
    The defendant sought permission to adduce CCTV evidence taken secretly. The claimant sought an order for the footage not to be used being an attempt at trial by ambush.
    Held: The defendant’s application succeeded. There had been no breach of . .

Belkiss v Revenue and Customs; Excs 30 May 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01117
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – Restoration appeal – restoration of excise goods seized – Appellant’s case was that they were imported for his own use – Decision that it would not be an abuse of this Tribunal’s process to consider this issue notwithstanding the Appellant’s indication to the Commissioners that he did not wish to contest the legality of the seizure in the Magistrates’ Court – Decision on the facts that the Customs officers’ decision not to restore the goods on the grounds that they were imported for commercial purposes was not unreasonable – appeal dismissed

F Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie Nv v Revenue and Customs; Excs 24 Mar 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00948
Links: Bailii
Coram: Theodore Wallace
Excs EXCISE – Duty suspended movement – Assessment on consignor – Theft during transit following release from detention – Guarantee provided by warehousekeeper of dispatch which was consignor – Release after journey time on AAD – Whether Appellant still guarantor – Appellant not notified of release – Compatibility of DSMEG Regs 2000 reg 7(1) with Excise Directive 92/12/EEC Arts 15.3 and 20.1 – Powers of Tribunal under FA 1944 s.16(5) – Appeal dismissed

Koluch v Revenue and Customs; Excs 26 Jun 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01122
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – NON RESTORATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE – The Appellant was the owner of the vehicle – not present at the seizure – the vehicle was used for smuggling excise goods – Appellant did not take reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle from being used for smuggling – evidence indicated that the Appellant knew about the smuggling attempt – non-restoration of vehicle proportionate – no exceptional hardship – review decision reasonable – Appeal dismissed

Vevers v Revenue and Customs; Excs 24 Jun 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01121
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of seized Mercedes Sprinter — Appellant did not appear – vehicle condemned as forfeit by the magistrates – 100 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco imported – tobacco to be sold on at a profit – no exceptional hardship – was the decision not to restore the vehicle reasonable – yes – Appeal dismissed.

Sports and General Press Agency v ‘Our Dogs’ Publishing Co: CA 1917

References: [1917] KB 125 CA
The plaintiff had sold to the Press photographic rights to a dog show. An independent photographer took pictures and sold them to the defendant, who published them. The plaintiff sought to restrain further publication.
Held: An injunction was refused on the ground that the dog show organisers and the plaintiff could, by contract, have laid down, but had failed to lay down, conditions of entry or as to banning the use of unauthorised cameras.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Douglas etc -v- Hello! Ltd etc ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch), Times 21-Apr-03, [2003] 3 All ER 996, [2003] EMLR 31)
    The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
    Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .

Pharmaceutical Society v London and Provincial Supply Association Ltd; 11 Jan 1880

References: (1880) 5 App Cas 857
Coram: Lord Blackburn
Lord Blackburn spoke of the presumption at common law that the word ‘person’ in an Act of Parliament includes ‘corporations’: ‘Circumstances, and indeed circumstances of a slight nature in the context, might show in which way the word is to be construed in an Act of Parliament . . whenever you can see that the object of the Act requires that the word ‘person’ shall have the more extended or less extended sense, then, whichever sense it requires, you should apply the word in that sense.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Floor -v- Davis (Inspector of Taxes) HL ([1980] AC 695, [1979] 2 WLR 830, [1979] 2 All ER 677)
    The House considered whether the meaning of the phrase ‘a person having control’ extended to control by more than one person. This depended on whether the word ‘person’ in the singular was to be construed as including the plural.
    Held: The . .

Stanley v Jackman; 10 Feb 1857

References: [1857] EngR 259 (C), (1857) 23 Beav 450
Links: Commonlii
A father directed a fund, given to his daughter, to be settled ‘upon her and her issue,’ so that ‘the same might not be liable or subject to the debts, control or engagements of any husband’ whom she might happen to marry during her lifetime. Held, that the settlement ought to give the daughter a power of appointment by will, in default of issue. Form of settlement in such a case.

