Month: July 2015

Rex v Poulton; 18 May 1932

References: (1832) 5 C & P 329, [1832] EngR 613, (1832) 5 Car & P 329, (1832) 172 ER 997
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Littledale J
In summing up in a murder trial: ‘With respect to the birth, being born must mean that the whole body is brought into the world . . Whether the child was born alive or not depends mainly on the evidence of the medical men.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA (Times 10-Oct-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 254, [2001] 1 FLR 267, [2000] 4 All ER 961, [2001] Fam 147, [2001] 2 WLR 480, [2001] 9 BHRC 261, [2000] 3 FCR 577, [2001] Fam Law 18, (2001) 57 BMLR 1, [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 425, [2001] UKHRR 1)
    Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .

Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation; 16 Dec 1921

References: (1921) 29 CLR 537, [1921] HCA 56
Links: Austlii
Coram: Knox CJ, Higgins and Starke JJ
High Court of Australia – Higgins J coined the term ‘issue estoppel’.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Hoystead -v- Commissioner of Taxation PC ([1926] AC 155, [1925] All ER 56, (1926) 42 TLR 207, 67 ER 313)
    Lord Shaw: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships it is settled, first, that the admission of a fact fundamental to the decision arrived at cannot be withdrawn and a fresh litigation started, with a view of obtaining another judgment upon a different . .
  • Cited – Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd -v- Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 46, [2013] 3 WLR 299, [2014] 1 AC 160, [2013] WLR(D) 265, [2013] RPC 29, [2013] 4 All ER 715, Baili Summary, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0013, SC Summary, SC)
    Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding £49,000,000 for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .

European Commission -V- Ireland: ECJ 15 Apr 2010

References: C-294/09, [2010] EUECJ C-294/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:200
Links: Bailii
ECJ (Judgment Of The Court (Fifth Chamber)) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/43/EC – Statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts – Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period – Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive
Statutes: Directive 2006/43/EC

Wilson v Lord Finch Hatton; CExC 1877

References: (1877) 2 Ex D 336
Coram: Pollock B
It was said that the premises had previously been occupied by someone with measles and were therefore not fit for human habitation.
Held: A term of fitness for occupation was implied into a lease of furnished premises at its commencement and meant: ‘that it should be reasonably healthy, and so not dangerous to the life of those inhabiting it.’
Pollock B said that furnished lettings were an exception to the doctrine that rent issues out of the realty and held instead that rent was simply ‘a sum paid for the accommodation afforded by the use of the house’.
This case cites:

  • Applied – Smith -v- Marrable, Knt ([1842] EngR 1137, Commonlii, (1842) Car & M 479, (1842) 174 ER 598)
    If premises be let for the purposes of occupation, it is on an implied condition that they should be fit for occupation. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hussain -v- Mehlman CC (Bailii, [1992] 2 EGLR 287, [1992] 32 EG 59, [1992] EW Misc 1)
    (County Court) The defendant landlord granted the plaintiff a three year assured shorthold tenancy. He now appealed a finding that he was in breach of an implied covenant to maintain the space heating, and otherwise. The tenant had returned the . .

Laird v Pim and Another; 18 Jan 1841

References: [1841] EngR 237, (1841) 7 M & W 474, (1841) 151 ER 852
Links: Commonlii
Where a party has been let into possession of lands under a contract of purchase, but does not complete the purchase, and refuses to pay the purchase-money, and no conveyance is executed, the vendors cannot recover from him the whole amount of the purchase-money, but only the damages actually sustained by his breach of contract. – In assumpsit by the vendor against the purchasers of land, the declaration stated, that in consideration of the plaintiff’s selling to the defendats certain land to be paid for as soon as the conveyance should be completed, the defendants promised to purchase and pay for the same. Averment, that although the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to enter into possession of the lands, and had always been ready and willing to make a good title, and offered the defendants to execute a conveyance, and would have tendered a proper conveyance, but that the defendants discharged him from so doing ; yet the defendants did not regard their said promise, and did not pay the plaintiff the purchase-money, or any part thereof. Plea, that no conveyance had ever been made or executed to the defendants:-Held, on general demurrer, that the plea was bad, and the declaration good. Quaere, whether, the declaration would have been sufficient on a special demurrer.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hooper and Another -v- Oates CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 3 All ER 211, [2013] 1 P &CR DG22, [2013] 1 EGLR 93, [2014] 2 WLR 743, [2013] 9 EG 93, [2013] WLR(D) 72, [2013] 16 EG 108, [2014] Ch 287, WLRD)
    The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .

Laird v Birkenhead Railway Co; 22 Nov 1859

References: (1859) Johns 500, [1859] EngR 1021, (1859) 70 ER 519
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Page Wood V-C
The plaintiff applied to the defendant railway company for permission to construct and use a private branch line connecting with the railway company’s main line. Agreement was reached for the plaintiff to do so ‘on reasonable terms, which were to be afterwards settled.’ The plaintiff, acting on this agreement, constructed and used the branch line and for some two and a half years paid tolls at an agreed rate to the railway company. Agreement in principle was reached on the details of the plaintiff’s user of the branch line but a formal agreement was never signed. The railway company gave notice to the plaintiff to cease his user of the branch line.
Held: The railway company had allowed the plaintiff ‘to expend his money on the faith that he would be permitted to join their line on reasonable terms’ and that the tolls agreed upon and paid by the plaintiff for his past user must be assumed to represent reasonable terms. ‘It must’, said the Vice-Chancellor, ‘be inferred, from the nature of the transaction, that the privilege of using the line was not to be determinable.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another -v- Cobbe HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 55, Times, [2008] 35 EG 142, [2008] 31 EG 88, [2008] WTLR 1461, [2008] 1 WLR 1752, HL)
    The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
    Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
  • Cited – Hooper and Another -v- Oates CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 91, [2013] 3 All ER 211, [2013] 1 P &CR DG22, [2013] 1 EGLR 93, [2014] 2 WLR 743, [2013] 9 EG 93, [2013] WLR(D) 72, [2013] 16 EG 108, [2014] Ch 287, WLRD)
    The parties had agreed for the purchase of land, but the buyer, Mr Oates, failed to complete. A notice to complete was served, and on non-compliance, the repudiation was accepted. It proved difficult to resell, and they suffered substantial losses. . .

Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multi-cultural Affairs; 18 May 2001

References: [2001] FCA 568
Links: Austlii
Coram: Branson, North and Stone JJ
(Federal Court of Australia) The law required the Tribunal, in determining whether to confirm the refusal to grant a visa to Mr Wan, to treat the best interests of any child affected by its decision as a primary consideration: ‘[The Tribunal] was required to identify what the best interests of Mr Wan’s children required with respect to the exercise of its discretion and then to assess whether the strength of any other consideration, or the cumulative effect of other considerations, outweighed the consideration of the best interests of the children understood as a primary consideration.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – ZH (Tanzania) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC ([2011] 1 FCR 221, [2011] 2 WLR 148, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 4, Bailii Summ, UKSC 2010/0002, SC, SC Summary, [2011] Fam Law 468, [2011] 2 AC 166)
    The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .

The Attorney-General v Hitchcock; 10 Jun 1847

References: [1847] EngR 616, (1847) 1 Exch 91, (1847) 154 ER 38
Links: Commonlii
Bias is an exception to the rule against collateral attack on credit
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina -v- Livingstone CANI (Bailii, [2013] NICA 33)
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that police officers had fabricated a confession, and had severely mistreated another detainee to concoct further evidence.
    Held: The appeal was allowed. Had the material . .

Cook And Others, Assignees Of Williams Hitchcock, A Bankrupt, v Pritchard; 15 Jan 1843

References: [1843] EngR 182, (1843) 5 Man & G 329, (1843) 134 ER 590
Links: Commonlii
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Pritchard -v- Hitchcock ((1843) 6 Man & G 151, [1843] EngR 760 (B), Commonlii)
    P (the plaintiff) had drawn bills requiring WH to pay P a sum of money three months after date. WH accepted them, but to gain more time for WH, GH (the defendant) guaranteed payment of the bills. P pressed for payment. WH did ultimately pay P but . .

