The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging racial discrimination, but the only element of her claim which succeeded was of … Continue reading Hounga v Allen and Another: SC 30 Jul 2014
A sold a shipload of coal to B for delivery in November at 16s. 3d. per ton. In October B sold to C, in Italy, a corresponding shipload of coals at 19s. per ton. In November C sold to A for 20s. per ton the coal he had bought from B, and ‘ceded the original … Continue reading Williams Brothers v E T Agius Ltd: HL 27 Mar 1914
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
Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula. Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.Lord Diplock said: ‘Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed to fossilise the law and to restrict the freedom of choice of … Continue reading Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd: HL 1972
(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to … Continue reading Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002
The buyer suppied a food formula to a food mixer and claimed damages when the food mix injured his mink. The defendant argued that the level of damages sought exceeded that expectations of the parties when the contract was entered into. Held: The fact that the extent of the loss occasioned by a breach was … Continue reading Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd: CA 1969
The plaintiff had purchased quantities of turkey feed from the defendant. It contained a poisonous element, spores of a fungus aspergillus flavus, which killed its flock. The House was asked as to the effect of section 14 of the 1893 Act on the . .
Shipbuilders agreed to build two ships to carry heavy liquids. They were to have propellers of special construction and diameter according to certain specifications. One proved unsatisfactory because it caused too much noise.
Held: If the . .
References:  UKHL 3,  2 AC 31 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest, Lord Pearce, Lord Wilberforce The plaintiff had purchased quantities of turkey feed from the defendant. It contained a poisonous element, spores of a fungus aspergillus flavus, which killed its flock. The House was asked as to … Continue reading Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry Producers Association Ltd: HL 8 May 1968
The alleged false trade description was that a car supplied to a garage was ‘new’, as ordered from Fords. Held: (Appeal allowed on other grounds) The effect of the order was that Parkway was seeking the supply from Fords of a ‘new vehicle’. The car that was supplied had in fact earlier been damaged whilst … Continue reading Regina v Ford Motor Company Limited: QBD 1974
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums advanced, saying he need not return it because the contract was for an … Continue reading Patel v Mirza: SC 20 Jul 2016
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if the arguments are fairly evenly balanced that interpretation should be chosen which involves the least alteration … Continue reading Wimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation: HL 1954
A sale of farm animals by auction was not made without reserve because the condition of sale reserved to the owner the right to make one offer for each animal. The Lord Ordinary Lord Kyllachy had decided the case both on the grounds that there was a disclosed principal, following Mainprice’s case, and also that … Continue reading Fenwick v MacDonald Fraser and Co: SCS 29 Jun 1904
The company appealed a finding that it was in breach of the 1979 Act. The deceased had bought boilers from the appellant. They were said not to be satisfactory, in that they were not as energy efficient as they had been described to be. Held: The purchaser himself had skills to assess what he bought … Continue reading Jewson Limited v Boyhan as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Michael Kelly: CA 28 Jul 2003
The buyer bought 30lbs of cabbage seed, but the seed was not correct, and the crop was worthless. The seed cost pounds 192, but the farmer lost pounds 61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that their contract limited their liability to the cost of the seed. Held: … Continue reading George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd: CA 29 Sep 1982
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any assumption of a duty of care to a third party when purely … Continue reading Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd: HL 28 May 1963
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a friend, … Continue reading Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works 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 continues to exist as a remedy … Continue reading Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 19 Nov 2003
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for the sum still due after the sale of the … Continue reading Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act. Held: The challenge failed. The court was to give effect to the intentions of … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003
The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, and that the ship was fit to charter. Held: ‘authority over many decades and reason support the … Continue reading Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd: CA 20 Dec 1961
Feedstuff was sold by some merchants to a farmer. It was found to be defective. The farmer sued the merchants. The merchants brought in as third party the persons from whom they had purchased the feeding-stuff; they in their turn brought in their suppliers, and there was a long list of many parties brought in … Continue reading Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association: CA 1966
The court considered the effect of a breach in a contract for delivery by instalments.
Held: The chief considerations are first, the ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole, and secondly, the degree of . .
There was an issue whether or not the purchase by the plaintiff of a second-hand car was made ‘in the course of a business’ so as to preclude the plaintiff from relying upon the provisions of the 1977 Act.
Held: Speaking of Lord Keith’s . .
A joint tenancy was severed (under the former law) on the event of an act of bankruptcy, and not only by the later actual adjudication of bankruptcy. The vesting of the debtor’s property in the trustee which occurred on adjudication was automatic; . .
The defendant, who carried on the business of a fisherman, sold his vessel Jelle to the plaintiff with a view to having a new boat built to his requirements. In the event he bought a replacement vessel which he continued to use for his business. The . .
The pursuers contracted to sell certain machinery to the defenders, but the Government Forage department refused to allow it to be moved, and the pursuers. The buyer had sought and been given re-assurance that the machine would not be so required. . .
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not . .
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .