Click the case name for better results:

Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd: HL 4 Mar 1999

21 people protested peacefully on the verge of the A344, next to the perimeter fence at Stonehenge. Some carried banners saying ‘Never Again,’ ‘Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice’ and ‘Free Stonehenge.’ The officer in charge concluded that they constituted a ‘trespassory assembly’ and told them so. When asked to move off, many did, … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones and Lloyd: HL 4 Mar 1999

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act. Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.Lush J said: ‘In this case the police authority failed to fix … Continue reading Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

Bradford Corporation v Myers: HL 1916

The 1893 Act was criticised for its complexity. A section gave protection to public authorities for ‘any act done in pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any power duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, duty … Continue reading Bradford Corporation v Myers: HL 1916

Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation: HL 1929

The Act of 1893 provided that a successful defendant should be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client in an action in respect of ‘any act done in the pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public duty or authority’ Held: This applied also to a quia … Continue reading Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation: HL 1929

Williams v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board: CA 1905

The deceased suffered an injury in December 1902 which would have entitled him to institute proceedings against the harbour board within the special statutory period of six months pursuant to the 1893 Act. No such action was brought by the deceased, so that this action was statute-barred. Following his death in December 1904, his widow … Continue reading Williams v Mersey Docks and Harbour Board: CA 1905

David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SC 30 Jul 2014

The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act. Held: (Lord Hodge and Lord Toulson dissenting) The appeal was allowed. The natural … Continue reading David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SC 30 Jul 2014

Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper: SC 29 Jul 2020

Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was obtained, but the court ordered the remaining … Continue reading Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper: SC 29 Jul 2020

Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another: HL 1988

Use of ‘Without Prejudice Save as to Costs” A sub-contractor sought payment from the appellants under a construction contract for additional expenses incurred through disruption and delay. The appellants said they were liable to pay the costs, and were entitled to re-imbursement from the client, the respondent. The claim was compromised but without disclosing the … Continue reading Rush and Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council and Another: HL 1988

Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman: CA 29 Jul 2010

Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order restraining her use of the information obtained, saying that ‘the law which protects Mr Imerman’s confidential information and … Continue reading Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman: CA 29 Jul 2010

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance companies and as to whether the compensation under the Acts counted as damages under the policies. The syndicate said … Continue reading Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: HL 4 Jul 2007

The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial failing and whether it made the proceedings a nullity. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. … Continue reading Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: HL 4 Jul 2007

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority: CA 23 Oct 2009

The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was not limited in the way suggested. Held: Though privately operated, … Continue reading Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority: CA 23 Oct 2009