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Tsui Yuan Tseng; 16 Sep 1997

References: (1999) 525 US 155, 919 FSupp 155, 147 ALRFed 783, 65 USLW 2817, 142 L Ed 2d 576, 119 SCt 662, 122 F3d 99
Links: USSC
(US Supreme Court) The Warsaw Convention should be applied in a consistent manner internationally, without reference to the local laws of the high contracting parties.
Statutes: Warsaw Convention 29
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barclay -v- British Airways Plc CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1419, Times)
    The claimant sought damages for personal injury. The airline said that the injury was not the result of an accident within article 17.1. She was walking down the aisle and slipped.
    Held: The appeal was dismissed. The meaning of ‘accident’ . .

Pritchard v Hitchcock; 6 Jun 1843

References: (1843) 6 Man & G 151, [1843] EngR 760 (B)
Links: Commonlii
P (the plaintiff) had drawn bills requiring WH to pay P a sum of money three months after date. WH accepted them, but to gain more time for WH, GH (the defendant) guaranteed payment of the bills. P pressed for payment. WH did ultimately pay P but was declared bankrupt. WH’s assignees in bankruptcy brought an action against P and obtained recovery of the sum paid as a fraudulent preference. P then sued GH on the guarantee. One defence of GH was that P had been paid and the debt discharged. GH contended that the judgment in favour of the assignees was not admissible to prove non-discharge of the debt.
Held: P was entitled to prove in the circumstances payment by WH had not discharged the debt, but GH was not a party to the assignee action. The matter was ordered to be retried as to whether there had been ‘a real and genuine payment of the bills by the bankrupt.’
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lloyds Bank Plc -v- Independent Insurance Co Ltd CA (Times 03-Dec-98, Bailii, [2000] 1 QB 110, [1998] EWCA Civ 1853)
    The bank had made an electronic transfer of funds for a customer in satisfaction of that customer’s proper debt, but it was done under a mistake of fact as to the cleared status of funds received.
    Held: The appeal was turned down. The bank was . .

O (Peter) v F KG; 16 Dec 2003

References: [2006] ECDR 9
(Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court)) The court considered a claim to copyright in photographs of grape varieties used as illustrations in a book. They were applying an approach to copyright based on the principle that the work must be the creator’s own intellectual creation.
Held: ‘In accordance with more recent jurisdiction of the finding Senate, photographs are to be considered photographic works in the sense of s.3(2) UrhG (Copyright Law), if they are the result of the creator’s own intellectual creation, with no specific measure of originality being required. What is decisive is that an individual allocation between photograph and photographer is possible in so far as the latter’s personality is reflected by the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination, etc.) selected by him. Such freedom of creation does certainly exist not only for professional photographers with regard to works claiming a high artistic level, but also for a lot of amateur photographers, who take pictures of everyday scenes in the form of photos of landscapes, persons and holiday pictures; also, such photographs shall be deemed photographic works, as far as the arrangements used cause distinctiveness. This criterion of distinctiveness is already met, if it can be said that another photographer may have arranged the photograph differently [ . . ]. The two-dimensional reproduction of an object found in nature is considered to have the character of a work in the sense of copyright law, if one’s task of achieving a representation as true to nature as possible still leaves ample room for an individual arrangement [ . . ].
This case is cited by:

Saltmarsh v Barrett; 9 Jun 1862

References: [1862] EngR 779, (1862) 31 Beav 349, (1862) 54 ER 1173
Links: Commonlii
An executor, under a bona fide belief that on the true construction of the will they were entitled thereto, sold out stock, retained one-third and paid two-thirds to the co-executors. It having been declared in the suit that the next of kin were entitled to this fund, and that the executor was bound to restore it : Held, that he was only liable to pay interest on the one-third retained by himself.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Saltmarsh -v- Barrett CA ([1861] EngR 521, Commonlii, (1861) 29 Beav 474, (1861) 54 ER 711)
    A testator gave legacies of nineteen guineas to each of his executors, and he bequesthed his residue to the m ‘absolutely’, charged with certain legacies. He also charged them to deduct their costs, charges and expenses out of any part of his . .

Shilton v Wilmshurst: HL 1991

References: [1991] 1 AC 684
Coram: Lord Templeman
The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid £75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
Held: The appeal was allowed. A payment was ‘from’ an employment if it was made as a reward for past services or as an inducement to take up employment. There was no necessity to show hat a payment by a third party had any interest in the past performance of the employment contract.
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 19885
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Shilton -v- Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1990] 1 WLR CA)
    The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottignham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid £75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
    Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
  • Considered – Hamblett -v- Godfrey (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1987] 1 All ER 916, [1986] 59 TC 694)
    Affirmed. A single one off lump sum payment was found to be an emolument without consideration as to whether or not it was a capital payment. Miss Hamblett ‘received her payment as a recognition of the fact that she had lost certain rights as an . .
  • Disapproved – Pritchard (Inspector of Taxes) -v- Arundale ChD ([1972] 3 All ER 1011, 47 TC 680)
    Megarry J discussed whether tips receieved were part taxable as an emolument: ‘I think the question to be tested in this way is only one question. Either the emoluments are within the statutory word ‘therefrom’, as explained by the cases, or they . .
  • Applied – Hochstrasser -v- Mayes HL ([1960] AC 376)
    With reference to a charge to tax under Schedule E the Act on profits or gains from employment, or emoluments: ‘For my part, I think that [the meaning of the statutory words] is adequately conveyed by saying that, while it is not sufficient to . .
  • Cited – Bray -v- Best HL ([1989] STC 159)
    There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appealed to – Shilton -v- Wilmshurst (Inspector of Taxes) CA ([1990] 1 WLR CA)
    The taxpayer was a goalkeeper employed by Nottignham Forest Football Club. On his transfer to Southampton, he was paid £75,000. The revenue appealed a finding that this was not taxable under Schedule E.
    Held: To be taxcable it had to be . .
  • Applied – Ian Wilson (Hm Inspector of Taxes) -v- Stephen Clayton ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 898 (Ch), Times 07-Jun-04, Gazette 13-May-04, [2004] STC 1022)
    Taxability of compensation paid on compromise of claims after dismissal. The employer introduced new terms, withdrawing car benefits. Having refused the new terms the taxpayer was dismissed. A tribunal held him unfairly dismissed. The council . .
  • Cited – Wilson (HM Inspector of Taxes) -v- Clayton CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1657, Times 12-Jan-05)
    The claim against the defendant at the tribunal had been settled by a compromise which had then been the subject of an order by the tribunal. The Revenue sought to charge the payment to income tax.
    Held: It had been paid ‘in connection with’ . .

Q v Q etc; FC 6 Aug 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 31, [2014] WLR(D) 372
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
Three cases raised the issue that in private law proceedings, fathers sought contact with their children despite reasons including convictions for sexual abuse of children. None had been able to secure legal aid, and the court faced them having to conduct such cases in person and without the court having benefit of expert opinion.

Tarafdar v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 8 Aug 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 362 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Costs – withdrawal by HMRC of case before First-tier Tribunal – whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 10(1)(b) – appellant argued that VAT assessment was fatally flawed – whether assessment made to best judgment – whether FTT erred in law in refusing appellant’s application for costs

Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders; 20 May 2011

Links: Judiciary
Coram: Lord Neuberger MR
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Hutcheson -v- Popdog Ltd and Another CA (Bailii, [2011] EWCA Civ 1580)
    The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
    Held: Leave to appeal was . .
  • Cited – NNN -v- Ryan and Others QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 637 (QB))
    The Court gave its reasons for requiring the delivery up of materials said to be confidential and making an order for anonymity, finding that the claimant had been blackmailed. . .

