Author: admin

Charterbridge Corporation Ltd v Lloyds Bank: 1970

References: [1970] 1 Ch 62
Ratio: Special considerations arise as to his duties if a director acts in the interests not of the company of which he is a director but of the group of companies of which that company forms part.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Official Receiver v Stern and Another CA ([2004] BCC 581, [2002] 1 BCLC 119, [2000] 1 WLR 2230, [2001] EWCA Civ 1787, Bailii)
    The director appealed against a 12 year disqualification. The basis of the disqualification was unlawful trading to the detriment of creditors, and taking excess drawings. . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14 March 2019
Ref: 181878

MacMillan v Thomas Reed: PatCC 1993

References: [1993] FSR 455
Coram: Mummery J
Ratio: (Patents County Court) Both parties published almanacs for yachtsmen. The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and an injunction.
Held: An injunction was granted. Enough had been done by the plaintiff to show that in creating the work at issue, it had relied upon work labour and skills invested in an earlier version of the work. There was no issue for trial as to originality, and an injunction was appropriate.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ludlow Music Inc v Williams and others ChD (Bailii, [2000] EWHC 456 (Ch), [2001] EMLR 7, [2001] FSR 19)
    The claimant sought damages for copyright infringement in respect of two works which parodied a song to which they owned the rights.
    Held: The amount copied, being as much as a quarter of the original work, meant that the claim was . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 13 March 2019
Ref: 272767

Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd v Nisbet Shipping Co Ltd: QBD 1962

References: [1962] 2 QB 330
Coram: Diplock J
Ratio: The assured alone can give a valid receipt and discharge to a third party against whom a judgment has been given following a successful subrogated claim.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Bee v Jenson ComC (Times 16-Jan-07, [2006] EWHC 3359 (Comm), Bailii)
    The defendant objected to paying the plaintiff the costs of a replacement hire car after the accident for which he was liable. He said that the plaintiff was in any event insured to recover that cost, and the insurance company were subrogated to the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 13 March 2019
Ref: 247979

Director of Public Prosecutions v Orum: 1989

References: [1989] 88 Cr App Rep 261
Coram: Glidewell LJ
Ratio: Glidewell LJ discussed the offence under section 5 where words used toward the police officer were the basis of the charge: ‘Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question offact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.’
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 5(1)(a)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 3992 (Admin), Bailii, [2011] EWHC B1 (Admin))
    The appellant had been approached and searched by police officers and swore at them. He now appealed against a conviction under section 5 of the 1986 Act.
    Held: The use of the word ‘fuck’ was common in such situations. Neither officer had . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 March 2019
Ref: 449712

Tempest v Lord Camoys: CA 1882

References: (1882) 21 ChD 571
Coram: Lord Jessel MR
Ratio: 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 exercising it improperly.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Tempest v Lord Camoys ([1866] EngR 61, Commonlii, (1866) 35 Beav 201, (1866) 55 ER 872)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 12 March 2019
Ref: 536789

Jones v Bellgrove Properties Limited: 1949

References: [1949] 2 KB 700
Ratio: The court allowed the plaintiff to establish by evidence that his particular debt was included in the total sum acknowledged to be due to a number of creditors.
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 11 March 2019
Ref: 187456

London Scottish Benefit Society v Chorley Crawford and Chester: 1884

References: (1884) 13 QBD 872
Ratio: A practising solicitor who represented himself in litigation was entitled to recover costs for his own time as if he had employed a solicitor.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Malkinson v Trim CA (Times 11-Oct-02, Gazette 17-Oct-02)
    The solicitor had successfully defended proceedings brought against him personally, but employing his own firm to represent him. He sought his costs. The claimant disputed his right to costs.
    Held: The claimant had served a notice of . .
  • Cited – Khan v Lord Chancellor QBD (Times 28-Jan-03)
    The applicant was a barrister. He had been tried and acquitted of criminal charges, and had been awarded cost from central funds. He appealed from a refusal of a claim for payment for the time he spent in preparation.
    Held: The applicant was . .
  • Cited – Boyd and Hutchinson v Jennifer Joseph ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 413 (Ch), Gazette 15-May-03)
    The claimant had been awarded costs, and sought to charge her time as a solicitor.
    Held: The claimant had only a limited practicing certificate, which would allow her to work for others only without charge. She could not for these proceedings . .
  • Cited – Sisu Capital Fund Ltd and others v Tucker and others (Times 04-Nov-05, Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2321 (Ch))
    The Defendants were accountants who had been sued through their partnership in KPMG. They had been granted a order for their costs. They sought payment for the time they had spent prersonally in preparing their defences.
    Held: As professionals . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 180907

Jayasena v The Queen: PC 1970

References: [1970] AC 618
Coram: Lord Devlin
Ratio: Lord Devlin said: ‘Their Lordships do not understand what is meant by the phrase ‘evidential burden of proof’. They understand, of course, that in trial by jury a party may be required to adduce some evidence in support of his case, whether on the general issue or on a particular issue, before that issue is left to the jury. How much evidence has to be adduced depends upon the nature of the requirement. It may be such evidence as, if believed and left uncontradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the jury as proof. It is doubtless permissible to describe the requirement as a burden, and it may be convenient to call it an evidential burden. But it is confusing to call it a burden of proof. Further, it is misleading to call it a burden of proof, whether described as legal or evidential or by any other adjective, when it can be discharged by the production of evidence that falls short of proof. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he has not got to provide any sort of proof that he was acting in private defence. So it is a misnomer to call whatever it is that he has to provide a burden of proof . .’
Jurisdiction: Commonwealth
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Daniel CACD (Times 08-Apr-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Crim 959, [2003] 1 Cr App R 99)
    The defendant appealed a conviction for hiding assets from her receiver following her bankruptcy. He said that recent case law suggested that the burden of establishing the defence under section 352 was evidential only.
    Held: The conviction . .
  • Cited – Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2001] EWHC Admin 882)
    The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
    Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
  • Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL (House of Lords, Bailii, [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264, Times 14-Oct-04, [2005] 1 All ER 237, [2004] 3 WLR 976, [2005] RTR 13, (2004) 168 JP 669, (2004) 17 BHRC 339, [2004] All ER (D) 169)
    Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
    Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 184321

Bird v Holbrook: 1828

References: (1828) 4 Bing 628
Ratio:
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 March 2019
Ref: 180981

Allen v Alfred MacAlpine and Sons Ltd: CA 1968

References: [1968] 2 QB 259, [1968] 1 All ER 543
Coram: Diplock LJ
Ratio: The court described the peculiarly difficult position of a solicitor sued for the negligence of losing litigation for his client by reason of having his client’s claim struck out: ‘It is true that if the action for professional negligence were fought, the court which tried it would have to assess what those chances were. But on this issue the plaintiff would be in a much more advantageous position than if he had sought, despite the inordinate delay, to establish liability against the defendant in the action which had been dismissed. Not only would there be available to him any advice or material which had been given or obtained by his solicitor in support of his case in the dismissed action, but the principle of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra. 505 would apply and would impose upon the solicitor the onus of satisfying the court that the plaintiff’s claim in the dismissed action would not have succeeded had it been prosecuted with diligence. This would be a heavy onus to sustain after so a great a lapse of time.’ and ‘The probabilities are that in any case in which the plaintiff had been advised to bring the action which had been dismissed and had never been advised to discontinue it, his subsequent action against his solicitor for negligence would be settled. One would hope that, for the good name of the profession, it would be settled promptly.’ As to the breach of the court rules the Court might strike out a claimant’s case where the breach ‘has been intentional and contumelious…’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD ((1722) 1 Stra 505, Bailii, [1722] EWHC KB J94, [1722] 93 ER 664)
    A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD (Times 08-Dec-99, Bailii, [1999] EWCA 198, [2000] BCLC 187)
    The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
  • Cited – Mount v Barker Austin (a Firm) CA (Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 277, (1998) PNLR 493)
    The plaintiff sought damages for professional negligence from his former solicitors in respect of their conduct of a claim on his behalf. He succeeded, but was awarded no damages because the judge had found that his action would be bound to fail. He . .
  • Cited – Dixon v Clement Jones Solicitors (A Firm) CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1005, Times 02-Aug-04, [2007] Lloyds Rep PN 20)
    The defendant firm had negligently allowed a claim for damages against a firm of accountants to become statute barred. The defendants said the claim was of no or little value, since the claimant would have proceeded anyway.
    Held: The court had . .
  • Cited – In re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd CA ([1992] 1 WLR 1196)
    An ‘unless order’ for the service of particulars of defence was a not obeyed but application was made to amend the defence involving the abandonment of the paragraphs of which particulars had been ordered.
    Held: ‘it appears to me that there . .
  • Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA (Times 07-Jul-00, [2000] CP Rep 59, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 200, [2001] BCC 591, [2000] BCLC 167)
    A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 08 March 2019
Ref: 180392

Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr: HL 5 Jul 1994

References: Times 05-Jul-1994, Gazette 03-Aug-1994, Ind Summary 18-Jul-1994, [1994] STC 148, [1995] 1 AC 148
Coram: Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Ratio: A settlor by will was deemed to have had an interest as funds were passed to a Jersey Trust. The section merely made or allowed that a variation of a will would not be a taxable event in UK law. It had no other effects. A deed of family arrangement can be a chargeable event for foreign settlements. Though the House allowed the appeal, it approved the CA’s approach to the interpretation of deeming provisions.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson summarised the law: ‘In English law the rights of a testamentary legatee in the unadministered estate of a testator are well settled: see Lord Sudeley v. Attorney-General [1897] AC 11 and Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v. Livingston [1965] AC 694 . . A legatee’s right is to have the estate duly administered by the personal representatives in accordance with law. But during the period of administration the legatee has no legal or equitable interest in the assets comprised in the estate.’
. . And ‘it is crucial to appreciate that the property settled by [the legatee] comprised, not the assets in the deceased’s estate . . but a separate chose in action, the right to due administration of his estate.’
Statutes: Finance Act 1981 80, Finance Act 1965 24(11), Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 62(6)
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr CA (Gazette 07-Apr-93, Ind Summary 26-Apr-93, [1993] STC 360, (1993) 67 TC 56)
    A variation of trusts in Jersey will be deemed to have been made by the deceased – no Capital Gains Tax arising. Interpretation of deeming Provisions. The taxpayer was not a settlor in an overseas trust. Deeming provisions should not generally be . .
  • Cited – Sudeley v Attorney-General HL ([1897] AC 11)
    The husband had died leaving part of his residuary estate to his widow. She then died before the estate was fully administered. Both died domiciled in England. The husband’s estate included mortgages of land in New Zealand and the House was asked . .
  • Cited – Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v Livingston PC ([1965] AC 694, Bailii, [1964] UKPC 2, Bailii, [1964] UKPC 45)
    A testator had died domiciled in New South Wales and with real and personal property both in New South Wales and in Queensland. He left one-third of his real and personal estate to his widow absolutely. She then died intestate, also domiciled in New . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Jerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL (House of Lords, [2004] UKHL 25, Bailii, Times 20-May-04, [2004] 21 EGCS 151, [2004] STI 1201, [2004] 2 All ER 835, [2004] 1 WLR 1409, [2004] NPC 75, [2004] WTLR 681, [2004] STC 887, 76 TC 147, [2004] BTC 176)
    In 1987, trustees holding land for various beneficiaries in undivided shares entered into a contract to sell it to a purchaser. In 1989 Mr and Mrs Jerome, who were absolutely entitled to interests in the land, assigned part of their beneficial . .
  • Cited – Jenks v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) ChD (Times 16-Jun-97, [1997] STC 853)
    Legislation which created a clear anomaly can be interpreted so as to avoid the anomaly if the words used are sufficiently ambiguous as to allow an alternative construction.
    Neuberger J discussed the case of Marshall v Kerr, saying: ‘It appears . .
  • Cited – Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 58, [2010] WLR (D) 333, WLRD, SC Summ, SC, [2011] 1 WLR 44, [2011] BTC 13, UKSC 2009/0223, [2011] STI 133, [2011] STC 326, [2011] 1 All ER 537, Bailii Summary)
    The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. . .
  • Cited – Raymond Saul and Co (A Firm) v Holden and Another; In re Hemming (deceased) ChD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 2731 (Ch), Times, [2008] WTLR 1833, [2008] NPC 122, [2009] 2 WLR 1257, [2009] Ch 313)
    The claimant was sole residuary legatee of his mother’s estate. He became bankrupt, but was released by automatic discharge from the bankruptcy before the administration of the estate was completed. He challenged the solicitors who wished to pay the . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07 March 2019
Ref: 83428

Gourlay, Regina (on The Application of) v Parole Board: ChD 24 Nov 2014

References: [2014] EWHC 4763 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: King J
Ratio: Challenge by way of judicial review to the Decision of the Parole Board following an oral hearing first not to direct the release on licence of the claimant, and secondly, not to recommend the transfer of the claimant to open conditions. The challenge is directed solely at the second part , namely the decision not to recommend open transfer.

Last Update: 04 February 2019
Ref: 545129

GPS Estates Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: ChD 28 Feb 2014

References: [2014] EWHC 806 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Collins J
Ratio: Appeal against the decision of an Inspector who upheld an Enforcement Notice issued by Luton Borough Council and the breach of planning control was the unauthorised use of a site for open airport-related parking and vehicles. There were spaces for 200 such vehicles.