Scott v Jackman; 10 Nov 1855

References: [1855] EngR 774, (1855) 21 Beav 110, (1855) 52 ER 800
Links: Commonlii
By the conditions of sale, the title-deeds were to be delivered to ‘the purchaser of the largest lot’. A purchased the largets lot in value, and extent, but B purchased several lots, whose aggregate value and extent exceed those of A’s title.
Held: A was entitled to custody of the deeds.

Jeffery v FSA; UTTC 7 Dec 2012

References: [2012] UKUT B31 (TCC), FS/2010/0039
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – application for recusal of judge – apparent bias – fair-minded and informed observer – whether sharing of office or other proximity to judge formerly chairman of RDC and involved in the case whilst employed by the FSA would lead observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of bias

Stone v Godfrey; 10 Dec 1853

References: [1853] EngR 1085, (1853) 1 Sm & G 590, (1853) 65 ER 258
Links: Commonlii
The father of a female infant, who was himself tenant by the curtesy, but whose right was regarded as doubtful, became next friend of his daughter in a suit against the trustee of his late wife’s real estates, in which a decree was obtained for a partition, and conveyance of the infant’s portion to the father, until she attained twenty one, and then to the use of the infant in fee. The father received the rents and profits, and duly accounted to his daughter in respect of them ; but, on her marriage, filed a bill against her and her husband, for a declaration that his daughter’s interest in the estate might be declared, subject to his estate by curtesy. Held, that the Plaintiff, having relinquished what was regarded as a doubtful right, by an arrangement under which he derived a benefit, was not entitled to relief. Semble -A wife, entitled to real estate sested in trustees, who, under an erroneous impression of her rights, paid the rents to other persons, died, without having received the rents, leaving her husband and one daughter her surviving that; the husband was tenant by the curtesy.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gibbon -v- Mitchell ChD ([1990] 1 WLR 1304, [1990] 3 All ER 338)
    G executed a deed surrendering his life interest in a trust fund in order to vest the property in his two children: the deed did not have that effect because of two errors (one of which was ignoring the fact that his life interest was subject to . .

London and Overseas Freighters v Timber Shipping Co SA ‘The London Explorer’: HL 1972

References: [1971] 1 Lloyds Rep 523, [1972] AC 1
Coram: Lord Morris, Lord Reid
The London Explorer was under a charter where the hire was ‘to continue until the hour of the day of her redelivery’. The charterers redelivered the ship about 3 months late because, although she had set out on a legitimate last voyage, she had been delayed by strikes at her last two discharging ports.
Held: The owners recovered for the additional hire at the charterparty rate even though the market rate during the overrun period was less than the charterparty rate.
Lord Morris: ‘Even though the time set out in a charterparty is not made of the essence so that continued use of the vessel after the stated time will not at once have the result that such continued use will be in breach of contract, it will be necessary that redelivery should be within a reasonable time. It might well be . . that with a clause similar to clause 4 a charterer would be liable to pay hire at the contractual rate to the time of actual redelivery and in addition (if the current rate exceeded the contractual rate) to pay damages in respect of his failure to redeliver within a reasonable time’.
Lord Reid said: ‘There is a controversy as to whether one can ever look at deleted words in an agreement. If the words were first inserted by the draftsman of the agreement and then deleted before signature then I have no doubt that they must not be considered in construing the agreement. They are in the same position as any other preliminary suggestion put forward and rejected before the final agreement was made. But it appears to me that striking out words from a printed form is quite a different matter. The process of adapting a printed form to make it express the parties’ intentions requires two things to be done. Those parts which are not to be part of the agreement are struck out and words are inserted to complete the rest of the form so as to express the agreement. There is no inference that in striking out words the parties had second thoughts: the words struck out were never put there by the parties or any of them or by their draftsman.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama -v- Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3030 (Comm), [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 19, [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 379, [2006] 2 CLC 1069)
    The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
    Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .

Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim; 11 Oct 1994

References: Times 11-Oct-1994
Coram: Chadwick J
In cases under the 1978 Act the court does not ask whether, under some rule of English private international law to be found independently of that Act, the contribution claim is to be determined by reference to the 1978 Act. Rather, the court asks whether, under the provisions of the 1978 Act itself, the contribution claim ought to succeed. Chadwick J said: ‘If B and C were each persons against whom liability had been or could be established in an action brought against them by A in an English court, applying the appropriate law in accordance with English private international law rules, then the Act conferred on B a right of contribution against C to which the court had to give effect. There was no preliminary question as to proper law the answer to which determined, independently of the Act, whether the Act applied.’
Statutes: Civil Liability Contribution Act 1978
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cox -v- Ergo Versicherung Ag CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 854)
    The deceased member of the armed forces had died in a road traffic accident in Germany. The parties didputed whether the principles governing the calculation of damages were those in the 1976 Act and UK law, or under German law.
    Held: ‘There . .

Regina v Henry Moore Griffiths; 11 Jun 1857

References: [1857] EngR 661, (1857) 7 El & Bl 952, (1857) 119 ER 1501
Links: Commonlii
The high sheriff of a county, in August 1854, appointed G. election auditor for the county, under The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, S. 15), to act at any elections for and during the year then next ensuing, and until another appointment should be made. No fresh appointment was made in 1855. In March 1856 the then high sheriff appointed W. election auditor for the current year. – On a rule for a quo warranto against G. :-Held, that it was not necessary that the appointment for 1855-1856 should be made during the month of August: that W. was well appointed ; and that, on his appointment, Q. ceased to be election auditor : and the rule was made absolute.
Statutes: Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854

Ministry of Defence v Wiltshire County Council; 3 May 1995

References: [1995] 4 All ER 931
Coram: Harman J
The court considered that the time period of twenty years necessary to establish a right of common under the Act was the period ending with the date of the application.
Held: The court rectified the register under section 14 so as to remove the registration of an area of land between a row of houses occupied by military personnel and the Ministry’s airbase. The user by the inhabitants of the Ministry’s houses was not ‘as of right’ as was required.
Harman J said that his views on locality were a second ground for his decision: ‘Other points were argued. In particular, Mr Drabble QC argued that it was impossible for a village green to be created by the exercise of rights save on behalf of some recognisable unit of this country–and when I say recognisable I mean recognisable by the law. Such units have in the past been occasionally boroughs, frequently parishes, both ecclesiastical and civil, and occasionally manors, all of which are entities known to the law, and where there is a defined body of persons capable of exercising the rights or granting the rights.
The idea that one can have the creation of a village green for the benefit of an unknown area–and when I say unknown I mean unknown to the law, not undefined by a boundary upon a plan, but unknown in the sense of unrecognised by the law-then one has, says Mr Drabble, no precedent for any such claim and no proper basis in theory for making any such assertion. In my belief that also is a correct analysis.’ and ‘Upon that basis there can be no possible claim of right here arising, and the activities are not activities which could give rise to a claim of right sufficient to found a basis that the activity is enough to create a village green. That would be, in my view, the end of the case and it would then be just to rectify the register because, in my view, it would be unfair and burdensome, that is unjust, to a landowner to have an entry made upon a register which hampers and burdens him in the exercise of his rights over his own land when those burdens have no proper existence at all in law. My judgment therefore is that the motion should succeed’.
Statutes: Commons Registration Act 1965
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oxfordshire County Council -v- Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD ([2004] EWHC 12 (Ch), Bailii, Times 30-Jan-04, [2004] 2 WLR 1291, [2004] Ch 253)
    Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
    Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
  • Cited – Oxfordshire County Council -v- Oxford City Council and others HL (Bailii, [2006] UKHL 25, Times 31-May-06, Gazette 08-Jun-06, [2006] 2 WLR 1235, [2006] 2 AC 674, [2006] 22 EG 177, [2006] NPC 62, [2006] BLGR 713, [2006] 2 EGLR 95, [2006] 4 All ER 817)
    Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
  • Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd -v- Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1606 (Ch), [2011] 26 EG 84, [2011] BLGR 727, [2011] NPC 66)
    The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .
  • Cited – Paddico (267) Ltd -v- Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Others ChD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1606 (Ch), [2011] 26 EG 84, [2011] BLGR 727, [2011] NPC 66)
    The company sought the rectification of the register of village greens to remove an entry relating to its land, saying that the Council had not properly considered the need properly to identify the locality which was said to have enjoyed the rights . .

Grove And Another, Assignees of Liotard, A Bankrupt, v Dubois; 31 Jan 1786

References: [1786] EngR 42, (1786) 1 TR 112, (1786) 99 ER 1002
Links: Commonlii
A commission del credere is an absolute engagement to the principal from the broker, and makes him liable in the first instance. A broker with such a commission may set-off, under the general issue, a loss upon a policy happening before a bankruptcy, to an action by the assignees of the bankrupt, for premiums upon various policies under-written by him, and for which he had debited the broker : but such a loss carinot be proved under a riotice of set-off.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners For England v The Vestry of The Parish of St James And St John, Clerkenwell; 25 May 1861

References: [1861] EngR 620, (1861) 3 De G F & J 688, (1861) 45 ER 1045
Links: Commonlii
The exceptions expressed in the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 90, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, s. 3 (the Metropolis Local Management Acts), do not exempt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting under the Church Builditig Acts, from the provisions of the first-mentioned Act, and vestries have, under the first-mentioned Act, authority to pull down such portions of churches, as well as of other buildings, as transgress the provisions of that Act.

Ludgate and Another v Customs and Excise; Excs 11 Apr 2003

References: [2003] UKVAT-Excise E00403
Links: Bailii
Excs RESTORATION – Refusal – Review decision – Import of tobacco by non-smoker as gift to father-in-law, who looks after Appellant’s children and helped building patio – Whether gift in consideration of money or money’s worth – No – Whether review decision reasonable – Appeal allowed – Further review ordered
RESTORATION – Import of excise goods in excess of schedule to Personal Reliefs Order – Burden of proof on Commissioners to shew import for commercial purpose – Whether burden of proof played part in decision on review

RWE Npower Plc and others v Carrol (acting for and on behalf of the unincorporated association identified as ‘The Sandles House Group’ etc): QBD 27 Apr 2007

References: [2007] EWHC 947 (QB)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Teare J
The claimant sought relief against protesters challenging its proposal for disposal of ash from its coal fired power station in gravel pits local to the defendants.
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 19.6
This case is cited by:

HMRC v Charlton Corfield and Corfield; UTTC 20 Dec 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 770 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital Gains Tax – whether discovery assessments valid – s 29, Taxes Management Act 1970 – meaning of ‘discovery’ – inference of information under s 29(6)(d)(i) – inclusion of DOTAS scheme reference number in return – whether an officer could not have been reasonably expected to be aware of an insufficiency of tax (s 29(5)) – nature of the hypothetical officer
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 29

Land Securities Plc v HM Revenue and Customs FTC/11/2012; UTTC 14 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 124 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Corporation tax on capital gains – scheme to generate a capital loss in reliance on the identification rules for matching a disposal of shares with an acquisition under s 106 TCGA 1992 – value shifting rules in s 30 TCGA 1992 – application of s 30(9) notwithstanding that the shares were owned at the time of the disposal, where disposal and acquisition form part of the scheme which engages s 30 – whether, in the alternative, the disposal and acquisition for the purposes of s 30(9) is determined by the computational rules required by s 106 -Davies v Hicks applied – application of s 30(5) to eliminate the capital loss’

Mark Buzzoni and Others v HM Revenue and Customs – FTC/57-59/2011; UTTC 19 Oct 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 360 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Whether s. 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 (gift with reservation) applies to a gift of a reversionary underlease containing covenants from the donee mirroring covenants in the donor’s head lease. Application of Ingram v. IRC. Decision of the First-tier Tribunal upheld: such covenants do constitute a reservation within the section.
Statutes: Finance Act 1986 102(1)(b)
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

HM Revenue and Customs v UK Storage (SW) Ltd – FTC/87/2011; UTTC 17 Oct 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 359 (TCC), FTC/87/2011
Links: Bailii
UTTc Value Added Tax – were storage units immovable property? – held no – was right to store goods in units exempt supply of licence to occupy land or standard rated supply of storage services? – held if units were immovable property then exempt supply of licence to occupy land otherwise standard rated supply of storage services – was single supply a supply of licence to occupy land or of storage services? – held single supply of storage services – appeal allowed.

