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
Search Results for: Telegraph Act of 1869
Attorney-General v Edison Telephone Company of London: 1880
The 1869 Act gave the Postmaster-General a monopoly of transmitting telegrams. Telegrams were defined as messages transmitted by telegraph. A telegraph was defined to include ‘any apparatus for transmitting messages or other communications by means of electric signals’. When the Act was introduced the only such means of communication functioned by interrupting and re-establishing electric … Continue reading Attorney-General v Edison Telephone Company of London: 1880
Postmaster-General v National Telephone Co Ltd: HL 2 Apr 1909
From the monopoly of the Postmaster General are excepted telegraph and telephone lines, ‘A’ to ‘A,’ between houses and offices of the same owner, under sec. 5 of the Telegraph Act 1869, but not ‘A’ to ‘B’ lines, between establishments of different owners. Electric signals without telephones fall within the monopoly. Judges: Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), … Continue reading Postmaster-General v National Telephone Co Ltd: HL 2 Apr 1909
Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 18 Jan 2002
A cloned cell, a cell produced by cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of embryo under the Act. The Act required that fertilisation was complete. Held: The act could be applied in a purposive way. The legislative policy was that it was essential to bring the creation and use of embryos under strict regulatory … Continue reading Regina (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health: CA 18 Jan 2002
Elliott v Rufus: CA 20 Feb 2015
The parties were former footballers and business partners they fell out and the defendant was said to have sent and extremely offensive text message. After a copy was published, the defendant published a press release which the claimant now said was defamatory. Held: The appeal failed. The events took place before the 2013 Act, and … Continue reading Elliott v Rufus: CA 20 Feb 2015
Rufus v Elliott: QBD 1 Nov 2013
The parties were former footballers involved in charitable works. The claimant said that an allegation by the defendant that he the claimant had released for publication a text message in which the the defendant was said to have used extremely offensive language was defamatory. Though denying that he had released it, the defendant now argued … Continue reading Rufus v Elliott: QBD 1 Nov 2013
Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool: CE 31 Jan 1870
The defendants, bankers at Liverpool, by their letter of credit to the plaintiffs, grain merchants at Alexandria and Liverpool, undertook to accept the drafts of the plaintiffs’ Alexandria firm, the plaintiffs undertaking to put them in funds to meet the bills at maturity, and the defendants receiving pounds per cent, for the accommodation. Bills were … Continue reading Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool: CE 31 Jan 1870
Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act. Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the … Continue reading Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002