Last Update: 04 February 2019
Ref: 545124

Copygene A v S (Taxation): ECJ 10 Jun 2010

References: [2010] EUECJ C-262/08, C-262/08
Links: Bailii
Coram: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, P
Ratio: ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13A(1)(b) – Hospital and medical care – Closely related activities – Duly recognised establishments of a nature similar to hospitals or centres for medical treatment or diagnosis – Private stem cell bank – Services of collection, transportation, analysis and storage of umbilical cord blood of newborn children – Possible autologous or allogeneic use of stem cells
This case cites:

  • Opinion – Copygene A v S (Taxation) ECJ (C-262/08, Bailii, [2009] EUECJ C-262/08 – O)
    ECJ Opinion – VAT Exemptions – Activities closely related to hospital and medical care undertaken by duly recognised establishments of a nature similar to hospitals or centres for medical treatment or diagnosis – . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 24 January 2019
Ref: 514389

Educational World Limited (T/A Winston House Preparatory School v Wharton: EAT 6 Nov 2012

References: [2012] UKEAT 0223 – 12 – 0611
Links: Bailii
Coram: Birtles J
Ratio: EAT Contract of Employment : Implied Term or Variation or Construction of Term
The Employment Judge was wrong to construe a teacher’s contract of employment by importing practice from public sector teachers’ contracts when the relevant contractual terms were clear that the School term ended on 8 July 2011 and not (as the Claimant contended) 31 August 2011. Neither could the contractual provisions about holiday pay assist in finding the end of term date.
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 05 January 2019
Ref: 467154

Drieman and others v Norway: ECHR 4 May 0200

References: 33678/96
Ratio: A challenge to the conviction and sentencing of the claimants for disrupting a lawful whaling expedition was held inadmissible. A fine was considered to be proportionate for such direct action.
Jurisdiction: Human Rights
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD (Bailii, [2018] EWCA Crim 2739, Judiciary)
    The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
    Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 10 December 2018
Ref: 630987

Britton v The Royal Insurance Company: 1865

References: [1865] EngR 66, (1865) 4 F & F 905, (1865) 176 ER 843
Links: Commonlii
Ratio: A contract of fire insurance being a contract of indemnity, on which the assured is only entitled to recover the value of the property destroyed, and wilful misrepresentation of the value of the property destroyed will-under the usual condition agamst fraudulent claims – defeat and vitiate the whole claim. In an action on a fire insurance policy, containing the usual condition that it should become void in the event of a fraudulent claim the company setting up, in defence, both fraud and arson :-the jury being advlsed by the Judge that, as the case, as to arson, was only one of suspicion, they should decide rather upon the case as to fraud they were also directed, that if they were satisfied that the claim was wilfully faLlse and fraudulent, they should find for the company upon the plea of fraud.

Last Update: 15 August 2018
Ref: 280978

: ICO 28 Jul 2008

References: [2008] UKICO FS50141374
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ICO The complainant requested the Net Present Value (‘NPV’) figures offered by the unsuccessful bidders for the South Western rail franchise. This request was made to the Department for Transport (the ‘DfT’). The DfT confirmed that it held this information, but refused to disclose it, stating that it believed that this information was exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) was not engaged. Therefore he found that the DfT had acted in breach of section 1(1)(b) of the Act. He also found that it had acted in breach of section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act by seeking to rely upon an exemption not previously cited in its refusal notice. He also found that the DfT had breached section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner requires that the withheld information should be disclosed. Information Tribunal appeal (EA/2008/0070) has been withdrawn.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 August 2018
Ref: 532669

Hampshire County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Dec 2013

References: [2013] UKICO FS50508440
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ICO The complainant has requested a copy of an email and its attachments which he believes is held by Hampshire County Council. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Hampshire County Council does not hold the information sought by the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 13 August 2018
Ref: 528989

Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 22 Jan 1998

Taylor_SFOHL1998
References: Times 04-Nov-1998, [1998] UKHL 39, [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 4 All ER 801, [1998] 3 WLR 1040
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
Ratio: The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later trial of others. The plaintiff sought damages in defamation.
Held: The documents which had been prepared for a criminal investigation, and which were disclosed as part of prosecution case, but not relied on in that prosecution, may only be used by defence for the purposes of that trial. They cannot be used to form the basis of an action for defamation. The documents were disclosed under an obligation imposed on the prosecution. The absolute immunity rule ‘is designed to encourage freedom of speech and communication in judicial proceedings by relieving persons who take part in the judicial process from the fear of being sued for something they say.’ The immunity extended also to statements made out of court which could fairly be said to be part of the process of investigating crime. The court referred in this connection to investigators and the prosecuting officials with whom they are required to communicate.
Lord Hope (with whom Lord Hutton agreed) observed: ‘I do not think that it is possible to overstate the importance, in the public interest, of ensuring that material which is disclosed in criminal proceedings is not used for collateral purposes’.
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I find it impossible to identify any rational principle which would confine the immunity for out of court statements to persons who are subsequently called as witnesses. The policy of the immunity is to enable people to speak freely without fear of being sued, whether successfully or not. If this object is to be achieved, the person in question must know at the time he speaks whether or not the immunity will attach. If it depends upon the contingencies of whether he will be called as a witness, the value of the immunity is destroyed. At the time of the investigation it is often unclear whether any crime has been committed at all. Persons assisting the police with their inquiries may not be able to give any admissible evidence; for example, their information may be hearsay, but none the less valuable for the purposes of the investigation. But the proper administration of justice requires that such people should have the same inducement to speak freely as those whose information subsequently forms the basis of evidence at a trial.
When one turns to the position of investigators, it seems to me that the same degree of necessity applies. It would be an incoherent rule which gave a potential witness immunity in respect of the statements which he made to an investigator but offered no similar immunity to the investigator if he passed that information to a colleague engaged in the investigation or put it to another potential witness. In my view it is necessary for the administration of justice that investigators should be able to exchange information, theories and hypotheses among themselves and to put them to other persons assisting in the inquiry without fear of being sued if such statements are disclosed in the course of the proceedings.’
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Mahon v Rahn QBD (Unreported, 19 June 1996)
    Directors of a London firm of stockbrokers brought libel proceedings against two Swiss bankers.
    Held: The absolute immunity which is given to both witnesses and potential witnesses extends to all those taking part in a criminal investigation . .
  • Cited – Mahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA (Times 14-Jun-00, Gazette 29-Jun-00, Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 185, [2000] 1 WLR 2150, [2000] EMLR 873, [2000] Po LR 210, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 1, [2000] 4 All ER 41)
    The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
  • Cited – Munster v Lamb CA ((1883) 11 QBD 588)
    Judges and witness, including police officers are given immunity from suit in defamation in court proceedings.
    Fry LJ said: ‘Why should a witness be able to avail himself of his position in the box and to make without fear of civil consequences . .
  • Cited – Watson v M’Ewan HL ([1905] AC 480, [1905] UKHL 1, Bailii, (1905) 13 SLT 340, (1905) 7 F (HL) 109)
    A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
  • 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 – Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others ([1981] 1 WLR 184, [1981] 1 All ER 715)
    The defendants employed by the first defendant carried out a post mortem on the plaintiff’s infant son. They found concentrations of morphine and told the police. The plaintiff was charged with the murder of her son. After further investigation no . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council; M (A Minor) and Another v Newham London Borough Council; Etc HL (Independent 30-Jun-95, Times 30-Jun-95, [1995] 2 AC 633, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 9, [1995] 2 FLR 276, [1995] 3 All ER 353, [1995] 3 WLR 152, [1995] 3 FCR 337, (1995) 7 Admin LR 705, 94 LGR 313, [1995] Fam Law 537, [1995] 3 FCR 337)
    Damages were to be awarded against a Local Authority for breach of statutory duty in a care case, only if the statute was clear that damages were capable of being awarded. in the ordinary case a breach of statutory duty does not, by itself, give . .
  • Cited – Regina v Keane CACD (Independent 16-Mar-94, Times 15-Mar-94, [1994] 1 WLR 746, [1994] 2 All ER 478, (1994) 99 Cr App R 1)
    Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific . .
  • Cited – Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA (Times 12-Jun-97, [1998] QB 424)
    Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL (Gazette 03-Sep-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 33, [1998] AC 367, [1997] 3 All ER 769, [1997] 3 WLR 447, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 66)
    The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
    Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
  • Cited – Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd ([1991] 1 WLR 756)
    A party and his legal representatives receiving documents under a process of discovery is under an implied undertaking to use those documents for the purposes of those proceedings only. It is an obligation imposed by operation of law by virtue of . .
  • Cited – Ex parte Coventry Newspapers Ltd CA ([1993] QB 278, [1993] 1 All ER 86, [1992] 3 WLR 916)
    Documents had been disclosed by the Police Complaints Authority under court order for an appeal against conviction. They related to an investigation of the conduct of police officers who had given evidence against the appellant. The newspaper, now . .
  • Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA ([1963] 1 QB 528, [1962] 3 All ER 380)
    Two police officers gave evidence in a criminal prosecution of others, that the plaintiff, a barrister, had behaved improperly by obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequently gave similar evidence at an inquiry before . .
  • Cited – Roy v Prior HL ([1971] AC 470, [1970] 2 All ER 729)
    The court considered an alleged tort of maliciously procuring an arrest. The plaintiff had been arrested under a bench warrant issued as a result of evidence given by the defendant. He sued the defendant for damages for malicious arrest.
    Held: . .
  • Cited – Bennett v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn (Times 24-Oct-97, (1997) 10 Admin LR 245)
    Police and prosecuting authority have no inherent immunity from suit for tort of misfeasance in public office if the breach is properly made out. Immunity extends to statements made or agreed to be made out of court ‘if these were clearly and . .