Partriche v Powlet; 17 Oct 1740

References: [1740] EngR 185, (1740) 2 Atk 54, (1740) 26 ER 430
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Hardwicke LC
A declaration of one of the parties that a joint tenancy should be severed was not sufficient unless it amounted to an actual agreement.

Revenue and Customs v Patel; UTTC 7 Aug 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 361 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – Repayment claim under DIY Builders’ and Converters’ VAT Refund Scheme – claim refused by HMRC – appeal allowed by First-tier Tribunal – whether VATA s 35 and VAT Regulations 1995 reg 201 satisfied – whether permission pursuant to s 73A Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had retrospective effect for VAT purposes – whether FTT erred in law – claim failed to meet reg 201 requirements – appeal allowed

Chappell v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 28 Jul 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 344 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC INCOME TAX – tax avoidance scheme – whether there was transfer of overseas securities and payment of manufactured overseas dividend when relevant statutory provisions construed purposively and transactions viewed realistically – no – whether annual payment not payable under deduction and retention of income tax was deductible for purposes of income tax – no – if payment deductible as payment of manufactured overseas dividends treated as annual payments within section 349(1) ICTA 1988 whether Section 3 ICTA 1988 restricts tax relief to higher rate – yes – appeal by Appellant dismissed and appeal by Respondents allowed

Micalizzi v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 29 Jul 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 335 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – whether applicant guilty of misconduct – breach of Statement of Principle 1 – dishonesty and lack of integrity – whether applicant is a fit and proper person – withdrawal of approval to carry out approved functions – FSMA, s 63 – prohibition order – s 56 – financial penalty – s 66

Massey v The Financial Services Authority; UTTC 3 Feb 2011

References: [2011] UKUT B4 (FS)
Links: Bailii
UTTC MARKET ABUSE – Conditions in FSMA s118(2) – Whether applicant an insider within s118B(e) – Yes – Whether information not generally available – Yes – Whether information of a precise nature within meaning of s118C(2) – Yes – Whether information likely to have a significant effect on price within meaning of s118C(6) – Yes – Defence under s123(2)(a) of belief on reasonable grounds that not market abuse – Defence not made out – Penalty to be imposed – Whether applicant fit and proper – No – Prohibition.

Robertson Or Macey-Lillie v Lanarkshire Health Board andC: OHCS 26 May 2000

References: Times 28-Jun-2000, [2000] ScotCS 136
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Philip
Economic circumstances have not changed sufficiently yet to alter the rate of three per cent used when calculating damages in personal injury cases. Though the returns on government stocks had fallen the figure of two per cent was not yet appropriate, and lay within the range of returns contemplated when the original figures had been set.
Statutes: Damages Act 1996

Aspinalls Club Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 16 Jul 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 242 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Gaming duty – section 11 Finance Act 1997 – ‘banker’s profits’ – whether commissions and rebates to be taken into account in calculating banker’s profits
Statutes: Finance Act 1997 11
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Aspinalls Club Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2011] UKFTT 325 (TC))
    FTTTx Gaming duty — section 11 Finance Act 1997 — ‘banker’s profits’ — whether commissions and rebates to be taken into account in calculating ‘banker’s profits’ . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Aspinalls Club Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 1464, [2013] WLR(D) 441, [2014] 2 WLR 1574, [2014] STC 602, WLRD)
    The court considered whether so called bankers profits were taxable under gaming duty under the 1997 Act. . .

Allen v The Financial Conduct Authority; UTTC 6 Aug 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 348 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp TJ
UTTC PROHIBITION – finding in High Court litigation that applicant had knowingly tendered false evidence – whether that finding could be undermined – no – production to the Authority by applicant of redacted and partial copy of High Court judgment to discredit another while concealing criticism of himself – whether applicant fit and proper – no – prohibition upheld

HM Revenue and Customs v Brockenhurst College; UTTC 30 Jan 2014

References: [2014] UKUT 46 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT – whether supplies of catering and entertainment services to members of the public are exempt as supplies closely related to the provision of education – Sixth VAT Directive, Article 13A(1)(m); Principal VAT Directive, Article 132(1)(i) – VATA 1994, Sch 9, Group 6, Item 4
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Brockenhurst College -v- Revenue & Customs FTTTx (Bailii, [2013] UKFTT 153 (TC))
    FTTTx Value Added Tax – Group 6 Schedule 9 VATA 1994 – Supply of Education -Whether catering and entertainment closely related supplies -Whether exempt supplies – Yes – Appeal Allowed. . .

McNulty v HMRC; UTTC 25 May 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 174 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Capital gains tax – appeal by taxpayer to First-Tier Tribunal – taxpayer previously a bankrupt – application to strike out appeal – whether taxpayer had locus standi to appeal – whether appeal settled by trustee in bankruptcy in accordance with s. 54 Taxes Management Act 1970.
Statutes: Taxes Management Act 1970 54

Midland Counties Railway Company v Oswin; 12 Feb 1844

References: [1844] EngR 251, (1844) 1 Coll 74, (1844) 63 ER 327
Links: Commonlii
A railway company having, under their Act of Parliament, power to contract with incapacitated persons for the purchase of lands, and a right, upon payment of the purchase-money into the bank, to the fee-simple of the purchased lands, contracted with an incapacitated person, who died before the purchase-money was paid. Held, that the title of the company could not be completed without the assistance of a Court of Equity.
A bequest of ”money, goods, chattels, estates and effects’ held to pass real estate.
In the absence of special clauses for that purpose the effect of a Railway Act is not to alter the course of devolution of property without the consent of the owner ; and therefore if a company, by virtue of their Act, contract with an incapacitated person for the purchase of lands, the purchase-money is to be considered as real and not as personal estate.

MacMahon v Burchell; 20 Apr 1843

References: [1843] EngR 526, (1843) 3 Hare 97, (1843) 67 ER 312
Links: Commonlii
A share of rent due from the occupying tenant of certain premises to the estate of a testatrix, who was one of several tenants in common of the same premises, allowed to be set off by her executors in a suit for a legacy bequeathed by the testatrix to the debtor; but not as against a legacy bequeathed by the testatrix to the wife of the debtor.
This case is cited by:

Stevens v The Midland Counties Railway Company And Lander; 22 Jun 1854

References: [1854] EngR 661, (1854) 10 Exch 352, (1854) 156 ER 480
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Alderson B
Quaere, whether an action for a malicious prosecution will lie against a corporation aggregate? Per Alderson, B., that it will not.
It has to be shown that the prosecutor’s motives is for a purpose other than bringing a person to justice.
This case is cited by:

Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise.: ECJ 24 Oct 1996

References: C-317/94, [1996] EUECJ C-317/94, [1996] STC 1387, [1996] CEC 1022, [1997] QB 499, [1997] BVC 80, [1996] ECR I-5339
Links: Bailii
Where
(a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon, which is redeemable at the amount stated on the coupon by or at the expense of the manufacturer in favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer in the course of a sales promotion campaign, may be accepted by the retailer in payment for a specified item of goods, (c) the manufacturer has sold the specified item at the ‘original supplier’ s price’ direct to the retailer and (d) the retailer takes the coupon from the customer on sale of the item, presents it to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount,
or
(a) the manufacturer, in the course of a promotion scheme, sells items of goods at the ‘manufacturer’ s price’ direct to a retailer, (b) a cash-back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging of those items entitles the customer, if he proves purchase of one of those items and satisfies other conditions printed on the coupon, to present the coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, Article 11(A)(1)(a) and Article 11(C)(1) of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount serving as a basis for determination of the value added tax payable by the manufacturer is equal to the selling price charged by the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler rather than directly to a retailer.
That interpretation necessarily follows from the principle that the taxable amount serving as a basis for the VAT to be collected by the tax authorities cannot exceed the consideration actually paid by the final consumer which is the basis for calculating the VAT ultimately borne by him and from the principle of neutrality of the tax whereby within each country similar goods should bear the same tax burden whatever the length of the production and distribution chain.
The VAT system is not disturbed as a result of that interpretation since there is no need to readjust the taxable amount for the intermediate transactions. That amount remains unchanged since, for those transactions, observance of the principle of neutrality is ensured by application of the conditions for deduction set out in the directive, which enable the intermediate links in the distribution chain, such as wholesalers and retailers, to pay to the tax authorities only the part of the VAT representing the difference between the price paid by each to his supplier and the price at which he supplied the goods to his purchaser.

Proulx v Quebec (Attorney General); 18 Oct 2001

References: 2001 SCC 66, [2001] 3 SCR 9
Links: SCC
Coram: McLachlin, Beverley; L’Heureux-Dube, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil
SCC Supreme Court of Canada – Civil liability – Malicious prosecution – Regime of immunity and extra-contractual civil liability applicable in Quebec law to Attorney General of Quebec and prosecutors — Whether Nelles applies integrally in Quebec — Whether facts alleged against Attorney General and prosecutor meet test set out in Nelles.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Williamson -v- The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC (Bailii, [2014] UKPC 29)
    (Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant had been held after arrest on suspicion of theft. He was held for several months before the case was dismissed, the posecution having made no apparent attempt to further the prosecution. He appealed against refusal . .

Shetland Sea Farms Ltd, Assuranceforeningen Skuld v International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and others; ScS 28 May 2003

References: [2003] ScotCS 153
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Hardie
The claimant’s fish farm had been damaged followng the discharge of oil from the Braer. The responders operated a scheme for compensation for losses. The parties disputed the entitlement of the claimants to compensation for losses following their inability to introduce smolt into the farm.

X (Adopted Child: Access To Court File); FC 9 Sep 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 33
Links: Bailii, Jud
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
The applicant’s father had been adopted. Both he and the adopting parents had since died. The applicant now sought disclosure of the records to reveal her the court record of her father’s adoption order.
Held: The order should be made.
Statutes: Adoption and Children Act 2002 79(4)
This case cites:

  • Cited – Re H (Adoption: Disclosure of Information ) ([1995] 1 FLR 236)
    An application was made by the sister of an adopted child for disclosure of the records held in order to allow her to make contact and to warn her of the fact that she might have an inherited genetic disease.
    Held: The jurisdiction to grant . .
  • Cited – D -v- Registrar General ([1997] 2 FLR 240)
    The court considered the procedure to be followed in applications for disclosure to other family members of information held by the Registrar to allow them to contact the adopted child. . .
  • Cited – FL -v- Registrar General FD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 3520 (Fam), [2011] 2 FCR 229, [2011] Fam Law 453, [2011] 2 FLR 630)
    The claimant sought disclosure of information held by the respondent as to the identities of her pre-adoptive natural parents. . .

Farrell v Avon Health Authority; 8 Mar 2001

References: [2001] All ER (D) 17
Coram: Judge Bursell QC
The claimant was father to a new-born child. At the birth he was told that his baby son was dead before seeing his son and understanding that an error had been made. He sought damages asserting that he had suffered nervous shock. The Hospital said that he was not able to recover for psychiatric injury where no possibility of a physical injury was forseeable.
Held: He succeeded. As a primary victim a claim for psychiatric injury was possible even where no physical injury was risked. A real risk of suffering a recognised psychiatric disorder was sufficient.

Williams v Home Office (No 2); 2 Jan 1981

References: [1981] 1 All ER 1211
Coram: Tudor Evans J
The plaintiff prisoner had been transferred from ordinary prison to a special control unit which had been established at the prison as a means of containing and controlling prisoners who were considered to be troublemakers and inducing them to realise that it was in their own interest to improve their behaviour. He complained that he had not had a fair opportnity to challenge the decision to transfer him.
Held: The decision to transfer the plaintiff to the control unit was an administrative and non-punitive decision taken to relieve the prison system. There is a distinction between disciplinary offences and transfers between status in the need for procedures. In relation to prison regimes that whatever the mischief the authorities aimed to prevent or punish, there was an ‘irreducible minimum, judged by contemporary standards of public morality’ below which standards of treatment should not fall. Tudor Evans J said: ‘it is well established that it is inappropriate to grant declarations which are academic and of no practical value. ‘
This case cites:

  • See Also – Williams -v- Home Office (No 2) ([1981] 1 All ER 1151)
    Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . .
  • Cited – Merricks and Another -v- Nott-Bower CA ([1964] 1 All ER 717, [1965] 1 QB 57, [1965] 2 WLR 702)
    The plaintiff police officers had been disciplined by transfer in 1957 as a result of a report by an officer who was subsequently discredited. After their accuser was discredited they sought a declaration that the disciplinary action taken against . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Williams -v- Home Office (No 2) ([1981] 1 All ER 1151)
    Tudor-Evans J said: ‘In my judgment, the sentence of the court and the provisions of section 12(1) always afford a defence to an action of false imprisonment. The sentence justifies the fact of imprisonment and the subsection justifies the . .
  • Cited – Home Office -v- Hariette Harman HL ([1983] 1 AC 280, [1982] 2 WLR 338, [1982] 1 All ER 532, (1982) 126 SJ 136)
    The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
    Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
  • Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 152 (Admin))
    In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .

Havelet Leasing Ltd v Cardiff-Wales Airport Ltd; 29 Jun 1988

References: 29 June 1988, (unreported)
Coram: Phillips J.
In order to exercise the statutory power of detention, of an aircraft the airport had to do some overt act evidencing the act of detention. Detention by an airport authority must be begun by some overt act. Such act need take no particular form. A simple declaration that the aircraft was detained, had it been made to [the operator], would have sufficed; so would an administrative act that would de facto have prevented the aircraft from being flown from the airport. In this case the fixing to the aircraft of a ‘lien notice’ was an act of detention.
Statutes: Civil Aviation Act 1982
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bristol Airport Plc and Another -v- Powdrill and Others CA (lip, [1990] 2 WLR 1362, [1990] Ch 744, [1990] BCLC 585)
    An airline company went into administration. The airport seized two airplanes. The administrators claimed they were property within the administration, could not be seized without a court order, and the court should exercise its discretion not to . .

Tempest v Lord Camoys; 18 Jan 1866

References: [1866] EngR 61, (1866) 35 Beav 201, (1866) 55 ER 872
Links: Commonlii
To a bill for the administration of real and personal estate, and for the appointment of a receiver and a new trustee, a plea in bar, by the alleged executors, that they had been prevented proving by the Plaintiff’s entering a caveat in the Court of Probate, was overruled.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Tempest -v- Lord Camoys CA ((1882) 21 ChD 571)
    Jessel MR held that: ‘It is settled law that when a testator has given a pure discretion to trustees as to the exercise of a power, the court does not enforce the exercise of the power against the wish of the trustees, but it does prevent them from . .

The London Chartered Bank of Australia v William George Lempriere And Others; 6 Feb 1873

References: [1873] EngR 3, (1873) 9 Moo PC NS 426, (1873) 17 ER 574
Links: Commonlii
The property of a married woman, settled by an ante-nuptial Settlement for her separate use for life, with remainder as she should by Deed or Will appoint, with remainder in failure of appointment to her Executors or Administrators, is an absolute settlement for her sole and separate use, without restraint or anticipation, and vests in equity the entire corpus in her for all purposes.