The Trustees of The BT Pension Scheme v HMRC FTC/91 and 92/2011; UTTC 28 Feb 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 105 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC TAX CREDIT – Foreign income dividends – Claim by Trustees of exempt approved pension scheme – FIDS received from UK resident companies – ICTA 1988 s.231 TAX CREDIT – Cross-border dividends – Claims for tax credits based on ECJ decision in Manninen (Case C-319/0)2 – ICTA 1988 s.231 LIMITATIONS – Tax credit claims – Whether out of time – TMA s.43(1)

HM Revenue and Customs v Knowledgepoint 360 Group Plc; UTTC 28 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 7 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC National Insurance Contributions – Class 1 – Payment by employee benefit trust to employee on winding up of the trust following sale of sponsoring company – whether a ‘gratuity’ – no – Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001/1004, Schedule 3 Part X paragraph 5 – appeal allowed

Scottish Football League v HMRC; UTTC 4 Apr 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 160 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Value Added Tax; supply of goods; business gift; disposal otherwise than for a consideration; supply by football association of end of season medals to league division points champion clubs; whether output tax payable on the value of such medals – yes; or whether accounted for by output on membership, sponsorship, copyright royalties, and/or broadcasting fees; no; Value Added Tax 1994 Schedule 4, paragraph 5; Principal VAT Directive 2006/112/EC Article 16.

Ryanair Limited v HMRC; UTTC 10 Apr 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 176 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC AIR PASSENGER DUTY – connected flights exemption – FA 1994 ss 28, 31, 39, APD Regs 1994, reg 11, APD (Connected Flights) Order 1994, art 3 and Schedule – whether ticketing requirements represent discrete condition or are merely evidential – discrete requirement – whether satisfied by appellant during relevant period – no – appeal dismissed
JUDICIAL REVIEW – whether appellant treated less favourably than competing airlines – no – application dismissed

HMRC v Esporta Limited; UTTC 26 Apr 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 173 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT -whether First-tier Tribunal erred in concluding that membership fees recovered after access to club’s facilities had been denied due to non-payment were not consideration for a supply but compensation – held yes – appeal allowed

HMRC v Europlus Trading Ltd FTC/38/2012; UTTC 1 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 108 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Excise Duty – reclaim of excise duty on exportation of beer – appeal from the FTT’s decision that HMRC had breached European law and the supplier’s human rights by undertaking extended verification of its claim for drawback of excise duty on beer warehoused for export – the effect of the FTT’s finding that the supplier had failed to satisfy the duty paid drawback condition by demonstrating that excise duty had previously been paid on the beer and had not been refunded – whether the supplier had legitimate expectations that HMRC would not undertake such extended verification in the light of HMRC’s existing policy – whether HMRC had changed its policy without notice to suppliers – whether the FTT had jurisdiction to consider the arguments on legitimate expectation and the European law points, or whether such claims were beyond the jurisdiction of the FTT under sections 14 and 16 of the Finance Act 1994.

HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp; UTTC 22 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 1041 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying with a direction for preparation of hearing bundles – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules – rule 2 (overriding objective) – rule 5 (case management powers) – rule 10 (orders for costs)
This case cites:

  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs SCIT (Bailii, [2009] UKSPC SPC00736, [2009] STI 627, [2009] STC (SCD) 293)
    SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2010] UKFTT 448 (TC))
    FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2011] UKFTT 401 (TC))
    FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
  • See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2012] UKFTT 270 (TC))
    FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .

This case is cited by:

Reed Employment Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs FTC/39/2011; UTTC 28 Feb 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 109 (TCC), FTC/39/2011
Links: Bailii
UTTC Value added tax (VAT) – what constitutes a new claim as compared to an amended claim under VATA section 80 – whether HMRC can rely on a defence of unjust enrichment in relation to claims made after 26 May 2005 – application of EU principles of effectiveness, equal treatment and fiscal neutrality.’

John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs – FTC/88/2011; UTTC 28 Jan 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 51 (TCC), FTC/88/2011
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income tax – charge on retirement benefits scheme administrator under s591C ICTA 88 on cessation of approval of scheme – whether assessments raised in respect of correct year of assessment – whether raised in the name of correct person.
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 591C