  • Cited – Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA (Times 09-Jul-96, [1996] 8 Admin LR 633, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1311)
    The claimant had been convicted of the murder of PC Blakelock. The only substantial evidence was in the form of the notes of interview he said were fabricated by senior officers. His eventual appeal on this basis was not resisted. He now appealed . .
  • Cited – Attorney-General’s Guidelines Practice Note (Criminal Evidence: Unused Material) ([1982] 1 All ER 734)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Jeffries CACD ([1968] CLY 661)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD (Gazette 15-Jul-92, [1993] 1 WLR 619, (1993) 96 Cr App Rep 1)
    The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
    Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
  • Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon ([1974] CLY 546)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD ([1992] 2 All ER 433, [1992] QB 936, (1992) 94 Cr App Rep 133 , [2006] EWCA Crim 1239)
    The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
    Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Davis; Regina v Rowe; Regina v Johnson CA (Gazette 10-Mar-93, [1993] 1 WLR 613, [1993] 97 Cr App R 110)
    Guidance was given on the procedures to be followed for applications for non-disclosure for public interest immunity. The court identified three types of case. In the first, and most frequent case the prosecution must notify the defence of the . .
  • Cited – Regina v Brown (Winston) CACD (Independent 22-Jun-94, Gazette 31-Aug-94, Times 20-Jun-94, [1994] 1 WLR 1599)
    The Crown Prosecution Service was under no obligation to disclose evidence which might be damaging to a Defendant’s witness’ credibility. The Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines do not have the force of law and need updating. . .
  • Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL ([1978] AC 171, [1977] 2 WLR 201, [1977] 1 All ER 589, Bailii, [1977] UKHL 1)
    Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
    Lord Simon of . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Darker v Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police HL (Gazette 17-Aug-00, Times 01-Aug-00, House of Lords, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 44, [2001] AC 435, [2000] 3 WLR 747)
    The plaintiffs had been indicted on counts alleging conspiracy to import drugs and conspiracy to forge traveller’s cheques. During the criminal trial it emerged that there had been such inadequate disclosure by the police that the proceedings were . .
  • Cited – Preston Borough Council v McGrath CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 151)
    The defendant had been investigated for fraud against the claimant. He had disclosed documents to the police, but now complained at their use in the civil proceedings against him.
    Held: The document had not been given to the police under . .
  • Appealed to – Taylor Monarch Assurance Plc v Director of Serious Fraud Office, McKenzie, Law Society Rogerson CA (Gazette 24-Sep-97, Times 27-Aug-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 2163)
    Qualified privilege attached to defamatory documents which had been prepared as part of a criminal investigation. For the court to allow an action would be approve a form of parasitic attack on the trial. . .
  • Cited – Regina v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner (a Firm of Solicitors) CA (Times 15-Jun-98, Gazette 01-Jul-98, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 958, [1999] QB 966, [1998] 3 All ER 541, [1998] 3 WLR 925)
    A firm of solicitors sought an order for anonymity in their proceedings against the LAB, saying that being named would damage their interests irrespective of the outcome.
    Held: The legal professions have no special part in the law as a party . .
  • Cited – Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening) CA ([2005] 4 All ER 609, Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 226, Times 14-Mar-05, [2006] 1 WLR 3083)
    The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the . .
  • Cited – A, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI (Bailii, [2001] NIQB 21)
    The applicant, who feared for his life if identified, sought the release to him of materials discovered by the police in searching premises associated with a loyalist paramiliitary group. He thought that they might include information sourced form . .
  • Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, Times 31-Oct-06, [2007] 2 WLR 286, (2006) 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 All ER 1, [2006] 3 FCR 447, [2007] LS Law Medical 1, [2007] Fam Law 214, [2007] ICR 701, [2007] QB 462, 92 BMLR 51, [2007] 1 FLR 1398, [2006] 44 EG 196)
    The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
  • Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL (Times 02-Mar-07, Bailii, [2007] UKHL 7, [2007] 3 All ER 269, [2007] Crim LR 731, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 6, [2007] 2 AC 270)
    The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
    Held: The practice . .
  • Cited – Buckley v Dalziel QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), Times 07-Jun-07, [2007] 1 WLR 2933, [2007] EMLR 624, [2007] EMLR 23)
    There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 2501 (QB))
    The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
    Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
  • Cited – Westcott v Westcott CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 818, Times 27-Aug-08, [2009] QB 407, [2009] 2 WLR 838, [2009] 1 All ER 727, [2009] EMLR 2)
    The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
  • Cited – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD ([2009] EMLR 18, Bailii, [2009] EWHC 411 (QB))
    The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
  • Cited – White v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust and Another QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 825 (QB))
    The claimant doctor sued in defamation for letters written by the defendants to the Fitness to Practice Directorate. She now sought to appeal against a finding that she could not rely upon one letter which had come to her attention through . .
  • Cited – Nunn v Suffolk Constabulary and Another Admn (Bailii, [2012] EWHC 1186 (Admin))
    The claimant had been convicted of murder and his appeal had failed. He now sought disclosure of the forensic material held by the police to his own legal team.
    Held: Permission to apply for review was granted, but the claim failed. ‘It is . .
  • Cited – Smart v The Forensic Science Service Ltd CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 783)
    On a search of his house, the police found a bullet cartridge on the claimant’s property. It was sent for testing but due to a mistake it was reported as a live cartridge. The prosecution was only dropped after some months when the mistake was . .
  • Cited – Tchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA (Bailii, [2014] EWCA Civ 1409)
    The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
  • Cited – Singh v Moorlands Primary School and Another CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 909, [2013] IRLR 820, [2013] WLR(D) 306, [2013] 1 WLR 3052, [2013] ICR 1158, [2013] CP Rep 46)
    The claimant was a non-wite head teacher, alleging that her school governors and local authority had undermined and had ‘deliberately endorsed a targeted campaign of discrimination, bullying, harassment and victimisation’ against her as an Asian . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Leading Case
Last Update: 07 August 2018
Ref: 135006

Banque Bruxelles Lambert Sa v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd and Others Appealsz: CA 24 Feb 1995

References: Times 24-Feb-1995, Gazette 22-Mar-1995, Times 21-Feb-1995, [1995] QB 375, [1995] 2 All ER 769
Coram: Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Ratio: The plaintiffs were mortgagees. The defendants were valuers. The defendants negligently over-valued properties and the plaintiffs then accepted mortgages of the properties. Later the property market collapsed and the various borrowers defaulted and on sale the plaintiffs obtained substantially less than the sums they had advanced. The relevant question was whether the plaintiffs could include in their damages the difference in the value of the properties between the time of entering into the mortgages and the sale of the properties.
Held: Damages payable to a secured lender for a negligent valuation included losses attributable to general market. Discussing liability where two causes contributed to the damages: ‘the event which the plaintiff alleges to be causative need not be the only or even the main cause of the result complained of: it is enough if it is an effective cause’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR described the valuer’s task: ‘In the absence of special instructions, it is no part of V’s duty to advise L on future movements in property prices, whether nationally or locally. The belief among buyers and sellers that prices are likely to move upwards or downwards may have an effect on current prices, and to that extent such belief may be reflected by V in his valuation. But his concern is with current value only. He is not asked to predict what will happen in the future. His valuation is not sought to protect L against future decline in property prices. In no sense is he a guarantor of L’s investment decision.’
He spoke also as to the measurement of damages: ‘where a mortgage lender would not, but for the negligent valuation, have entered into the transaction with the borrower he could recover the net loss he had sustained as a result of having done so; that a fall in the market was foreseeable, and since, in such a case, the lender would not have entered into the transaction but for the valuer’s negligence and could not escape from it unless and until the borrower defaulted, that negligence was the effective cause of his loss, and a fall in the market was not to be treated as a new intervening cause breaking the link between the valuer’s negligence and the damage sustained; accordingly on the assumed facts the mortgagees were entitled to recover damages in respect of the loss they had sustained which was attributable to market fall.’
. . And: ‘In a no-transaction purchase case, it seems clear on English authority that effect will be given to the restitutionary principle by awarding the buyer all that he has paid out less what (acting reasonably to cut his losses including selling the property) he has recovered. In no case before [the present case] has any head of foreseeable damage been excluded from the calculation.’
. . And: ‘In no-transaction mortgage lending cases it has been the practice since Baxter v Gapp [1939] 2 AER 752 to award the lender the net loss sustained as a result of entering into the transaction, which may be expressed as the difference between what the lender advanced and what the lender would have advanced if properly advised (which is always nil). Thus related expenses of sale and realisation less sums recovered. … Should a rise in the market have contributed to [a full recovery] then, as in the successful transaction case, that contribution will not be ignored so as to treat the lender as sustaining a financial loss which in fact he has not sustained. If in such a case a fall in the property market between the date of the transaction and the date of realisation contributes to the lender’s overall loss sustained as a result of entering into the transaction, it would seem to us, on a straight forward application of the restitutionary principle, that the lender should be entitled to recover that element of his loss against the negligent party.’
. . And :’Where a buyer is claiming damages for negligence in a successful transaction case the diminution in value rule ordinarily provides an adequate measure of the buyers loss. As the cases show, to award, for example, the full cost of repairs will usually lead to over-compensation. This assessment will ordinarily be made as at the date of breach, for there is no other appropriate date. The same rule will usually be applied where the buyer decides to keep the property with knowledge of its defective condition or over-valuation even if, with that knowledge, he would not have bought in the first place. In such a case no account is taken of later fluctuations in the market, for he remains the owner of the property as a result of his own independent decision and not of the negligence of the valuer or surveyor.’
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL (Gazette 04-Sep-96, Times 24-Jun-96, [1997] AC 191, [1996] PNLR 455, [1996] 27 EG 125, [1996] 3 WLR 87, Bailii, [1996] UKHL 10, [1996] 3 All ER 365, [1996] 2 EGLR 93, 80 BLR 1, [1996] 5 Bank LR 211, [1996] CLC 1179, [1996] 50 Con LR 153)
    Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
  • Cited – Paterson and Another v Humberside County Council QBD (Times 19-Apr-95, [1995] CLY 3661, [1996] Const LJ 64)
    A local authority was liable for nuisance for damage (cracks to house) caused by tree roots once it could be shown that it knew of the soil condition, by virtue of the council’s own warnings to residents of the danger in the area meant that the . .
  • Cited – Helmsley Acceptances Ltd v Hampton CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 356)
    The claimant lender sought damages from an allegedly negligent valuation by the defendant. It had syndicated its loan, and the defendant now argued that it could only claim for that part of the loan for which it retained ownership.
    Held: The . .
  • Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1358, [1996] 3 All ER 344, [1996] CLC 1492, [1997] 1 WLR 426)
    The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
    Held: . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31 July 2018
Ref: 78174

Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners; re Herbert Berry: HL 1977

References: [1977] 1 WLR 1437, [1977] 1 All ER 161, [1977] UKHL TC_52_113, [1980] AC 562, 53 TC 241, [1979] STC 735, [1979] TR 335
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Russell
Ratio: The principle to the effect that the court should exercise its discretion to restrain a distress levied by a landlord before the commencement of a winding-up only where there were special circumstances rendering it inequitable that he should be permitted to do so, applies also to a distress levied by the Crown under a statutory duty.
Lord Russell said: ‘Finally section 325 cannot avail the liquidator: . . It was suggested that distraint was a form of execution; but Parliament has quite clearly distinguished distress and execution: see section 228 of the 1948 Act’ and ‘So far as concerns section 325 I cannot conceive a more deliberate restriction to two only of methods of proceeding – I use the word in a non-technical sense – against the property of a company.’ S61 TMA 1970 and s319 CA 1948 could quite easily sit together. Section 61 imposes on the collector a statutory duty to distrain. Under section 319(7), a distraint (even if completed by sale) within 3 months of the winding-up order charges the distrained goods or their proceeds of sale with the preferential debts. Subject to that, and the discretion of the court to restrain completion of an uncompleted distress, the distrainor keeps the good distrained. Accordingly, in a voluntary winding-up, the distraint, even if incomplete, was permitted to disturb the pari passu distribution of preferential debts. The distrained assets are not assets of the company available for distribution within sections 302 or 319(5). There was a need for a lis to support an application for an asset freezing injunction. ‘The primary sense of action as a term of legal act is the invocation of the jurisdiction of the court by writ.’
Statutes: Companies Act 1948 325, Taxes Management Act 1970 61
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and Others ChD (Times 08-Oct-04)
    Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
    Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .
  • Cited – Brenner v Revenue and Customs; In re Modern Jet Support Centre Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1611 (Ch), Times 19-Sep-05)
    The court was asked whether the process of distraint against goods for unpaid tax under section 61 of the 1970 Act is an ‘execution’ within section 183 of the 1986 Act which applies where a creditor has issued, but not completed, execution against . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 16 July 2018
Ref: 216341

European Dynamics Luxembourg And Evropaiki Dynamiki v Europol: ECFI 19 Nov 2014

References: T-40/12, [2014] EUECJ T-40/12, ECLI: EU: T: 2014 972
Links: Bailii
Ratio: ECJ Judgment – Public service contracts – Tender procedure – Provision of IT services related to document management system and a corporate Intranet portal – Rejection of a tender – Obligation to state reasons – Equal treatment – Transparency – Proportionality – Non-contractual liability

Last Update: 25 June 2018
Ref: 538956

Lex vobiscum

Star Wars – May the force be with you – vis vobiscum

Rome – the Pope at Easter – May Peace be with you – pax vobiscum

Ahem – swarb.co.uk – May the law be with you – lex vobiscum

(possibly also, lis vobiscum – may your case be with you)