Bamford v Turnley; 5 Nov 1860

References: [1860] EngR 1082, (1860) 3 B & S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Erle CJ, Williams and Keating JJ, Bramwell and Wilde BB
An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance according to the ordinary rule of law; and this whatever he locality may be where he act is done; and where, on trial of such an action, it appears that the act complained of was done on the land of the defendant, the jury cannot properly be asked whether the causing of the nuisance was a reasonable use by the defendant of his own land.
Bramwell B said: ‘There must be, then, some principle on which such cases must be excepted. It seems to me that that principle may be deduced from the character of these cases, and is this, viz: that those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action . . There is an obvious necessity for such a principle as I have mentioned. It is as much for the advantage of one owner as of another; for the very nuisance the one complains of, as the result of the ordinary use of his neighbour’s land, he himself will create in the ordinary use of his own, and the reciprocal nuisances are of a comparatively trifling character. The convenience of such a rule may be indicated by calling it a rule of give and take, live and let live.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 10, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037)
    Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1862] LR 3 B&S 62, Bailii, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, Commonlii, (1862) 3 B & S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27)
    The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
    Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment . .
  • 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 . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
    The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Bamford v Turnley; 2 Jul 1862

References: [1862] LR 3 B&S 62, [1862] EWHC Exch J63, [1862] EngR 907, (1862) 3 B & S 66, (1862) 122 ER 27
Links: Bailii, Commonlii
Coram: Bramwell B, Pollock CB
The defendant burned bricks on his land, causing a nuisance to his neighbours.
Held: It was no answer to an action for damages that he selected a proper place within his land for an activity which would interfere with a neighbour’s enjoyment of his own land.
Pollock CB said: ‘I do not think that the nuisance for which an action will lie is capable of any legal definition which will be applicable to all cases and useful in deciding them. The question so entirely depends on the surrounding circumstances, the place where, the time when, the alleged nuisance, what the mode of committing it, how, and the duration of it, whether temporary or permanent, occasional or continual, as to make it impossible to lay down any rule of law applicable to every case & which will also be useful in assisting a jury to come to a satisfactory conclusion, it must at all times be a question of fact with reference to all the circumstances of the case.’ A landowner will not be liable in nuisance for the consequences of what would be recognised as a natural use of his land by him, unless the quality or extent of that use by him was unreasonable: ‘ . . those acts necessary for the common and ordinary use and occupation of land and houses may be done, if conveniently done, without subjecting those who do them to an action.’
This case cites:

  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 10, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 231, (1860) 175 ER 1037)
    Brick-kilns near a dwelling-house, purchased with notice, held, no nuisance, and, on a count for keeping ash heaps in the process of brick-making, plaintiff held entitled only to nominal damage. . .
  • See Also – Bamford -v- Turnley ([1860] EngR 1082, Commonlii, (1860) 3 B & S 62, (1860) 122 ER 25)
    An action lies for a nuisance to the house or land of a person, whenever, taking all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s enjoyment before the act complained of, the annoyance is sufficiently great . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transco plc -v- Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P & CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143)
    The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
    Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
  • Cited – Arscott and others -v- Coal Authority and Another CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR6)
    The defendant had deposited coal wastes. When the river Taff flooded, the spoil heaps diverted the floods to damage the claimants’ homes. They appealed refusal of their claims in nuisance. The judge applied the common enemy rule: ‘an owner or . .
  • Cited – Cambridge Water Company -v- Eastern Counties Leather Plc HL (Times 10-Dec-93, Gazette 16-Mar-94, Independent 10-Dec-93, lip, (1994) 1 All ER 53, [1994] 2 WLR 53, [1994] 2 AC 264, Bailii, [1993] UKHL 12)
    The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction after the defendant company allowed chlorinated chemicals into the plaintiff’s borehole which made unfit the water the plaintiff itself supplied.
    Held: The appeal was allowed. Liability under . .
  • Cited – Anthony and others -v- The Coal Authority QBD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1654 (QB))
    The claimants lived adjacent to an old coal tip, which caught fire spontaneously and burned for three years. They claimed in nuisance. The defendant argued that the risk of spontaneous ombustion was not reasonable, and that the use was safe.
  • 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 . .
  • Cited – Woodland -v- Essex County Council SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 66, WLRD, [2013] 3 WLR 1227, [2013] WLR(D) 403, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0093, SC Summary, SC)
    The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .
  • Cited – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
    Held: The neighbour’s . .

Regina v Boyes; 27 May 1861

References: (1861) 1 B & S 311, [1861] EngR 626, (1861) 121 ER 730
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Cockburn CJ
A defendant seeking to avoid answering questions so as not to incriminate himself is to be given some understanding and latitude in respecting his own interpretation. The beneficiary of a pardon could be called upon to incriminate himself because he merited no protection: ‘the effect of which [the pardon] was to make him a new man, and consequently to bar any proceedings by or in the name of the Crown’.
Cockburn CJ set out the level of risk required to allow a claim of the privilege against self incrimination: ‘To entitle a witness to the privilege of not answering a question as tending to incriminate him, the court must see, from the circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence which the witness is called to give, that there is reasonable grounds to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer. If the facts of the witness being endangered be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging the effect of any particular question. The danger to be apprehended must be real and appreciable, with reference to the ordinary operation of law in the ordinary course of things, and not a danger of imaginary character having reference to some barely possible contingency.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Regina -v- Boyes ([1860] EngR 170, Commonlii, (1860) 2 F & F 157, (1860) 175 ER 1004)
    A witness, an accomplice in a criminal offence, who has received the pardon of the Crown under the Great Seal for that offence, has no privilege of refusing to answer questions relating to the offence, which may tend to criminate himself. He is . .

This case is cited by:

Bank of New Zealand v Greenwood; 14 Dec 1983

References: [1984] 1 NZLR 525
Coram: Hardie Boys J
High Court – New Zealand. The glass roof of a verandah which deflected the sun’s rays so that a dazzling glare was thrown on to neighbouring buildings was held, prima facie, to create a nuisance. Hardie Boys J said: ‘To the extent that this is an appeal to set the public interest ahead of the private interests of the plaintiffs, then I regret that authority requires me to close my ears to it’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hunter and Others -v- Canary Wharf Ltd HL (Gazette 14-May-97, Times 25-Apr-97, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 14, [1997] AC 655, [1997] Fam Law 601, [1997] 2 All ER 426, [1997] 2 FLR 342, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] Env LR 488, [1997] 54 Con LR 12, [1997] 84 BLR 1, [1997] CLC 1045, (1998) 30 HLR 409)
    The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
  • Cited – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
    Held: The neighbour’s . .

Bliss v Hall; 17 Jan 1838

References: , [1838] EngR 346, (1838) 4 Bing NC 183, (1838) 132 ER 758
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ
To an action of nuisance for carrying on the business of a tallow chandler, in a messuage adjoining the messuage of the Plaintiff, it is no plea that the Defendant was possessed of his messuage, and the business was carried on, before the Plaintiff became possessed of and occupied the adjoining messuage. However, a right to emit ‘noxious vapours and smells’ might be acquired by prescription
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Coventry and Others -v- Lawrence and Another SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] 2 P &CR 2, [2014] 2 All ER 622, [2014] BLR 271, [2014] HLR 21, [2014] Env LR 25, [2014] 1 AC 822, 152 Con LR 1, [2014] 2 WLR 433, [2014] PTSR 384, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0076, SC Summary, SC)
    C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
    Held: The neighbour’s . .

Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng; 13 Nov 2000

References: [2001] EMLR 777, [2000] 3 HKLRD 418, [2000] HKCFA 35
Links: hklii
Coram: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Sir Denys Roberts NPJ and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead NPJ
(Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong) For the purposes of the defence to defamation of fair comment: ‘The comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, what are the facts on which the comment is being made. The reader or hearer should be in a position to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded’ and
‘The purpose for which the defence of fair comment exists is to facilitate freedom of expression by commenting upon matters of public interest. This accords with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. And it is in the public interest that everyone should be free to express his own, honestly held views on such matters, subject always to the safeguards provided by the objective limits mentioned above. These safeguards ensure that defamatory comments can be seen for what they are, namely, comments as distinct from statements of fact. They also ensure that those reading the comments have the material enabling them to make up their own minds on whether they agree or disagree’.
The defence of honest comment is available even if the comment was made with intent to injure, as where a politician seeks to damage his political opponent.
The comment must be on a matter of public interest, recognisable as comment, be based on true or privileged facts, indicate the facts on which the comment is based, and ‘must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he might be, and however exaggerated or obstinate his views.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Myerson -v- Smith’s Weekly ((1923) 24 SR (NSW) 20)
    (New South Wales) The court considered the distinction between fact and comment. Ferguson J said: ‘To say that a man’s conduct was dishonourable is not comment, it is a statement of fact. To say that he did certain specific things and that his . .
  • Cited – Gardiner -v- Fairfax ((1942) 42 SR (NSW) 171)
    Complaint was made that the plaintiff had been libelled in the defendant’s book review.
    Held: A publication is defamatory in nature if it ‘is likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of [the . .
  • Cited – London Artists Ltd -v- Littler CA ([1969] 2 QB 375, [1968] 1 WLR 607, Bailii, [1968] EWCA Civ 3, [1969] 2 All ER 193)
    The defence of fair comment on matters of public interest is not to be defined too closely. Lord Denning MR said: ‘Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going . .
  • Cited – Kemsley -v- Foot HL ([1952] AC 345)
    The plaintiff alleged that the headline to an article written by the defendant which criticised the behaviour of the Beaverbrook Press, and which read ‘Lower than Hemsley’ was defamatory. The defendant pleaded fair comment.
    Held: The article . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Keays -v- Guardian Newspapers Limited, Alton, Sarler QBD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB))
    The claimant asserted defamation by the defendant. The parties sought a decision on whether the article at issue was a comment piece, in which case the defendant could plead fair comment, or one asserting fact, in which case that defence would not . .
  • Cited – Panday -v- Gordon PC (Bailii, [2005] UKPC 36, PC)
    (Trinidad and Tobago) A senior politician had accused an opponent of pseudo-racism. The defendant asserted that he had a defence under the constitution, allowing freedom of political speech.
    Held: The appeal failed. The statements were . .
  • Cited – Lowe -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD ([2006] 3 All ER 357, Bailii, [2006] EWHC 320 (QB), Times 29-Mar-06, [2007] QB 580)
    The defendant sought to defend the claim for defamation by claiming fair comment. The claimant said that the relevant facts were not known to the defendant at the time of the publication.
    Held: To claim facts in aid of a defence of fair . .
  • Cited – Associated Newspapers Ltd -v- Burstein CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 600, [2007] EMLR 21, [2007] EMLR 571, [2007] 4 All ER 319, [2001] 1 WLR 579)
    The newspaper appealed an award of damages for defamation after its theatre critic’s review of an opera written by the claimant. The author said the article made him appear to sympathise with terrorism.
    Held: The appeal succeeded. Keene LJ . .
  • Cited – Blackwell -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and others QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 3098 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages saying that a newspaper article published by the defendant was defamatory. He was the manager of Leeds United Football club, and was said to have lost the dressing room.
    Held: The claimant was entitled to summary . .
  • Cited – CC -v- AB QBD (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 3083 (QB), [2007] EMLR 11, [2007] Fam Law 591, [2007] 2 FLR 301)
    The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant and others from making it known that the claimant had had an adulterous relationship with the defendant’s wife. . .
  • Cited – Thornton -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 2863 (QB))
    The claimant sought damages for an article in the defendant’s newspaper, a review of her book which said she had falsely claimed to have interviewed artists including the review author and that the claimant allowed interviewees control over what was . .
  • Limited – Spiller and Another -v- Joseph and Others SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 53, UKSC 2009/0210, SC Summary, SC, [2010] WLR (D) 310, WLRD, [2010] 3 WLR 1791, Bailii Summary, [2011] 1 All ER 947, [2011] ICR 1, [2011] EMLR 11)
    The defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
    Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair . .

Jones v Dumbrell; 21 Feb 1968

References: [1981] VR 199, 5 ACLR 417, [1981] VicRp 21
Links: Austii
Coram: Smith J
(Supreme Court of Victoria) Dumbrell had induced shareholders in companies running a business to sell their shares to him. He represented that he would run the business himself. The shareholders had a strong preference to have Dumbrell, rather than an unknown third party, run the business and for that reason sold their shares at an under value. The defendant decided to sell the shares to outsiders rather than run the business himself. The representation was not proved to be false when made.
Held: Smith J said: ‘When a man makes a representation with the object of inducing another to enter into a contract with him, that other will ordinarily understand the word representor, by his conduct in continuing the negotiations in concluding the contract, to be asserting, throughout, that the facts remain as they were initially represented to be. And the representor will ordinarily be well aware that his representation is still operating in this way, or at least will continue to desire that it shall do so. Commonly, therefore, an inducing representation is a ‘continuing’ representation, in reality and not merely by construction of law.’ and ‘I accept, with respect, the statement by Cussen, J. In Dalgety and Co Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1908] VicLawRp 70; [1908] VLR 481, at p. 506, that ‘the rule is that prima facie (the representation) is to be taken as continuing up till the moment when the contract is completed’. But this, I think, merely lays down a presumption of fact, justified by ordinary human experience, leaving the matter to the court for determination as a question of fact on the whole of the evidence.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cramaso Llp -v- Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 9, 2014 SLT 521, [2014] 2 All ER 270, [2014] WLR(D) 64, [2014] 2 WLR 317, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0025, SC Summary, SC)
    The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .

Macquarie Generation v Peabody Resources Ltd; 14 Dec 2000

References: [2000] NSWCA 361, [2001] Aust Contract Reports 90-121
Coram: Beazley JA, Mason P
Beazley JA concluded: ‘Thus, it is not relevant for the Court to determine whether, if the true position had been known, the representee would or would not have altered his position in relation to the contract. ‘It is enough if a full and exact revelation of the material facts might have prevented him from doing so.” and ‘[r]escission for misrepresentation in relation to a carefully negotiated written contract requires close examination of the alleged misrepresentation and its impact upon the representee at the time of contract’.
Mason P noted that: ‘[r]escission for misrepresentation in relation to a carefully negotiated written contract requires close examination of the alleged misrepresentation and its impact upon the representee at the time of contract’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cramaso Llp -v- Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 9, 2014 SLT 521, [2014] 2 All ER 270, [2014] WLR(D) 64, [2014] 2 WLR 317, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0025, SC Summary, SC)
    The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .

In Re The Duke of Brunswick, And The Sureties Of Crowl And Another; 22 Nov 1849

References: [1849] EngR 1058 (B), (1849) 4 Exch 492
Links: Commonlii
A solicitor or attorney cannot recover for business done by him in that character, unless he have obtained a certificate which was in force for the period the work was done – Where a solicitor applied for and paid for a certificate for the period between October, 1847, and November, 1848, and the officer, by mistake, dated it October, 1848, and November, 1819 – Held, that the solicitor was not enititled to recover for business done in 1849

Martel Building Ltd v Canada; 30 Nov 2000

References: 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860
Links: Canlii
Coram: McLachlin CJ, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Torts – Negligence – Economic loss – Whether Canadian law recognizes duty of care on parties in commercial negotiations – Whether tort of negligence extends to damages for pure economic loss arising out of conduct of pre-contractual negotiations.
Torts – Negligence – Economic loss – Whether tender-calling authority owed duty of care to bidders in drafting tender specifications – Whether sphere of recovery for pure economic loss should be extended to cover circumstances surrounding preparation of tender specifications.
Contracts – Tenders – Obligation to treat all bidders fairly – Whether tender-calling authority breached its implied contractual duty to treat all bidders fairly and equally – If so, whether bidder’s loss caused by contractual breach.
The prospect of causing deprivation by economic loss is implicit in the negotiating environment
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cramaso Llp -v- Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 9, 2014 SLT 521, [2014] 2 All ER 270, [2014] WLR(D) 64, [2014] 2 WLR 317, WLRD, UKSC 2012/0025, SC Summary, SC)
    The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .

Dew, Esq v Parsons, Gent; 11 May 1819

References: [1819] EngR 402, (1819) 2 B & A 562, (1819) 106 ER 471
Links: Commonlii
Where a sheriff claimed as of right, upon a warrant issued by him in the execution of his oflice, a larger fee than he was entitled to by law, and the attorney paid it in ignorance of the law : Held that the latter might maintain money had and received for the excess paid above the legal fee, or might set off the same in an action by the sheriff against him. Held, also, that the sheriff was not entitied to more than a fee of fourpence upon every warrant issued by him.

