Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague: CA 5 Jun 1990

A decision to segregate a prisoner under rule 43 is to be made by the governor of the prison where he is held. Taylor LJ said: ‘Apart from the urgency of decisions under r 43, there may well be other public policy grounds for not giving reasons in advance to the prisoner so as to … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague: CA 5 Jun 1990

Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: QBD 1990

A prisoner challenged the decision that he should be segregated under rule 43. Held: Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘In this case Mr Sedley acknowledged that there could not be an unqualified obligation in all cases upon the governor to allow the right to be heard. There may be cases of urgency. We would add that … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: QBD 1990

Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: HL 24 Jul 1991

The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to authorise the segregation of a prisoner on his arrival at another prison to … Continue reading Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office: HL 24 Jul 1991

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied. Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law … Continue reading Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

Hugh Mack and Co Ltd v Burns and Laird Lines Ltd: 1944

The shipment was of men’s clothing carried pursuant to a consignment note and receipt stamped ‘Non-negotiable’. The consignment note named consignees in Scotland and stated: ‘Please receive for forwarding per Burns and Laird Lines’ steamers the undernoted goods . .’ These documents were retained by the shipper. The goods were damaged and the shipper claimed … Continue reading Hugh Mack and Co Ltd v Burns and Laird Lines Ltd: 1944

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: ChD 2002

Judges: Langley J Citations: [2002] EWHC 1306 (Comm) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Not followed – The Chanda ChD 1989 Part of an asphalt drying and mixing plant had been shipped on deck in breach of contract. The court asked whether the shipment on deck disentitled the shipowner from relying on Article IV rule 5. … Continue reading Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: ChD 2002

Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the … Continue reading Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004

Metalfer Corporation v Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd: ComC 7 Oct 1997

ComC Reference to arbitration to be within 30 days of completion of voyage – whether incorporated into charterparty – whether barring any further claim in court – whether express arbitration clause to prevail over Hague Rules, Article III, rule 6 incorporated by clause paramount. Judges: Longmore J Citations: [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 632, [1997] CLC … Continue reading Metalfer Corporation v Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd: ComC 7 Oct 1997

Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc: CA 1950

Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, including so much of that law as is to be found in the section. The … Continue reading Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc: CA 1950

Goulandris Bros v Goldmann and Sons: 1958

An insurance clause ensuring ‘loss or damage in connexion with the goods’ under the Hague Rules for carriage of goods by sea includes economic loss even in the absence of such physical damage. Judges: Pearson J Citations: [1958] 1 QB 74 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Pilkington United Kingdom Limited v CGU … Continue reading Goulandris Bros v Goldmann and Sons: 1958

Owners of Cargo Lately Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line: QBD 6 Mar 1996

The Cargo limitation of liability restriction applies to separate items not to the container units as a whole. Citations: Times 06-Mar-1996 Statutes: Hague Rules 1922 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Owners of Cargo Lately Laden Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line Limited CA 29-Jul-1997 Liability under the Hague Convention … Continue reading Owners of Cargo Lately Aboard the River Gurara v Nigerian National Shipping Line: QBD 6 Mar 1996

Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona): 1993

A carrier’s right to an indemnity for damage resulting from the transport of dangerous goods, does not depend on whether the shipper knew of the dangerous nature and character of the goods or was at fault in permitting their shipment or not warning the carrier of their dangerous nature. Judge Diamond, QC identified what a … Continue reading Mediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona): 1993

Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation: HL 1989

Mr Holmes was killed when the defendant’s aircraft in which he was a passenger crashed on a domestic flight in Bangladesh. As a domestic flight, it was not international carriage. The proper law of the contract was undoubtedly Bangladeshi law. Under Bangladeshi law the plaintiff’s damages would have been limited to andpound;913. But Mr Holmes’s … Continue reading Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation: HL 1989

Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd: PC 30 Jan 1939

(Nova Scotia) Goods were shipped from Newfoundland under a bill of lading which contained an exemption for loss caused by the servants of the carrier. This exemption was void by the law of Newfoundland, whose legislature had enacted the Hague Rules, but the action was brought in Nova Scotia where the courts had to apply … Continue reading Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd: PC 30 Jan 1939

Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others: SC 29 Oct 2014

Ex turpi causa explained The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for what it said would have been an infringing trade, and pleaded ex … Continue reading Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others: SC 29 Oct 2014

Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S: ComC 15 Jun 2018

‘ two important issues in relation to the law of carriage of goods by sea. i) The first is whether the time bar created by Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules applies to claims for wrongful misdelivery, where the shipowner has delivered the cargo to a third party without production of the bill … Continue reading Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S: ComC 15 Jun 2018

Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries: HL 1977

Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the carriage, for there is no set off against freight. The … Continue reading Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries: HL 1977

OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others: CA 13 Jun 2005

The parties to a contract had agreed that the proper law for the contract was England. One party commenced proceedings in Canada, and the courts of Canada had accepted jurisdiction as the most appropriate and convenient forum to resolve the dispute. Proceedings were also begun in England, and the original Canadian claimant now appealed a … Continue reading OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation and others: CA 13 Jun 2005

Vinnlustodin Hf and Another v Sea Tank Shipping As: ComC 14 Oct 2016

‘There are two issues in this Part 8 claim, namely whether the package limitation provisions in Article IV r.5 of the Hague Rules (‘Article IV r.5’) apply to bulk cargoes and, if they do, how they apply to the damaged cargo of fishoil with which this action is concerned. Article IV r.5 provides that the … Continue reading Vinnlustodin Hf and Another v Sea Tank Shipping As: ComC 14 Oct 2016

J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The “Rafaela S”: HL 16 Feb 2005

A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and ‘Rafaela S’. The goods were shipped from Durban aboard the ‘Rosemary,’ as evidenced by … Continue reading J I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The “Rafaela S”: HL 16 Feb 2005

Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’: CA 17 May 2002

There was a contact for the carriage by sea of three reactors. The contract applied the Hage-Visby rules. Held: The contract applied the rules as they would apply in the country of shipment if they were applied mandatorily. The contact should be read so as to reflect the clearly expressed intention of the parties. The … Continue reading Parsons Corporation and others v C V Scheepvaartonderneming ‘The Happy Ranger’: CA 17 May 2002

Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine: HL 1929

Viscount Sumner [1929] AC 223 England and Wales Citing: At First Instance – Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine 1927 Wright J said of the Hague Rules: ‘These Rules, which now have statutory force, have radically changed the legal status of sea carriers under bills of lading. According to the previous law, shipowners were … Continue reading Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine: HL 1929

Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corpn Bhd (The “BUNGA SEROJA”): 22 Oct 1998

High Court of Australia – Shipping – Sea carriage of goods – Bill of lading – Hague Rules – Damage to cargo – Cargo properly stowed – Vessel seaworthy and fit in all respects for voyage – Bad weather conditions foreseeable – Perils of the sea – MV Bunga Seroja. Gaudron, Mchugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne … Continue reading Great China Metal Industries Co Ltd v Malaysian International Shipping Corpn Bhd (The “BUNGA SEROJA”): 22 Oct 1998

Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018

The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment covered the entire carriage. Such beans were commonly carried in either ventilated or unventilated containers. Unventilated containers were specified … Continue reading Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018

Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine: 1927

Wright J said of the Hague Rules: ‘These Rules, which now have statutory force, have radically changed the legal status of sea carriers under bills of lading. According to the previous law, shipowners were generally common carriers, or were liable to the obligations of common carriers, but they were entitled to the utmost freedom to … Continue reading Gosse Millard v Canadian Government Merchant Marine: 1927

Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The “TORENIA”): 1983

D’s vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of Cuban sugar in bulk. She loaded some 10000 tonnes at Guayabal. Two bills of lading were issued to the shippers. On April 4th 1979 the vessel set sail for Denmark. On April 13th she encountered heavy weather and on April 14th she started to list to … Continue reading Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The “TORENIA”): 1983

Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk): HL 22 Jan 1998

A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an appropriate case involving truly feasible alternative interpretations of a convention, to allow the … Continue reading Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk): HL 22 Jan 1998

Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another: PC 3 Feb 2016

No Contractual Obligation to Try Case in New York (Gibraltar) The appellant had invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff. They were repaid sums before the fund collapsed, and the trustees now sought repayment by way of enforcement of an order obtained in New York. Held: The appeal was allowed. There was … Continue reading Vizcaya Partners Ltd v Picard and Another: PC 3 Feb 2016

Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd: HL 14 Feb 1980

Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an unresolved issue whether the employee intended to … Continue reading Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd: HL 14 Feb 1980

Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line Cv: PC 20 May 2004

PC (New Zealand) The appeal concerned the correct interpretation of a damage limitation clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea. Held: Clause 6(B)(b)(i) must be construed in the context of the contract as a whole. The general rule is that if a party, otherwise liable, is to exclude or limit his … Continue reading Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line Cv: PC 20 May 2004

Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale: HL 1966

No magic in the words “fundamental breach” There is no rule of law which prevents parties to a contract agreeing to limit their respective liabilities. It is a question of the construction of the particular clause as to whether it applies to a fundamental breach or not. The court doubted the value of continuing the … Continue reading Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale: HL 1966

R J Tilbury and Sons (Devon) Ltd t/A East Devon Shellfish v Alegrete Shipping Co Inc (Owners of the Ship ‘Sea Empress’), Assurance Foreningen Skuld (Gjensidig) and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971: CA 7 Feb 2003

The applicants had a business processing whelks. After the loss of the Sea Empress, an order was made prohibiting the sale of seafood from the area. They appealed a refusal of compensation for their losses. The respondents would be liable to make . .

Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

The Court considered the procedures when a prisoner is kept in solitary confinement, otherwise described as ‘segregation’ or ‘removal from association’, and principally whether decisions to keep the appellants in segregation for substantial periods were taken lawfully. Held: The segregation was not authorised by the applicable legislation: ‘rule 45 . . (1) enables the governor … Continue reading Bourgass and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 29 Jul 2015

MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another: SC 22 Feb 2017

Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse. Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue of discrimination arise under article 14. However, the appendix with instructions for entry clearance officers considering the … Continue reading MM (Lebanon) and Others, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State and Another: SC 22 Feb 2017

Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2019

The Home Secretary appealed from a finding that illegally entered asylum seekers had been unlawfully detained pending removal. The five claimants had travelled through other EU member states before entering the UK. The court considered inter alia whether damages for false imprisonment were allowable under Factortame. Held: The appeals failed. Chapter 55 of the EIG … Continue reading Hemmati and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2019

Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP: CA 21 Dec 2004

The applcant, a girl aged 17 was in a young offender institution. She complained that she had been removed to segregation without first giving her chance to be heard. The respondent argued that there were sufficient post decision safeguards to ensure fairness. Held: Modern standards of fairnesss required that she be given opportunity to be … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Home Department v SP: CA 21 Dec 2004

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (“The Jordan II”): HL 25 Nov 2004

Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was asked to depart from an interpretation of the rules which had stood and been applied for more … Continue reading Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (“The Jordan II”): HL 25 Nov 2004

Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

The court considered whether there had been effective service of proceedings on defendants in Turkey. Evidence was given as to the effectiveness of such service in Turkish law. Held: The defendant’s application to set aside the judgment in default succeeded. The claimant’s applications in respect of CPR 3.10 and CPR 6.9 were refused. The Civil … Continue reading Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman Sadikoglu (No 2): ComC 30 Jul 2004

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc: CA 15 May 2003

The owners of cargo claimed damages from the carriers for a cargo of jet oil rejected at the port of destination because of contamination suffered on board. Held: In interpreting the rules, the court must adopt a process of construction which is appropriate to a set of rules agreed internationally and enacted into United Kingdom … Continue reading Trafigura Beheer Bv v Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc: CA 15 May 2003

J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, “The Rafaela S”: CA 16 Apr 2003

Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination. Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A straight bill of lading requires delivery of the goods to the named consignee … Continue reading J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, “The Rafaela S”: CA 16 Apr 2003

Glencore Energy UK Ltd and Another v Freeport Holdings Ltd (The ‘Lady M’): CA 14 Mar 2019

The court was asked whether article IV rule 2(b) of the Hague-Visby Rules is capable of exempting the carrier from liability to the cargo owner for damage caused by fire if that fire were caused deliberately or barratrously. Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 388 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Transport Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Glencore Energy UK Ltd and Another v Freeport Holdings Ltd (The ‘Lady M’): CA 14 Mar 2019

Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited: QBD 7 Feb 2002

A fire destroyed the ‘Eurasian Dream’ while in port. It was carrying cars, a fire in which got out of control. It was claimed that the ship managers had been negligent. The bill of lading contracts in the present case incorporated either the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. Held: The vessel was unseaworthy because of deficiencies … Continue reading Papera Traders Co Limited and others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited, The Keihin Co Limited: QBD 7 Feb 2002

Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Feb 2001

The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden anally. Held: The common thread in all the cases has been the search to … Continue reading Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Feb 2001

The Coral: CA 1993

Judges: Beldam LJ Citations: [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD 1954 The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of … Continue reading The Coral: CA 1993

Prosecutor v Furundzija: ICT 10 Dec 1998

The status of the prohibition on State torture as a rule of jus cogens has the consequence that at the inter-State level, any legislative, administrative or judicial act authorising torture is illegitimate. Furthermore, the prohibition on State torture imposes obligations owed by States erga omnes, to all other States which have a corresponding right and … Continue reading Prosecutor v Furundzija: ICT 10 Dec 1998

Williams v Home Office (No 2): 1981

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 confinement of a prisoner in any prison. How then can it be unjustifiable and unlawful to … Continue reading Williams v Home Office (No 2): 1981

Brys and Gylsen v J and J Drysdale and Co: 1920

A literal interpretation of the Rules indicates that, where shippers and consignees select and pay for stevedoring, cargo claimants may recover compensation from owners for the negligence of cargo owners or the negligence of their stevedores, but ‘It would be an odd state of things if one were to hold that a shipowner who has … Continue reading Brys and Gylsen v J and J Drysdale and Co: 1920

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd: HL 1961

Cargo was damaged in the course of a voyage by the failure of a fitter employed by ship repairers to secure the inspection cover on a storm valve. The cargo owner sued the shipowner in contract, and recovered. Held: It was no defence that the repairs had been carried out by a reputable independent contractor. … Continue reading Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd: HL 1961

KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

(Practice Note) The solicitor appealed an order which made the success fee payable different at different stages of the court action. Held: The court had no power to make such an order. To the extent that the CPR might suggest otherwise they were wrong. ‘a practice direction has no legislative force. Practice directions provide invaluable … Continue reading KU (A Child) v Liverpool City Council: CA 27 Apr 2005

In re NY (A Child) (Reunite International and others intervening): SC 30 Oct 2019

The father had applied for a summary order requiring the return of the daughter to Israel. The Court was asked to consider whether the Court of Appeal, having determined that such an order could not be granted under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (‘the Convention’), was nonetheless entitled … Continue reading In re NY (A Child) (Reunite International and others intervening): SC 30 Oct 2019

Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (“The Muncaster Castle”): HL 1961

Persons employed by a carrier in the work of keeping or making a vessel seaworthy are the carrier’s agents whose diligence or lack of it is attributable to the carrier. A shipowner’s or carrier’s duty under Article III, Rule 1 would not start and he would not be responsible for work carried out until the … Continue reading Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Co (“The Muncaster Castle”): HL 1961

Mitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd: CA 1967

The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very similar name of an associated company of the employers. The defendant challenged … Continue reading Mitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd: CA 1967

Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act. Held: The House allowed the Hospital’s appeal. The policy was lawful. Seclusion was to be seen as … Continue reading Regina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz: HL 13 Oct 2005

The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate: SC 28 Jul 2016

(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to share information was outwith the powers of the Parliament. It extended the information to be … Continue reading The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate: SC 28 Jul 2016

Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk): CA 5 Feb 1996

A shipper’s liability for known dangerous goods is not limited by fault or by negligence. Citations: Independent 06-Feb-1996, Times 05-Feb-1996 Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules Article IV R 6, 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk) QBD 5-May-1994 A danger to the … Continue reading Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management Sa and Another (The Glannis Nk): CA 5 Feb 1996

Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2013

The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the UK of his wife and daughter changed the circumstances requiring a fresh application. Held: … Continue reading Zoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 27 Nov 2013

HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa: SC 20 Jun 2012

In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended in the light of the case of ZH. Held: HH and PH’s appeals … Continue reading HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa: SC 20 Jun 2012

DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory. Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to encourage claimants back into work. It was said that thus contradicted the other policy of providing no free … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011

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 with her. Held: The mother’s appeal succeeded. The court had to consider the … Continue reading ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 1 Feb 2011

Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation. Held: To enforce the order would be an unjustifiable interference … Continue reading Neulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland: ECHR 6 Jul 2010

Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland): SC 14 Oct 2015

The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of the prison rules and of his Human Rights. Time limits for authorisation had not been complied with. Held: … Continue reading Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland): SC 14 Oct 2015

SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section: SC 14 Feb 2018

The Court was asked two questions, first as to its jurisdiction according to the meaning of an ‘EEA Decision’ within the 2006 Regulations, and second as to the position under the Directive of a child who is a third country national but has been placed in the legal guardianship of European Union citizens under the … Continue reading SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer, UK Visa Section: SC 14 Feb 2018

Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

The claimant complained of misfeasance in public office by the prisons for having opened and read protected correspondence whilst he was in prison. The respondent argued that he had suffered no loss. The judge had found that bad faith was established in three prison officers. In one case the officer opened the letter in front … Continue reading Watkins v Home Office and others: HL 29 Mar 2006

MA v Austria: ECHR 15 Jan 2015

Article 8 Positive obligations Article 8-1 Respect for family life Failure to conduct return proceedings under Brussels IIa regulation expeditiously and efficiently: violation Facts – The applicant is an Italian national whose partner (the first applicant in the case of Povse v. Austria*) removed their daughter from Italy, where the family lived, to Austria in … Continue reading MA v Austria: ECHR 15 Jan 2015

Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co: QBD 1954

Under a classic FOB contract, a seller places the goods on board the ship, and procures a bill of lading in terms usual in the trade. The buyer nominates the shipper and bears all the expenses associated with the vessel including port charges, freight, customs duties, storage and arrivals charges. However, the parties to the … Continue reading Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co: QBD 1954

Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland): HL 11 Jul 2007

The pursuers had been shareholders in a company which sold spring water. The defenders took shares in the company in return for promises as to the promotion and distribution of the bottled water. The pursuers said that they had failed to promote it in the way promised. The company failed. At first instance the judge … Continue reading Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland): HL 11 Jul 2007

GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama: HL 1957

An agreement transferring responsibility for loading, stowage and discharge of cargo from the shipowners to shippers, charterers and consignees is not invalidated by article III, r. 8. Lord Somervell of Harrow said as to Art III r2: ‘It is, in my opinion, directed and only directed to the manner in which the obligations undertaken are … Continue reading GH Renton and Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama: HL 1957

Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd: QBD 1954

The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to reallocate responsibility for the functions described in that rule: ‘The … Continue reading Pyrene Co Ltd v Scindia Navigation Co Ltd: QBD 1954

Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003

Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill. Held: The specific terms added prevailed over the standard terms printed on the bill of lading. The bill was … Continue reading Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003

Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2): CA 1979

Proper Limits on Imprisonment The court discussed the proper limits of imprisonment: ‘despite the deprivation of his general liberty, a prisoner remains invested with residuary rights appertaining to the nature and conduct of his incarceration . . An essential characteristic of the right of a subject is that it carries with it a right of … Continue reading Regina v Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St Germain (No 2): CA 1979

Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison: HL 1988

The House was asked whether a disciplinary decision by a governor was amenable to judicial review. Held: The functions of a governor adjudicating upon disciplinary charges are separate and distinct from his functions in running the prison; they are subject to the supervision of the courts in their compliance with the rules of natural justice. … Continue reading Leech v Governor of Parkhurst Prison: HL 1988

In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights): HL 1 Jul 1990

On 21 March 1990 the mother removed the child, aged two, from Australia, where he had been habitually resident, to England with the intention of permanently residing here. She did so without the knowledge of the father who also resided in Australia but who, not having been married to the mother, had at that time … Continue reading In re J (a Minor) (Abduction: Custody rights): HL 1 Jul 1990