Prebble v Boghurst; 6 Aug 1830

References: [1830] EngR 783, (1830) 1 Russ & My 744, (1830) 39 ER 285
Links: Commonlii
Under an award in a cause, which award was afterwards made an order of Court, the costs of certain parties were directed to be taxed and paid to them out of the fund : a part of those costs was incurred in proceedings upon a case sent to law ; when the bills were carried in for taxation it was discovered that the person who had acted as their solicitor throughout the suit, and who had already been paid in full, was not a solicitor, but an attorney only ; the Master thereupon disallowed all the items in the bills except disbursements to the clerk in Court, and his taxation was confirmed on appeal.

Miles v Pope; 9 Dec 1847

References: [1847] EngR 1002, (1847) 5 CB 294, (1847) 136 ER 890
Links: Commonlii
A plea alleging that the defendant obtained a final order for protection and distribution, under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, is not proved by the production of a mere order for personal protection under the 28th section of that statute

Julien-Malvy and Others v EEAS; EUCST 25 Sep 2014

References: F-100/13, [2014] EUECJ F-100/13, ECLI:EU:F:2014:224
Links: Bailii
EUCST Judgment – Civil service – Remuneration – Staff of the EEAS assigned to a third country – Decision of the appointing authority amending the list of third countries in respect of which the living conditions are equivalent to those normally obtaining in the European Union – Measure of general application – Admissibility of the action – Annual assessment of the allowance for living conditions – Abolition)

Weitz and Another v Monaghan; 2 Feb 1962

References: [1962] 1 WLR 262
Coram: Lord Parker CJ, with whom Ashworth and MacKenna JJ
It was the prostitute who was guilty of soliciting by his or her physical presence. It was not enough for a written advertisement to be placed by him or her, or on their behalf, in a public place . A prostitute who displays an advertisement in a public street indicating that she is available for any one who desires her services does not thereby solicit.
Lord Parker CJ said: ‘I am quite satisfied that soliciting . . involves the physical presence of the prostitute and conduct on her part amounting to an importuning of prospective customers.’
Statutes: Street Offences Act 1959 1(1)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oddy, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Bugbugs Ltd Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2865 (Admin))
    A private prosecutor appealed dismissal of his complaint that the respondent had operated an unlicensed man-powered rickshaw service. The district judge had held that it was not a taxi service. It was, under the 1869 Act a stage carriage and . .

Nickel and Goeldner Spedition GmbH v ‘Kintra’ UAB: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

References: C-157/13, [2014] EUECJ C-157/13
Links: Bailii
Coram: A. Tizzano, P
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 – Article 3(1) – Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Article 1(2)(b) – Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ – Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator – Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods – Relationship between Regulations Nos 1346/2000 and 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 3(1), Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 1(2)(b), Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road

The Queen v The Inhabitants of St Marylebone; 29 May 1850

References: [1850] EngR 590, (1850) 15 QB 399, (1850) 117 ER 510
Links: Commonlii
Stat. 35 G. 3, c. 73, renders the incoming and the outgoing tenant of premises in the parish of St. Marylebone liable respectively to the payment of the rates of the parish in proportion to the times of their occupation respectively. A. occupied a house in St. Marylebone for the latter part of a year, in respect of which the outgoing tenant was rated ; and A. paid the portion of the rate in respect of the time during which he occupied, but was not entered on the ratebook as occupier for any part of that time. Held, that he acquired a settlement under stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6.

Sheldon v Sheldon (The Queen’s Proctor Intervening); 28 Jan 1865

References: [1865] EngR 180 (A), (1865) 4 Sw & Tr 75
Links: Commonlii
Practice. – Dismissal of Petition – No Evidence produced -The Queen’s Proctor intervened in a suit for dissolution in which the respondent did not appear, and alleged collusion and the petitioner’s adultery. No evidence being tendered in support of the petition, when the case came n for hearing the Court dismissed the petition, without requiring evidence to be produced in support of the Queen’s Proctor’s plea.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Rapisarda -v- Colladon (Irregular Divorces) FC (Bailii, [2014] EWFC 35)
    The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.

Rapisarda v Colladon (Irregular Divorces); FC 30 Sep 2014

References: [2014] EWFC 35
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir James Munby P FD
The court considered applications to set aside some 180 petitions for divorce on the grounds that they appeared to be attempts to pervert the course of justice by wrongfully asserting residence in order to benefit from the UK jurisdiction.
Held: It had been asserted that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition in accordance with the Council Regulation on the basis that the petitioner was habitually resident and had been resident in England and Wales. In all but one case there was in fact no reason to think there had been any UK residence. The English court was deceived; the English court was induced by fraud to accept that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was apparent that an Italian had been offering a service providing UK divorces to Italian nationals.
Petitions not having reached the stage of decree had now been dismissed. The decrees must be set aside as being void for fraud. In each case the underlying petition must be dismissed. This is not a matter of judicial discretion; it is the consequence which follows inexorably as a matter of law from the facts as I have found them. It made no difference if one or other or both of the parties have re-married or even had a child.
Sir James summarised the law: ‘i) perjury without more does not suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
ii) perjury which goes only to jurisdiction to grant a decree and not to jurisdiction to entertain the petition, likewise does not without more suffice to make a decree absolute void on the ground of fraud;
iii) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, will be void on the ground of fraud if the court has been materially deceived, by perjury, forgery or otherwise, into accepting that it has jurisdiction to entertain the petition;
iv) a decree, whether nisi or absolute, may, depending on the circumstances, be void on the ground of fraud if there has been serious procedural irregularity, for example, if the petitioner has concealed the proceedings from the respondent.’
Statutes: Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 5(2), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Family Procedure Rules 2010 7.5(1), Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 8
This case cites:

  • Cited – Ali Ebrahim -v- Ali Ebrahim (Queen’s Proctor intervening) ([1983] 1 WLR 1336)
    . .
  • Cited – Sheldon -v- Sheldon (The Queen’s Proctor Intervening) ([1865] EngR 180 (A), Commonlii, (1865) 4 Sw & Tr 75)
    Practice. – Dismissal of Petition – No Evidence produced -The Queen’s Proctor intervened in a suit for dissolution in which the respondent did not appear, and alleged collusion and the petitioner’s adultery. No evidence being tendered in support of . .
  • Endorsed – Crowden -v- Crowden (The King’s Proctor showing cause) ((1906) 23 TLR 143)
    The normal practice of the Queen’s Proctor is not to adduce evidence in support of the plea on intervening in a divorce petition, and there is no need for him to do so where there is no answer to the plea. . .
  • Endorsed – Clutterbuck -v- Clutterbuck and Reynolds (Queen’s Proctor showing cause) ([1961] 105 Sol Jo 1012)
    The court considered the proper practice where the Proctor intervened in a divorce petition, but no answer was received from the parties. . .
  • Cited – Wiseman -v- Wiseman ([1953] P 79)
    A decree absolute of divorce which would otherwise be void, will still be void even though one of the parties has subsequently remarried and had a child. . .
  • Cited – Bater -v- Bater CA ([1906] P 209)
    The judgment of a divorce court dissolving a marriage is a judgment in rem, conclusively established the new status of the parties to the suit. A decree obtained in a foreign country by false evidence or by collusion in regard to the matrimonial . .
  • Cited – Lazarus Estates Ltd -v- Beasley CA ([1956] 1 QB 702, [1956] 1 All ER 341)
    There was a privative clause in the 1954 Act. A landlord’s declaration under the Act that work of a specified value, supporting an increase in rent, had been carried out on leased premises, could not be questioned after 28 days of its service on the . .
  • Cited – Callaghan -v- Hanson-Fox (Andrew) ([1992] Fam 1, [1991] 2 FLR 519)
    H sought to have set aside a decree absolute obtained on the petition of his now deceased wife on the ground of fraud, in that the petitioner had falsely sworn in her affidavit verifying the petition that the marriage had broken down irretrievably . .
  • Cited – Moynihan -v- Moynihan (No 2) FD ([1997] 1 FLR 59)
    The Queen’s Proctor applied to have set aside a decree absolute of divorce obtained by fraud on the part of the petitioner, the by then deceased Lord Moynihan. The particulars set out in the petition were false in a number of material respects; the . .
  • Cited – S -v- S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) FD (Gazette 11-Apr-02, [2002] 3 WLR 1372, [2003] Fam 1, [2002] 1 FLR 992, [2002] IDS Pensions Law Reports 219)
    An order for ancillary relief had been made by consent. Later the House of Lords issued a judgment which changed the law which had been the basis of the decision to accept the settlement. The wife now sought to set aside the consent order, and . .
  • Cited – Marinos -v- Marinos FD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2047 (Fam), [2007] 2 FLR 1018)
    The court was asked as to points of both law and fact under Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2203, commonly known as Brussels II (revised). The greek father and english mother and their children had lived in Greece and England. W began . .
  • Cited – Kearly -v- Kearly FD ([2009] EWC 1876 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 619)
    . .
  • Cited – Leake -v- Goldsmith FD (Bailii, [2009] EWHC 988 (Fam), [2009] 2 FLR 684)
    . .
  • Cited – V -v- V FD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 1190 (Fam), [2011] 2 FLR 778)
    The court was asked as to its jurisdiction to hear a divorce petition under the Regulation Brussels II Revised. . .
  • Cited – Tan -v- Choy CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 251)
    This appeal concerns the fifth indent of Article 3(1)(a) of the Regulation, which provides that ‘[i]n matters relating to divorce . . jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State (a) in whose territory . . the applicant is habitually . .

Robarts And Others v Tucker; 1 Feb 1851

References: [1851] EngR 208, (1851) 16 QB 560, (1851) 117 ER 994
Links: Commonlii
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bank of England -v- Vagliano Brothers ([1891] AC 107, (1891) 60 LJQB 145, (1891) 7 TLR 333)
    The court considered the interpretation of the 1882 Act, which was said to be a codifying Act.
    Held: An Act is to be ascertained in the first instance from the natural meaning of its language and is not to be qualified by considerations . .

Dineen v Customs and Excise; Excs 31 Jul 2003

References: [2003] UKVAT-Excise E00453
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – respondents refusal to restore excise goods to female appellant and car used by female appellant and friend to transport excise goods to male appellant – failure by respondents to prove that excise goods held or to be used for commercial purpose – finding of innocence on part of male appellant – appeal allowed.

Earles v Barclays Bank plc; Merc 8 Oct 2009

References: [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile), [2009] WLR (D) 309
Links: Times, Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Judge Simon Brown, QC
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. The bank had also, and despite having inhouse counsel, employed disproportionately expensive lawyers. The bank should receive only 25% of its costs claim. The court suggested that the bank’s difficulty might have been avoided by active costs management.
As to documents held electronically, while there was no general obligation to retain such material, such an obligation did arise once proceedings were commenced.
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 31.4
This case cites:

  • Cited – Onassis and Calogeropoulos -v- Vergottis HL ([1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403)
    Lord Pearce (dissenting) discussed the assessment of a witness’ oral evidence: ‘Credibility involves wider problems than mere demeanour which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. . .
  • Cited – Grace Shipping -v- CF Sharp & Co (Malaya) Pte Ltd PC ([1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 207, Bailii, [1986] UKPC 57)
    (Singapore) When a court has to weigh the various and varying recollections of witnesses about what was said at meetings which occurred in the distant past, the surest guides are the contemporaneous documents and the overall probabilities.
    Lord . .
  • Cited – Woods -v- Martins Bank Ltd ([1958] 3 All ER 166, [1958] 1 WLR 1018, [1959] 1 QB 55)
    If a bank chooses to give advice to a customer, then the Bank’s obligation is to advise with ordinary skill and care. The liability is primarily on contract: ‘In my judgment, the limits of a banker’s business cannot be laid down as a matter of law. . .
  • Cited – British Railways Board -v- Herrington HL (lip, [1972] AC 877, [1972] 2 WLR 537, [1971] 1 All ER 749, Bailii, [1972] UKHL 1)
    The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
    Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
  • Cited – Indian Oil Corporation -v- Greenstone Shipping SA QBD ([1988] 1 QB 345, Times 23-Apr-87)
    Staughton J discussed the modern meaning of the rule of evidence known in Latin as ‘omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem’ (everything is presumed against a destroyer (of evidence) – ‘spoliation’ as it is termed in US and which the rule of . .
  • Cited – Infabrics Ltd -v- Jaytex Ltd ([1985] FSR 75)
    Where a party fails to preserve documents after the commencement of proceedings, the defaulting party risks ‘adverse inferences’ being drawn for such ‘spoliation’. Because the defendant had not preserved documents affecting the quantum of damage, . .
  • Cited – Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- Lloyd’s Bank Plc CA (Times 24-Apr-00, Gazette 18-May-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 127, [2000] QB 917, [2000] 4 All ER 473, [2000] 3 WLR 877)
    The bank received a garnishee order nisi, but acted before it was made absolute to pay the judgment creditor.
    Held: The bank had no defence against the customer claiming restitution relying on the equitable doctrine that one person paying the . .

Wilson v Moore; 22 Mar 1834

References: , [1834] EngR 607, (1834) 1 My & K 337, (1834) 39 ER 709
Links: Commonlii
Merchants who, by the direction of an executor, their commercial correspondent, applied a fund, which they knew to be part of the testator’s assets, in satisfaction of advances made by them, in the course of trade, to relieve the embarrasments of their correspondent, were held to be responsible for the fund so applied, to general pecuniary legatees under the will of the tesator.
Affirmed upon appeal.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Williams -v- Central Bank of Nigeria SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 10, 16 ITELR 740, [2014] WLR(D) 88, [2014] 2 All ER 489, [2014] 2 WLR 355, [2014] WTLR 873, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0113, SC Summary, SC)
    The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .

Golden Ocean Assurance Ltd v Martin (‘The Goldean Mariner’): CA 1990

References: [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 210
Coram: McCowan LJ and Sir John Megaw, Lloyd LJ dissenting
Various defendants were served out of the jurisdiction but with the wrong copies of the writs, receiving a copy addressed to another defendant. One defendant received no writ at all, but only a form of acknowledgment of service.
Held: The court unanimously accepted that O.2. r.1 was to be given wide effect. The majority held that service, the step in the proceedings which had been attempted, was to be regarded as valid in the case of all defendants.
Lloyds LJ accepted that for the defendants served with the wrong copy writs, the court had a discretion: ‘The service was grossly defective. But service, or purported service, it remained.’ However, he would not have exercised that discretion in the claimant’s favour. As to the defendant served only with an acknowledgment of service, this was ‘an omission which is so serious that…[i]t cannot be described as a failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules by reason of something left undone . . The service of the form of acknowledgment cannot make up for the absence of the writ.’
Statutes: Rules of the Supreme Court 2 r1
This case is cited by:

  • Distinguished – 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 – 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 . .

Bonney v Ridgard; 3 Dec 1784

References: [1784] EngR 230, (1784) 1 Cox 145, (1784) 29 ER 1101 (B), (1784) 1 Cox Eq Cas 145
Links: Commonlii
A purchaser of leasehold premises from an executor need not (in general) see to the application of the purchase money, nor need there be any recital in such an assignment of the purpose for which it is sold ; but if on the face of the assignment it appears to have been made in satisfaction of the private debt of the executor, such a sale is fraudulent against the persons interested in the premises under the will, and a court of equity will relieve against it. But such a claim will be barred by a great length of time having run against the parties seeking relief.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Williams -v- Central Bank of Nigeria SC (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 10, 16 ITELR 740, [2014] WLR(D) 88, [2014] 2 All ER 489, [2014] 2 WLR 355, [2014] WTLR 873, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0113, SC Summary, SC)
    The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .