Author: admin

Regina v Pigg: HL 1982

The appellant was charged on indictment with two counts of attempted rape. The jury failed to agree on their first retirement following the summing-up, and were then given an impeccable majority direction. They returned to court after a further retirement and the clerk asked whether at least 10 were agreed upon a verdict. The foreman answered, ‘Yes.’ The clerk asked if the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty of rape and the foreman answered, ‘Not guilty.’ The clerk asked, ‘On the charge of attempted rape do you find him guilty or not guilty?’ and the foreman answered, ‘Guilty.’ The clerk asked if that was the verdict of ‘you all or by a majority’. The foreman answered, ‘By a majority.’ The clerk asked how many of the jury agreed on the verdict and how many dissented, and the foreman answered, ’10 agreed’. The clerk then observed, ’10 agreed to 2 of you.’ The foreman did not respond. The court was asked ‘Whether it is necessary in order to comply with the terms of the section . . for the foreman of the jury, having stated in open court the number agreeing to the verdict, to go on to state the number of those dissenting.’
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. It is a necessary requirement of a lawful verdict that the jury say how many agreed and how many dissented.
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said: ‘In short, compliance with the requirement of section 17(3) of the 1974 Act is mandatory before a judge can accept a majority verdict of guilty; but the precise form of words used by the clerk of the court when asking questions of the foreman of the jury, and the precise form of words used by the latter in answer to such questions, as long as they make it clear to an ordinary person how the jury was divided, do not constitute any essential part of that requirement.’
References: [1983] 1 WLR 6, [1983] 1 All ER 56, (1982) 76 Cr App R 79
Judges: Lord Brandon
Statutes: Juries Act 1974 17(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
    The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
    ([1998] EWCA Crim 1203, [1999] 1 Cr App R 61)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192258

Rex v Vodden: 1853

The court considered when a jury might be allowed to change its verdict. one of the jurors delivered a verdict of not guilty. The clerk heard, so did the chairman, who heard the same words. The prisoner was discharged from the dock. Others of the jury interfered. They said the verdict was guilty. The prisoner was brought back to the dock. The chairman asked the jury what the verdict was. All the 12 jurors answered that it was guilty. They had been unanimous. The chairman asked Owen Hughes why he had said ‘not guilty’, to which he replied that he had said ‘guilty’. A verdict of guilty was recorded.
Held: Pollock CB said: ‘We do not think the Court is called upon to say at what interval of time a correction should be made. All we do is to say that in the present case the interval was not too long. Nothing has been done but what daily takes place in the ordinary transactions in life; namely, a mistake is corrected within a reasonable time, and on the very spot on which it was made.’
References: (1853) Dears 229, (1853) 169 ER 706
Judges: Pollock CB
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
    The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
    ([1998] EWCA Crim 1203, [1999] 1 Cr App R 61)
  • Cited – Regina v Andrews 1986
    Two defendants were tried for causing injuries to one child. The jury convicted the female defendant, of positive acts of cruelty against the child and returned a verdict of not guilty of those acts in respect of the male defendant. After the police . .
    ((1986) 82 Cr App R 148)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192261

Regina v Whitefield: 1984

The two accused agreed to break into a flat, but before entry was achieved, W said he withdrew. The other burgled the flat with another.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judge was wrong to tell the jury that communication of his withdrawal to a co-accused was insufficient.
References: (1984) 79 Cr App R 36
This case cites:

  • Applied – Regina v Whitehouse 1941
    (British Columbia) The court asked when a party to a joint enterprise may claim to have abandoned or withdrawn from that enterprise ‘Can it be said on the facts of this case that a mere change of mental intention and a quitting of the scene of the . .
    ([1941] 1 WWR 112, [1941] 1 DLR 683)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192084

Regina v Sullivan: CACD 1966

The defendant had refused to answer any questions at his trial. The court asked what significance could be atached to his exercise of this right if he was innocent.
Held: Authority showed in many cases that a court must not draw adverse inferences from an accused’s silence, but there were exceptions: ‘and this is one of them, in which the circumstances are such that it does not appear that there is any unfairness involved in the comment. The line dividing what may be said and what may not be said is a very fine one, and it is perhaps doubtful whether in a case like the present it would be even perceptible to the members of any ordinary jury. But there can be no doubt, on the authorities, that this court must hold that, in the present state of the law, what was said to the jury in the passage from the summing-up which has been cited amounted to a misdirection.’
References: (1966) 51 Cr App R 102
Judges: Lord Parker CJ, Salmon LJ and Fenton Atkinson J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Regina v Davis CCA 1959
    A judge is not entitled in any circumstances to suggest to a jury, when a man refuses to answer any questions after having been cautioned, that, if he were innocent, it is likely that he would have answered the questions. . .
    ((1959) 43 Cr App R 215)
  • Cited – Rex v Leckey CCA 1943
    A conviction was set aside where the judge had invited the jury to take account of the defendant’s failure to give evidence. . .
    ((1943) 29 Cr App R 128, [1944] K B 80)
  • Cited – Rex v Naylor 1932
    The defendant’s conviction was found unsafe because of the judge’s adverse comments on his silence. . .
    ([1933] 1 KB 685, (1932) 23 Cr App R 177)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
    The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
    Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
    (, [2004] UKHL 1, , Times 23-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 404)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192239

Cann v Wilson: HL 1888

A surveyor was held to have a duty of care to the lender when he was engaged by the purchaser of a property.
References: (1888) 39 CH D 39
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 3-Feb-2004
    The claimant had obtained orders against two companies who banked with the respondent. Asset freezing orders were served on the bank, but within a short time the customer used the bank’s Faxpay national service to transfer substantial sums outside . .
    ([2004] EWHC 122 (Comm Court), , [2004] 1 WLR 2027)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192727

Coltness Iron Co v Sharp: HL 1938

The court considered the extent of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employees under the Act: (Atkin) ‘In the facts of this case where the dangerous machinery was exposed for only a few minutes as the only means of effecting necessary repairs in a part of the mine where it was unlikely that any workman would be exposed to risk of contact with the machine other than the engineer engaged in the work of repair, I am unable to take the view that it was reasonably practicable by any means to avoid or prevent the breach’ and (Lord Macmillan) ‘It was not only not reasonably practicable to keep the gearing securely fenced when it had to be observed on the test run, but it would have been impossible to have observed its working if it had been protected by the guard . . (and) if you prevent anyone going near a machine then of course you prevent the possibility of anyone being injured by it. But employees must have access to mend them. ‘
References: [1938] AC 90
Judges: Lord Atkin, Lord Macmillan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Langridge, Canterbury City Council v Howletts and Port Lympne Estates Admn 27-Nov-1996
    The company appealed against a prohibition notice with regard to its operation of a zoo. A keeper had been attacked by tigers while they were being fed. He had died. The company appealed the terms of the notices, saying that the Act had to allow for . .
    (Times 13-Dec-96, , [1996] EWHC Admin 282)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192603

Sapporo Maru (Owners) v Statue of Liberty (Owners); The Statue of Liberty: HL 1968

There had been a collision between two ships. The plaintiff sought to have admitted in evidence a film of radar echoes recorded by a shore radio station. The defendants argued that evidence produced mechanically and without human intervention was inadmissible hearsay.
Held: The court considered the admission of ‘real evidence’ in the form of plots of a ships course. Every plot involves a margin of error.
Sir Jocelyn Simon P said: ‘If tape recordings are admissible, it seems that a photograph of radar reception is equally admissible – or indeed, any other type of photograph. It would be an absurd distinction that a photograph should be admissible if the camera were operated manually by a photographer but not if it were operated by a trip or clock mechanism. Similarly if evidence of weather conditions were relevant, the law would affront common sense if it were to say that those could be proved by a person who looked at a barometer from time to time, but not by producing a barograph record. So too with other types of dial recordings. Again, cards from clocking-in-and-out machines are frequently admitted in accident cases.’
and ”It is said that the echoes of the two ships involved in this collision appear on the film and that a succession of photographs from the film will throw light on where and how the collision occurred and the responsibility of each ship. Normally this radar and screen are monitored by human agency, but on this occasion – for reasons I was not told, nor needed to be – it was not monitored. The film strip, however, is available. The defendants resist the admissibility of this strip of film on the broad ground that it is a piece of evidence produced purely mechanically without human intervention and as such offends against the hearsay rule. Counsel for the defendants relies on Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions (1964) 2 All ER 881; (1965) AC 1001. He has argued robustly that it makes all the difference that no human agency is available to verify or explain what the machine records. The Evidence Act, 1938, does not render this sort of evidence admissible, in his submission.
I am clearly of the opinion that the evidence is admissible, and could, indeed, be a valuable piece of evidence in the elucidation of the facts in dispute. In a case concerned with mechanical recordings by tape recorder, R v Maqsud Ali, R v Ashiq Hussain (1965) 2 All ER 464; (1966) 1 QB 688, the Court of Criminal Appeal, in ruling that the tape recordings were admissible, stated (1965) 2 All ER at p469; (1966) 1 QB at p 701 that it could see no difference in principle between a tape recording and a photograph. See also R v Senat, R v Sin (Mar 16, 1968), The Times; 112 Sol Jo 252. Moreover, R v Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; (1966) 1 QB 688 makes it plain that we are not here concerned with evidence admissible under the Evidence Act, 1938, because that Act is not applicable to criminal proceedings. Counsel for the defendants seeks to distinguish R v Maqsud Ali (1965) 2 All ER 464; (1966) 1 QB 688 from the present case on the ground that in the former case the police officer set up a recording machine to overhear part of a recorded conversation and claimed to be able to identify the voices recorded. I should be sorry to think that that was a ground for distinction; for in R v Maqsud Ali
(1965) 2 All ER 464; (1966) 1 QB 688, the language was a dialect of Punjabi, not understandable by Urdu experts, let alone by English police officers. In my view the evidence in question in the present case has nothing to do with the hearsay rule and does not depend on the Evidence Act, 1938.’
References: [1968] 1 WLR 739, [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277, [1968] 2 All ER 195
Judges: Lord Reid, Sir Jocelyn Simon P
Statutes: Evidence Act 1938
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Castle v Cross 1984
    First-hand evidence, in this case, a print-out from a device, of what is displayed or recorded on a mechanical measuring device is real evidence admissible at common law.
    ‘In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that . .
    ([1984] 1 WLR 1372, [1985] 1 All ER 87)
  • Cited – ‘Bow Spring’, Owners of Ship v ‘Manzanillo Ii’, Owners of Ship CA 28-Jul-2004
    There had been a collision at sea.
    Held: (Addendum) Where the admiralty court sought advice from assessors, modern good practice required that the advice should be disclosed to the parties advisers and that they have opportunity to comment. . .
    (, [2004] EWCA Civ 1007, Times 19-Aug-04)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192207

Bennington v Peter; Regina v Swaffham Justices ex parte Peter: QBD 1984

The applicant held a heavy goods vehicle licence. He became diabetic. The licensing authority refused to renew his licence. He appealed.
Held: The justices had used the wrong test, saying he could not be said not to be likeley to suffer a hypoglycaemis attack. The test should be whether the disability was likely to cause the driver’s actions so as to be a danger. They had no jurisdiction to extend the effect of the licence, but since they had made a decision wrong in law, and the matter was to be remitted, the licence would stay in effect until they reached their decision.
References: Times 11-Feb-1984, [1984] RTR 383
Judges: Woolf J
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1972 118(2), Heavy Goods Vehicle (Drivers’ Licences) Regulations 1977 (1977 No 1309) 3
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
    The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
    Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed . .
    (Times 04-Feb-04, , [2004] EWCA Civ 108, Gazette 11-Mar-04, [2004] HLR 32)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192637

Hampshire County Council v Milburn: HL 1991

The 1965 Act ‘was passed to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission so far as registration was concerned. The Act of 1965 did not confer any general public right of access over common land and did not set up the machinery for the establishment and implementation of schemes of management and improvement. But there can be no doubt that further steps were intended to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission and no doubt that such steps have become more, and not less, desirable.’
No new mesne Lordships can be created after 1290 in consequence of the prohibition on subinfeudation in s.1 of Quia Emptore
References: [1991] 1 AC 325
Judges: Lord Templeman
Statutes: Commons Registration Act 1965
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
    Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
    Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
    ([2004] EWHC 12 (Ch), , Times 30-Jan-04, [2004] 2 WLR 1291, [2004] Ch 253)
  • Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
    Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
    (, [2006] UKHL 25, Times 31-May-06, Gazette 08-Jun-06, [2006] 2 WLR 1235, [2006] 2 AC 674, [2006] 22 EG 177, [2006] NPC 62, [2006] BLGR 713, [2006] 2 EGLR 95, [2006] 4 All ER 817)
  • Cited – Walker and Another v Burton and Another CA 14-Oct-2013
    The Burtons had purchased the former Hall of the village of Ireby, and been registered as proprietors of the Lordhsip of the Manor. The villagers had successfully challenged the registration. The Court now considered the circumstances in which the . .
    (, [2013] EWCA Civ 1228, , [2013] EWLandRA 2007 – 1124)
  • Cited – Littlejohns and Another v Devon County Council and Another CA 6-May-2016
    Appeal against rejection of request for registration of land as a common: ‘At the heart of the appeal lies the question of law whether it is possible to acquire a right of common by virtue of an express grant or (as in the present case) user after 2 . .
    (, [2016] EWCA Civ 446, [2016] WLR(D) 242, )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192093

Rex v Christie: HL 1914

The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion which should be expected reasonably to call for some explanation or denial from him, is not evidence against him of the facts stated save in so far as he accepts the statement, so as to make it his own. If he accepts the statement in part only, then to that extent alone does it become his statement. He may accept the statement by word or conduct, action or demeanour, and it is the function of the jury which tries the case to determine whether his words, action, conduct or demeanour at the time when a statement was made amounts to an acceptance of it in whole or in part . . .’
References: [1914] AC 545
Judges: Lord Atkinson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hall v Regina PC 1970
    The court asked as to the modern application of the dicta in Christie with regard to the admissibility of false statements made in the presence of a defendant but uncontradicted by him. In this case there had been no positive act to adopt the lie. . .
    ((1970) 55 Cr App 108)
  • Cited – Collins and Keep v Regina CACD 28-Jan-2004
    When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
    (, [2004] EWCA Crim 83, Gazette 26-Feb-04, [2004] 2 Cr App 199, [2004] 1 WLR 1705)
  • Cited – Regina v Chandler CACD 1975
    The defendant had refused to comment on allegations put to him when interviewed by the police. His solicitor was present.
    Held: After quoting Hall, the court commented: ‘We have reservations about these two statements of law because they seem . .
    ((1975) 63 Cr App R 1)
  • Cited – Regina v Horne CACD 1990
    The victim had been ‘glassed’ in a restaurant. Tne defendant was brought before the victim who immediately identified him as the assailant. He made no answer.
    Held: The judge was correct to direct the jury to take the defendant’s silence in . .
    ([1990] Crim LR 188)
  • Cited – Regina v Osborne CACD 2-Nov-2005
    The defendant challenged admission of a statement made in his presence but not contradicted by him.
    Held: The court must first ask whether the defendant’s reaction was relevant. Where acquiescence was alleged, three considerations arose: 1) . .
    (Times 17-Nov-05)
  • Cited – Fitzgerald, Regina v CACD 6-Mar-1998
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery. At interview, his solicitor had explained his failure to answer questions by reference to the involvement of others, but in terms which treated this itself as an admission.
    Held: The . .
    (, [1998] EWCA Crim 829)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192654

Sturolson v Weniz: CA 1984

The plaintiffs took occupation under an agreement which purported to grant a non exclusive right of possession of the flat, and to be personal. Occupation could only be shared with persons approved in advance by L. L’s agent had said the agreement was intended to get around the Rent Acts. L purported to terminate the agreement, and the occupiers claimed a tenancy.
Held: The right reserved to the owner to require them to share with others was contrary to the provisions of the Rent Acts and was in any event a pretence intended only to get round the Rent Acts. However the parties knew of the pretence, and the agreement created a licence.
References: [1984] 272 EG 326
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Considered – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
    Sham requires common intent to create other result
    The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
    Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
    ([1967] 2 QB 786, [1967] 1 All ER 518, [1967] 2 WLR 1020)
  • Cited – Somma v Hazelhurst CA 1978
    s
    A young unmarried couple H and S occupied a double bedsitting room for which they paid a weekly rent. The landlord did not provide services or attendance and the couple were not lodgers but tenants enjoying exclusive possession.
    Held: The . .
    ([1978] 1 WLR 1014)

This case is cited by:

  • Disapproved – Street v Mountford HL 6-Mar-1985
    When a licence is really a tenancy
    The document signed by the occupier stated that she understood that she had been given a licence, and that she understood that she had not been granted a tenancy protected under the Rent Acts. Exclusive occupation was in fact granted.
    Held: . .
    ([1985] 1 EGLR 128, [1985] 2 All ER 289, [1985] 2 WLR 877, [1985] AC 809, [1985] UKHL 4, )
  • Cited – A G Securities v Vaughan; Antoniades v Villiers and Bridger HL 10-Nov-1988
    In Antoniades, the two tenants occupied an attic, living together. Each had at the same time signed identical agreements purporting to create licences. The landlord had reserved to himself the right to occupy the property and to allow others to . .
    ([1988] 1 EGLR 36, [1990] 1 AC 417, [1988] 3 WLR 1205, , [1988] UKHL 8, [1988] 3 All ER 1058)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191970

Lee Chun-Chuen v The Queen: PC 1963

Their Lordships explained the meaning of the words of Viscount Salmon in Holmes: ‘It is plain that Viscount Simon must have meant the word ‘actual’ to have a limiting effect and that he had in mind some particular category of intention. He cannot have meant that any sort of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was generally incompatible with manslaughter because that would eliminate provocation as a line of defence . . ‘
References: [1963] AC 220
Judges: Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
This case cites:

  • Explained – Holmes v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1946
    Viscount Simon LC said: ‘as society advances, it ought to call for a higher measure of self-control in a defendant. And with regard to the defence of provocation to a charge of murder: ‘Consequently, where the provocation inspires an actual . .
    ([1946] AC 588, (1946) 31 Cr App R 123)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
    In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3556)
  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192058

Regina v Gourley: 1981

The court emphasised the need for a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof.
References: (1981) Crim L R 334
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192067

Rex v Appleby: 1940

Appleby and Osler, while committing an offence of warehouse-breaking, were surprised by police officers. They attempted to escape, but were pursued by the officers and a shot was fired by Osler which killed one of the officers. The expression ‘Let him have it’ was used by one of two professional criminals who were found guilty of murdering a police officer. ‘a much less degree of violence may be sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty of murder in the case of a police officer who is killed in the execution of his duty, in arresting a person or detaining a person in custody, so long as the arrest is lawful, than would suffice in the case of another person. If that proposition is good law today, as in the opinion of this Court it is, it seems to follow that two persons engaged in committing a felony with a common design to resist by violence arrest by an officer, have a common design to do that which, if it results in death, would amount to murder.’
References: (1940) 28 Cr App R 1
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192060

Regina v Bagshaw, Holmes and Starkey: CA 1984

The defendants were nurses at a mental hospital, charged with assaulting their patients. They complained that the judge had not given the full direction as to the dangers of relying upon the uncorroborated evidence of of unreliable witnesses, they being detained mental patients.
Held: In this case full warnings of the sort requested were essential. The evidence of the witnesses was untreliable, and in the absence of an appropriate warning, the convictions were overturned.
References: [1984] 1 All ER 971, [1984] 1 WLR 477
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Applied – Director of Public Prosecutions v Hester CACD 1972
    . .
    ([1972] CLY 631)
  • Applied – Regina v Kilbourne HL 1973
    The respondent was convicted of sexual offences against two groups of boys. The trial judge directed the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the uncorroborated evidence of the second group as supporting evidence given by the first . .
    ([1973] AC 729, [1973] 1 All ER 440, [1973] 2 WLR 254)

This case is cited by:

  • Not followed – Regina v Spencer; Regina v Smails HL 24-Jul-1986
    The defendants were nurses employed at Rampton secure hospital accused of assaults on patients. The witnesses against them had been inmates. They complained that the judge had failed to direct the jurors about the dangers of relying upon their . .
    ([1987] AC 128, , [1987] UKHL 2, [1986] 3 WLR 348, [1986] 83 Cr App Rep 277, [1986] 2 All ER 928)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191976

Lamare v Dixon: HL 1873

The respondent resisted an order for specific performance of a contract, saying that the plaintiffs had reneged on an essential promise in a collateral contract.
Held: The defence failed. Lord Chelmsford said: ‘The exercise of the jurisdiction of equity as to enforcing the specific performance of agreements, is not a matter of right in the party seeking relief, but of discretion in the Court – not an arbitrary or capricious discretion, but one to be governed as far as possible by fixed rules and principles.’ and ‘The conduct of the party applying for relief is always an important element for consideration’.
References: (1873) LR 6 HL 414
Judges: Lord Chelmsford
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ram, Regina (on the Application Of) v Parole Board Admn 12-Jan-2004
    The claimant had won an action for damages against the respondent. He was however released on licence, and subsequently became unlawfully at large. The question was whether the damages continued to be payable to him. The defendant insisted that the . .
    (, [2004] EWHC 1 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191983

Kleeneze Ltd v DRG (UK) Ltd: 1984

However strikingly original is a work, copyright law alone will not prevent others expressing the same idea themselves, even if the result is similar.
References: [1984] FSR 399
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
    Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
    The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .
    (Gazette 18-Jan-01, Times 28-Nov-00, , , [2000] UKHL 58, [2001] 1 All ER 700, [2000] 1 WLR 2416, [2001] FSR 113, [2001] ECDR 10, [2001] FSR 11)
  • Cited – Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Co and Another ChD 30-Jul-2004
    The claimant alleged infringement of its copyright in a software system which dealt with airline reservations. It was not said that any code had been copied, but merely that an express requirement of the defendant ordering the system was that it . .
    ([2005] ECDR 17, , [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch), [2006] RPC 111)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192010

Islip Pedigree Breeding Centre and Others v Abercromby: HL 1959

The House of Lords should only review concurrent findings of fact in both Outer and Inner House of the Court of Session which depended upon an assessment of credibility by the trial judge if it can be clearly demonstrated that his findings were erroneous.
References: 1959 SLT 161
Judges: Lord Reid
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dingley v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police HL 11-May-2000
    The officer had been injured in an accident in a police van. He developed multiple sclerosis only a short time afterwards. The respondent denied that the accident caused the MS.
    Held: There is no proof of what causes MS, but it was common . .
    (, , [2000] UKHL 14, 2000 SC (HL) 77)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191169

Rex v Summers: HL 1952

The House considered the direction on the standard of proof. Lord Goddard said: ‘It is far better, instead of using the words ‘reasonable doubt’ and then trying to explain what is a reasonable doubt, to direct a jury: ‘You must not convict unless you are satisfied by the evidence that the offence has been committed’. The jury should be told that it is not for the prisoner to prove his innocence, but for the prosecution to prove his guilt. If a jury is told that it is their duty to regard the evidence and see that it satisfies them so that they can feel sure when they return a verdict of Guilty, that is much better than using the expression ‘reasonable doubt’ and I hope in future that that will be done. I never use the expression when summing up. I always tell a jury that, before they convict, they must feel sure and must be satisfied that the prosecution have established the guilt of the prisoner.’
References: (1952) 36 Cr App R 14, [1952] WN 185
Judges: Lord Goddard
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)
  • Cited – Regina v Murtagh and Kennedy 1955
    . .
    ((1955) 39 Cr App R 72)
  • Explained – Regina v Hepworth and Fearnley 1955
    Lord Goddard discussed again the direction to the jury as to the standard of proof: ‘I think it is very unfortunate to talk to juries about reasonable doubt, because the explanations given of what is and what is not a reasonable doubt are so very . .
    ((1955) 39 Cr App R 152)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192063

Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton: 1984

A business lease contained a clause to the effect that if the tenant wished to assign the premises he should first offer to surrender them to the landlord for the equivalent of the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept the offer then the tenant might apply to him for consent to assign such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant made an offer to surrender which the landlord accepted. The tenant then, being dissatisfied with the price offered, purported to withdraw his offer. The landlord sued for specific performance of the contract he alleged to exist. The tenant contended that any such agreement was avoided by s.38(1).
Held: The agreement if performed would preclude the tenant applying for a new tenancy at the end of the term, and it was void. However, the provisions providing the machinery for the conclusion of the agreement were not: ‘In short, until it is known whether the landlords have accepted or rejected the offer to surrender it cannot be known whether there is any agreement which will preclude an application or request, within the meaning of the subsection : there may or may not be. It will be observed that all that cl 3(21)(b) does is to require an offer to be made; it depends on what happens to that offer whether there ever comes into being an agreement which offends against the subsection. It is not as if the sub-clause gave the landlords an option or other right to require the tenant to surrender the lease. In my view, the sub-clause does not fall within the subsection, but stands at one remove from anything that does. It seems to me that the subsection, as construed in Joseph v Joseph, is perfectly adequate to guard against the mischief which it envisages if it strikes down the actual agreement to surrender, and that there is no need to construe the subsection so as to make it extend to the mechanism for producing an offer which, if accepted, would be invalidated. Nor do I feel any more enthusiasm than was felt by the Court of Appeal in Joseph v Joseph for enabling either party to a lease to escape from his bargain further than is necessary to give effect to the subsection and its manifest purpose.’
References: [1984] 1 All ER 423
Judges: Sir Robert Megarry V-C
Statutes: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 38(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton ChD 1981
    A business lease provided that if the tenant wished to assign, he must first offer a surrender to the landlord for the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept, then he could apply for consent to assign, such consent not to be unreasonably . .
    ([1981] 2 All ER 290)

This case is cited by:

  • Appealed to – Allnatt Properties Ltd v Newton ChD 1981
    A business lease provided that if the tenant wished to assign, he must first offer a surrender to the landlord for the net premium value. If the landlord did not accept, then he could apply for consent to assign, such consent not to be unreasonably . .
    ([1981] 2 All ER 290)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192035

Provident Mutual Life Assurance Association v Derbyshire City Council: HL 1981

The particular individual on whom the task of forming the relevant opinion had been imposed by statute could not possibly perform all the tasks delegated to the relevant financial officer. He had, and needed, a staff to perform his functions, and it was a member of his staff who had formed the relevant opinion. The question was not whether there had been a delegation so that the decision was not that of the treasurer but of the subordinate; the question was whether the treasurer had authorised the subordinate to act as his agent in forming the opinion.
References: [1981] 1 WLR 173
Judges: Lord Roskill
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Explained – Cheshire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment 1988
    The court was asked as to the authority of an assistant solicitor to issue an enforcement notice when the standing orders which dealt with delegated powers referred in this context, but not in others, to the County Solicitor and Secretary alone. The . .
    ([1988] JPL 30)
  • Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
    The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
    Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 3058 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192005

Brodie v British Railways Board: HL 1972

References: 1972 SLT (Notes) 37
Judges: Lord Kilbrandon
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dingley v Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police HL 11-May-2000
    The officer had been injured in an accident in a police van. He developed multiple sclerosis only a short time afterwards. The respondent denied that the accident caused the MS.
    Held: There is no proof of what causes MS, but it was common . .
    (, , [2000] UKHL 14, 2000 SC (HL) 77)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191170

Bray v Best: HL 1989

There was not necessarily subsumed in the concession that a payment constituted an emolument from employment a conclusion that the payment must therefore be for a chargeable period within the aggregate period during which the employment subsisted. There was no basis for this conclusion in logic or authority. The period to which any given payment is to be attributed is a question to be determined as one of fact in each case, depending on all the circumstances, including its source and the intention of the payer.
References: [1989] STC 159
Judges: Lord Oliver
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Sch E
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – RCI Europe Ltd v Kate Woods (HM Inspector of Taxes) ChD 16-Dec-2003
    The company made payments to a former director in return for a severance agreement which restricted his future business activities.
    Held: Despite the fact that all payments were made only after his employment had been terminated, they remained . .
    (Times 09-Jan-04, , [2003] EWHC 3129 (Ch), [2004] STC 315, [2004] STI 45)
  • Cited – Shilton v Wilmshurst HL 7-Feb-1991
    The taxpayer was transferred from one football club to another. He was paid andpound;75,000 to persuade him to move. The revenue appealed a decision that this was not a sum taxable as an emolument under Schedule E by the new employer.
    Held: . .
    ([1991] 1 AC 684, , [1991] UKHL TC – 64 – 78, [1991] 3 All ER 148, [1991] STC 88)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190496

Larrinaga Steamship Co Ltd v The King: HL 1944

The vessel, discharging at St. Nazaire, was ordered by charterers to return to Cardiff. Despite severely deteriorating weather conditions a Sea Transport Officer instructed the vessel to sail on completion of discharge to Quiberon Bay to join a convoy bound for the Bristol Channel. The master protested but complied. The vessel grounded and suffered damage. The owners claimed against the Crown as charterers, contending that the damage had resulted from the charterers’ order to return to Cardiff.
Held: A ship owner’s underwriters would be entitled to be subrogated to his claim for indemnity against a charterer in respect of losses caused by the master’s compliance with the charterer’s orders as to the employment of the ship, under a standard term of a charterparty.
Lord Wright said: ‘The view of the judge was that what he described as the ‘sailing orders to Quiberon Bay to be obeyed forthwith . .’ were orders as to employment within cl. 9. With the greatest respect, I cannot agree with that view. These sailing orders which the judge found were given were, in my opinion, merely dealing with matters of navigation, in regard to carrying out the orders to proceed to Cardiff’.
Lord Porter said: ‘Three answers to this argument have been made by the respondent. (1) That though an order specifying the voyage to be performed is an order as to employment, yet an order as to the time of sailing is not. That order, it is contended, is one as to navigation, or, at any rate, not as to employment. My Lords, this distinction seems to me to be justified: an order to sail from port A to port B is in common parlance an order as to employment, but an order that a ship shall sail at a particular time is not an order as to employment because its object is not to direct how the ship shall be employed, but how she shall act in the course of that employment. If the word were held to include every order which affected not the employment itself but any incident arising in the course of it almost every other liability undertaken by the charterer would be otiose, since the owners would be indemnified against almost all losses which the ship would incur in prosecuting her voyages.’
and ‘(2) The second answer of the respondents was that even if it were conceded that orders to sail in a storm were orders in respect of which an indemnity is due, they must still be orders of the charterers as charterers and such as under this charterparty they are entitled to give. The mere instruction to sail may be such an order, but such an instruction leaves it to the discretion of the master who is responsible for the safety of his ship to choose the time and opportunity for starting on his voyage. I know of no right on the part of a charterer to insist that the safety of the ship should be endangered by sailing at a time when seamanship requires her to stay in port.’
Lord Findlay, LC suggested that, although the parties in Krell v Henry may have contracted in the expectation that the procession would take place, it was difficult to see why the happening of the procession was the basis of the contract.
References: [1944] KB 124, [1945] AC 246
Judges: Lord Findlay LC, Mackinnon LJ and Lords Wright and Porter
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Criticised – Krell v Henry CA 1903
    A contract to rent rooms for two days and from which the coronation processions of King Edward VII were to be viewed was frustrated when the processions were cancelled on the days the rooms were taken for because the contract was ‘a licence to use . .
    ([1903] 2 KB 740, [1900-3] All ER 20)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
    Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
    (, Times 13-Feb-02, , [2002] UKHL 4, [2002] 1 LLR 553, [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321, 2002 SLT 278, [2002] CLC 741, 2002 SC (HL) 117, [2002] BLR 139, 2002 SCLR 346, 2002 GWD 6-178)
  • Cited – Petroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
    The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
    (, [2012] UKSC 17, [2012] 2 WLR 976, , UKSC 2010/0157, , )

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191167

The Iron and Steel Fencing and Buildings Co: 1891

The particular use of the goods in question on which the pursuers’ claim for loss was based was a use which was not within the contemplation of the parties to the contract at the time it was made, and therefore the proper level of damages was that depending on the ordinary use of the goods.
References: [1891] 19 R 199
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
    Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
    (, Times 13-Feb-02, , [2002] UKHL 4, [2002] 1 LLR 553, [2002] Lloyds Rep IR 261, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 321, 2002 SLT 278, [2002] CLC 741, 2002 SC (HL) 117, [2002] BLR 139, 2002 SCLR 346, 2002 GWD 6-178)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191166

Regina v Stafford: CACD 1968

The court considered the admission of evidence which had become available only after the trial.
Held: ‘public mischief would ensue and legal process could become indefinitely prolonged were it the case that evidence produced at any time would generally be admitted by this Court when verdicts are being reviewed’.
References: [1968] 3 All ER 751, (1968) 53 Cr App R 1
Judges: Lord Justice Edmund Davies
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appealed to – Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
    The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
    ([1974] AC 878, [1973] 3 All ER 762, [1973] 3 WLR 719, (1974) 58 Cr App R 256)

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Stafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
    The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .
    ([1974] AC 878, [1973] 3 All ER 762, [1973] 3 WLR 719, (1974) 58 Cr App R 256)
  • Cited – Pinfold, Mackenney v Regina CACD 15-Dec-2003
    The appellants challenged their convictions for murder. The convictions had been based substantially upon the evidence of a co-accused who had admitted his part. They now challenged the admission by way of support of the evidence of the co-defendant . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3643, Times 09-Jan-04, [2004] 2 Cr App R 5)
  • Cited – Ramawat Dosoruth v The State of Mauritius The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 21-Oct-2004
    PC (Mauritius) The defendant challenged his conviction for having taken a bribe saying there had been an injustice, and seeking protection directly under the constitution. The evidence against him was that a . .
    (, , [2004] UKPC 51)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190486

Nothman v Barnet London Borough County Council: HL 1978

The normal retiring age for an employee is to be found by looking exclusively at the conditions of employment applicable to the group of employees holding his position.
Lord Salmon said: ‘If a woman’s conditions of employment provide that her retiring age shall be 65, I can find no sensible or just excuse nor any words in paragraph 10(b) to deprive her of her rights to compensation should she be unfairly dismissed by her employers after she reaches the age of 60 but before she attains the age of 65. Before the unfair dismissal she would probably have planned and arranged her life on the basis that she would continue in her employment until she retired. To be unfairly dismissed before that time, say when she was 61 years old, must surely be a cruel blow. Her plans for her future would be overturned. The chance of finding fresh employment would be minimal and her pension would probably be diminished.’
References: [1978] 1 WLR 220, [1979] 1 All ER 142, [1978] ICR 336
Judges: Lord Salmon
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Notham v London Borough of Barnet CA 1978
    The purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes will ‘promote the general legislative purpose underlying the provisions’ . .
    ([1978] 1 All ER 1243)

This case is cited by:

  • Corrected – Waite v Government Communications Headquarters HL 21-Jul-1983
    Colonel Waite had obtained employment with the civil service in 1967 under the Civil Service Code’s relevant terms and conditions which provided for a retirement age of 60. Although the employers could defer retirement under these terms and . .
    ([1983] 2 AC 714, , [1983] UKHL 7)
  • Cited – Todd v British Midland Airways CA 2-Jan-1978
    The court discussed the test to be applied to an employment to see whether a British court had jurisdiction over it: ‘But in other cases there is more difficulty. I refer particularly to the type of case we have here of the airline pilot. He is . .
    ([1978] ICR 959)
  • Cited – Crofts and others v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and others CA 19-May-2005
    The claimants were airline pilots employed by the respondent company with headquarters in Hong Kong. The court was asked whether an English Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their complaints of unfair dismissal.
    Held: The pilots were employed . .
    (, [2005] EWCA Civ 599, Times 02-Jun-05, [2005] ICR 1436, [2005] IRLR 624)
  • See Also – Nothman v Barnet London Borough County Council (No 2) CA 1980
    Ormrod, LJ discussed the making of an order for re-instatement after an unfair dismissal finding, saying: ‘Miss Nothman has mentioned in her proposed Notice of Appeal (and from time to time touched on it in this Court) what she believes to be the . .
    ([1980] IRLR 65)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190503

Rye v Rye: HL 1962

Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his father’s shares, but fell out with his uncle who now sought possession of the property under the lease.
Held: The lease would have been valid but for the prohibition against the conveyance of property by persons to themselves. The section in the 1925 Act relaxed that prohibition only to a limited extent as was allowed by a literal reading. The son occupied his room on the basis of his interest in the freehold. The lease was not valid so as to allow possession to be ordered against him. The destruction of a tenancy when it is surrendered reflects the principle that a person cannot at the same time be both landlord and tenant of the same premises. ‘Nemo potest esse tenens et dominus’: two individuals cannot grant a lease to themselves.
Lord Denning: ‘I have come to the clear opinion that even under the 1925 Act a person cannot grant a tenancy to himself: for the simple reason that every tenancy is based upon an agreement between two persons and contains covenants expressed or implied by the one person with the other. Now, if a man cannot agree with himself and cannot covenant with himself, I do not see how he can grant a tenancy to himself. Is the tenancy to be good and the covenants bad? I do not think so. The one transaction cannot be split up in that way. The tenancy must stand or fall with the agreement on which it is founded and with the covenants contained in it: and as they fall, so does the tenancy. And what about a notice to quit? If A grants a tenancy to himself A, can he mutter a notice to quit to himself and expect the law to take any notice of it? . . . The truth is that they cannot grant a tenancy to themselves.’
Lord Radcliffe: ‘He could, of course, put land in trust for himself by conveying it to a nominee, and, I suppose, if there was any conceivable point in the operation, he could similarly demise land to a nominee.’
References: [1962] AC 496, [1962] 1 All ER 146
Judges: Lord Denning, Lord Radcliffe
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 72(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Greyv Ellison 1856
    A policy of insurance was created in which one department of an insurance company purported to effect a contract with another department of the same company. Although different individuals were parties to the contract, they all contracted as agents . .
    ((1856) 1 Giff 438, 65 ER 990)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barrett and others v Morgan HL 27-Jan-2000
    The landlord served a notice to quit on the head tenant under an understanding that the head tenant would not serve a counter notice. The effect was to determine the head and sub-tenancy. It acted as a notice to quit, and despite the consensual . .
    (Times 28-Jan-00, Gazette 10-Feb-00, , , [2000] 2 WLR 285, [2000] UKHL 1, [2000] 2 AC 264, [2000] 1 All ER 481)
  • Cited – Ingram and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 23-May-1995
    Lady Ingram had first conveyed properties to her solicitor who on the next day let the properties back to her, and on the day after conveyed the freehold of the properties to her family.
    Held: The leases in favour of Lady Ingram, having been . .
    (Times 23-May-95, Gazette 14-Jun-95, Ind Summary 05-Jun-95, [1995] 4 All ER 334)
  • Cited – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
    The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
    Held: . .
    (Times 11-Sep-97, Gazette 10-Sep-97, , [1997] EWCA Civ 2212, [1997] 4 All ER 395, [1997] STC 1234)
  • Cited – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
    To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
    Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
    (, , [1998] UKHL 47, [2001] AC 293, [[1999] 1 All ER 297, [1999] 2 WLR 90, (1999) STC 37)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190571

Her Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah: HCJ 31 Jan 2001

Links: ScotC
Judges: Lord Sutherland And Lord Coulsfield And Lord Maclean
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.190928

Jones v Pritchard: ChD 1908

The grant of an easement ordinarily carries with it the grant of such ancillary rights as are reasonably necessary to its exercise or enjoyment. However the grant of a right of way over a driveway cannot place on the servient owner the obligation to keep the driveway in repair.
References: [1908] 1 Ch 630
Judges: Parker J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gardner and Gardner v Davis and others CA 15-Jul-1998
    Three properties were dependent upon drainage through the plaintiff’s land. The soakaway system would not support increased usage. The appellant challenged an order denying an easement.
    Held: The drainage easement was to be read according to . .
    (Gazette 22-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Civ 1213)
  • Cited – Westminster (Duke of) and others v Guild CA 30-Mar-1983
    The landlord brought an action for non-payment of rent. The tenant sought to set off a failure by the landlord to repair the building of which his flat was part and which failure had caused him loss. The landlord said that it had no express duty to . .
    (, [1983] EWCA Civ 1, [1984] 3 WLR 630, [1985] 1 QB 688, [1983] 48 PandCR 42, [1983] 267 EG 762, [1984] 3 All ER 144)
  • Cited – Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others HL 17-Oct-2007
    The parties disputed whether a right of way over a road included an implied right for the dominant owner to park on the servient tenement.
    Held: The appeal failed. ‘The question is whether the ancillary right is necessary for the comfortable . .
    (, [2007] UKHL 42, [2007] 1 WLR 2620)
  • Cited – Regency Villas Title Ltd and Others v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd and Another CA 4-Apr-2017
    Can a recreational purpose underlie an easement
    The court considered the validity of easements of recreational facilities.
    Held: Sir Geoffrey Vos said: ‘the requirement that an easement must be a ‘right of utility and benefit’ is the crucial requirement. The essence of an easement is to . .
    (, [2017] EWCA Civ 238)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.185407

Eastham v Leigh London and Provincial Properties Ltd: 1971

A contract is not conditional merely because it contains obligations which may be termed promissory conditions.
References: (1971) 46 TC 687
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Jerome v Kelly (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes) HL 13-May-2004
    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 . .
    (, [2004] UKHL 25, , 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)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.196885

M’Adam v M’Adam: IHCS 1879

The house referred to ‘the owner of a personal right to land’ to describe the position of an uninfeft proprietor.
References: (1879) 6 R 1256
Judges: Lord President Inglis
Jurisdiction: Scotland
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Burnett’s Trustee v Grainger and Another HL 4-Mar-2004
    A flat was sold, but before the purchasers registered the transfer, the seller was sequestrated, and his trustee registered his own interest as trustee. The buyer complained that the trustee was unjustly enriched.
    Held: The Act defined the . .
    (2004 SCLR 433, 2004 SC (HL) 19, 2004 SLT 513, 2004 GWD 9-211, , [2004] UKHL 8, , Times 08-Mar-04, [2004] 11 EGCS 139)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194218

Britan v Rossiter: 1879

A contract which fails to meet the standards required under the Act is not not void, but is merely unenforceable.
References: (1879) 11 QBD 123
Statutes: Statute of Frauds 1677 3
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
    Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
    The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
    (Gazette 14-Jul-99, Times 08-Jul-99, , [1999] EWCA Civ 1680, [1999] 1 WLR 1217, [2000] Ch 162, [1999] EGCS 92, , [1999] EWCA Civ 3006, [2000] 1 All ER 711)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193606

In re Christonette International Ltd: 1982

In the case of a compulsory liquidation the date on which a floating charge is crystallised was the date on which the winding up order was made and not the date on which the winding up petition was presented.
References: [1982] 1 WLR 1245
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194252

Regina v West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Albert and Maud Johnson Trust: CA 1973

References: [1973] CLY 2097, [1973] 3 All ER 289
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-Nov-1989
    The applicant, a student had overstayed his leave. Through his solicitor’s negligence, he lost his appeal against deportation. He sought judicial review of that decision.
    Held: Judgment obtained in a party’s absence due entirely to the fault . .
    ([1989] 3 WLR 1294, [1989] 3 All ER 843, [1990] 1 AC 876, , [1989] UKHL 7)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193435

Hanfstaengl v HR Baines and Co Ltd: HL 1895

When considering whether copying has taken place, the degree of resemblance required is not merely a similarity or resemblance in some leading feature or in certain of the details but, the idea and general effect created by the original being kept in mind, a degree of similarity as would lead to the conclusion that alleged infringement is a copy or reproduction of the original, having adopted ‘its essential features and substance’.
Lord Herschel LC said that there can be no one test to decide always what amounts to a substantial part of a work.
Lord Watson said: ‘But in cases where copyright is claimed for pictures or drawings which treat an old and common subject, such as love-making beside a stile, the privilege of the author must, in my opinion, be strictly confined to the particular design which he has chosen.’
References: [1895] AC 20
Judges: Lord Shand, Lord Herschel LC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Designers Guild Limited v Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited PatC 14-Jan-1998
    The defendant denied that it had copied the plaintiff’s designs.
    Held: There was sufficient evidence of copying. It was wrong to dissect a work, but rather the court should look at the matter as a whole. . .
    (, [1998] EWHC Patents 349, [1998] FSR 803)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191196

Rex v Baskerville: 1916

References: [1916-17] All ER Rep 38, [1917] 12 CAR 81
Statutes: Perjury Act 1911 4
This case is cited by:

  • Applied – Regina v Beck CACD 1982
    The defendant complained that the judge had failed to direct the jury about the dangers of relying upon the evidence of witnesses who, though not co-defendants, had their own conflicting interests. They also said that corroborative evidence should . .
    ([1982] CLY 563, [1982] 1 WLR 461, [1982] 1 All ER 807)
  • Cited – Regina v Cooper CACD 5-May-2010
    The defendant appealed his conviction for perjury. On being accused of using a mobile phone when driving, he claimed to have been using a hands free system. Evidence later showed that his kit had been fitted only after the date of the alleged . .
    (, [2010] EWCA Crim 979, [2010] WLR (D) 115, , [2010] 2 Cr App R 13, (2010) 174 JP 265, [2010] 1 WLR 2390, [2010] Crim LR 949)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.191974

Regina v Bradbury: 1969

A court must give a clear direction to a jury on the standard of proof. A mere reference to being ‘satisfied’ without a reference to being sure, or being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, was inadequate.
References: [1969] 2 QB 471, (1969) 53 Cr App R 217
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Derek William Bentley (Deceased) CACD 30-Jul-1998
    The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1952, and hung. A court hearing an appeal after many years must apply laws from different eras to different aspects. The law of the offence (of murder) to be applied was that at the time of the offence. . .
    (Times 31-Jul-98, , [1998] EWCA Crim 2516, (2001) 1 Cr App R 307)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192066

Willis v Hoare: 1999

Auld LJ said of Crabb: there ‘could be no doubt as to the nature and extent of the remedy required to give effect to [the] equity’. Of JT Developments ‘the nature and terms of the equity were readily identifiable’. Auld LJ said: ‘There may be uncertainties in transactions which go to the question whether unconscionable behaviour has given rise to any detriment to the party seeking to rely on such an equity. There may be uncertainties in transactions in which unconscionable behaviour may have produced such detriment but its nature and extent are so uncertain that even equity may not be able to devise an appropriate remedy for it. There are parts that sometimes even equity cannot reach; and sometimes, as here, the two aspects of uncertainty may overlap.’
Chadwick LJ: ‘I am unable to recognise an equitable estoppel based on a representation which is so uncertain. It seems to me essential, if the respondent is to be prevented from exercising a clear legal right unless he first satisfies some condition which is to be imposed on him to meet by what is described as ‘the equity of the case’, that it should be possible to tell him what it is that he has to do. To fetter the respondent’s legal right by reference to some obligation which cannot be spelt out seems to me to be thoroughly inequitable.’
References: (1999) 77 P and CR D42
Judges: Auld LJ
This case cites:

  • Cited – Crabb v Arun District Council CA 23-Jul-1975
    The plaintiff was led to believe that he would acquire a right of access to his land. In reliance on that belief he sold off part of his land, leaving the remainder landlocked.
    Held: His claim to have raised an equity was upheld. The plaintiff . .
    ([1976] Ch 179, , [1975] 3 All ER 865, [1975] EWCA Civ 7)
  • Cited – JT Developments v Quinn and Another CA 1990
    The plaintiff told the defendant it was willing to grant a lease on the same terms as those contained in a new tenancy that the plaintiff had recently granted to the tenant of a nearby shop, also owned by the plaintiff. The defendant carried out . .
    ([1991] 2 EGLR 257, (1990) 62 P and CR 33)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
    Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
    Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
    (, [2003] EWHC 1846 (Ch))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192085

Brewer v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 11 Feb 2004

The defendant was a disqualified driver. He was seen to be driving slowly across a railway station car park. He was found to have excess alcohol in his blood.
Held: Allowing his appeal against conviction. The magistrates had found that the car park’s prime function was the parking of cars but that it was also used by pedestrians and as a through road. The only use which could properly constitute it as a road was the use by staff to drive through it to their own car park. That was insufficient to make it a highway. The appeal succeeded.
References: Times 05-Mar-2004
Judges: Rose LJ, David Clarke J
This case cites:

  • Cited – Clarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 25-Nov-1998
    Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . .
    (Times 23-Oct-98, Gazette 25-Nov-98, Gazette 11-Nov-98, , , [1998] UKHL 36, [1998] 4 All ER 417, [1998] WLR 1647)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Barrett v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 10-Feb-2009
    barrett_dppAdmn2009
    The defendant appealed against his conviction for driving whilst disqualified. He had driven on a roadway within a caravan park. A public footpath (a highway) went through the park. There were gates at the entrance but these were kept open. The . .
    (, [2009] EWHC 423 (Admin))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194253

Vann v Awford: CA 18 Apr 1986

The Court set aside the judgment on the application of the defendant, despite the fact that that he had, in his own account of the matter, lied on affidavit. Weighing the defence on the merits against possible prejudice to the plaintiffs, the Court applied the principle that it would not wish to let a judgment pass on which there had been no proper adjudication.
References: Unreported, 18 April 1986
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193404

Attorney General for Ceylon v Kumarasinhege: PC 1953

The Board discussed the reduction to manslaughter of a charge of murder where provocation was alleged: ‘But as the Court of Criminal Appeal set out in their judgment what they conceived to be the English law relating to manslaughter their Lordships feel bound to observe that in one respect the court were in error. They said in reference to English law, ‘if it is established or clear from the evidence that through provocation of howsoever grievous a kind may have been offered, nevertheless, if it could be shown that the accused caused the death with an intention to kill, the offence is one of murder not manslaughter. This is one of the fundamental differences between our law and that of England.’ A little further down in the judgment they said ‘in the case of murder, there must be an intention to kill, in the case of manslaughter, no such intention can exist.’ With all respect to the court, that is not the law of England.’
References: [1953] AC 200
Judges: Lord Goddard
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ruth Ellis v Regina CACD 8-Dec-2003
    In 1955, the deceased defendant was convicted of murder, and later hanged. The court considerd a post mortem appeal by the CRCC and her family. It was suggested that she should have been found guilty of manslaughter having been provoked by the . .
    (, [2003] EWCA Crim 3556)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192057

Regina v Fraser Marr: CACD 1990

The defendant complained that his defence, as unattractive as it may have been, had not been put to the jury with balanced treatment and consideration.
Held: Such treatment was the right of every criminal defendant. The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
References: (1990) 90 Cr App R 154
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Wilson CACD 15-May-2007
    The defendant appealed his conviction for murder saying that as a thirteen year old he had committed it on his father’s instructions and out of fear of his father.
    Held: Duress was no defence to a charge of murder. It was not necessary for the . .
    (Times 06-Jun-07)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192078

Minister of Health v Bellotti: CA 1944

298 blocks of flats had been requisitioned to provide accommodation for persons evacuated from Gibraltar during the war. The evacuees occupied the various flats as licensees. They were given only one week’s notice terminating their licences.
Held: Where the relevant period has not been specified by the licence itself, a licensee is entitled, following revocation of the licence, to whatever in all the circumstances is a reasonable time to remove himself and his possessions. It was an unreasonably short period, although possession proceedings were not in fact begun until after the lapse of a reasonable time.
Had the licences been validly terminated? A licensor can terminate a licence at any time as long as reasonable time is given within which the determination is to take effect. However, the question of what the licensee is entitled to expect and the matter of determination of his licence is one that is impossible to answer by reference to other cases in different circumstances.
Mackinnon LJ said: ‘I think the rule of law is that the licensor can revoke his licence at any time, but the licensee has thereafter a reasonable time, having regard to all the circumstances, to comply with the revocation.’
Lord Greene rejected the proposition that the only notice to terminate a licence which the law required was a period sufficient to enable the licensee to remove himself and his property from the premises comprised in the licence: ‘I refer to that because it appears to me that where a question arises as to the lawful method of terminating a licence, the circumstances in which the licence came to be granted are most relevant to consider. Where a licence is granted under a contract, it may very well be that the contract will make express provision for those matters which must be observed, but what is to happen where the contract is silent in that regard? I cannot take the view that there is some cast-iron principle of law which lays down for every type of contract, whatever the circumstances and whatever the purposes for which it was entered into, some rule which is always to operate. In my opinion, the true rule is that the implications of the contract are to be determined by regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case. Thus, in the judgment of the Privy Council in Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. The King, the following paragraph appears: ‘Whether any and what restrictions exist on the power of a licensor to determine a revocable licence must, their Lordships think, depend upon the circumstances of each case.’ That is the only proposition of general application which I find it possible to extract from that authority; and although the case is not binding on this court, the law there is, in my opinion, laid down with complete accuracy.
The notice given by each letter operates as a clear determination of the licence at the expiration of one week. It conveys to the mind of the recipient as clearly as anything can notice that the licence is determined. It goes on, however, to indicate that the recipient of the letter, together with his possessions, is to be removed from the premises within one week. So far as the letter gives that instruction, it was, in my opinion, quite inoperative. The true view is that where a licence is revoked, the licensee has, in spite of the revocation, whatever in the circumstances is a reasonable time to enable him to remove himself and his possessions from the scene of the licence. I have already said that in the circumstances of this case such a reasonable time must extend to whatever is a reasonable time to find alternative accommodation, and, if the day after this notice expired, proceedings had been taken by the minister to eject the defendants, those proceedings would have failed because the defendants were entitled to a reasonable time, and a week was not a reasonable time, to enable them to find alternative accommodation. The circumstance that the threat to remove them before the expiration of what would have been a reasonable time was inserted in the letter does not prevent the letter from being a good notice to determine the licence. That being the position, the county court judge decided that the interval which elapsed between the expiration of the week mentioned in that document and the commencement of these proceedings was a sufficient time to enable alternative accommodation to be found. In view of that finding of fact, the defendants could not complain at the time these proceedings were instituted that they had not been allowed sufficient time in the circumstances to remove themselves and their possessions and find alternative accommodation.’
References: [1944] 1 KB 298, [1944] 1 All ER 238
Judges: Lord Greene MR, Mackinnon LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Approved – The Canadian Pacific Railway Company v The King PC 19-Feb-1931
    (Canada) ‘Whether any and what restrictions exist on the power of a licensor to determine a revocable licence must, there Lordships think, depend upon the circumstances of each case.’
    A licencee whose licence is revocable is entitled to . .
    (, [1931] UKPC 18, [1931] AC 414)

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Gibson v Douglas and Another CA 8-Dec-2016
    Appeal against rejection of claim for damages for wrongful eviction and damages to goods.
    Held: The judge had found not that the defendant had failed to give appropriate notice, but that he had not been personally involved other than as an . .
    (, [2016] EWCA Civ 1266)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192089

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd v Lancegaye Safety Glass (1934) Ltd: 1939

A company is to have the benefit of protection against self incrimination just as much as an individual. A court is not bound without more, by a claim to the privilege by a party to litigation.
References: [1939] 2 All ER 613, [1939] 2 KB 395
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
    The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
    Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
    ([1981] AC 1096, [1981] 1 All ER 452, [1980] 3 WLR 774)
  • Cited – C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
    cplc_pChD2006
    The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
    (, [2006] EWHC 1226 (Ch), Times 08-Jun-06, [2007] 3 WLR 437)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193367

Industrial Development Consultants Ltd v Cooley: 1972

Mr Cooley was the managing director of the claimant. His duties included procuring business in the field of developing gas depots. The company had unsuccessful negotiations with the Eastern Gas Board for the development of four depots. However, the Gas Board were not prepared to let the contracts to the company. The Gas Board subsequently approached Mr Cooley in his private capacity; and indicated that they would be prepared to contract with him personally. In the course of the meeting, Mr Cooley acquired knowledge that the company did not have; and would have wanted to have. Mr Cooley therefore resigned his office (on the basis of a false excuse) and entered into the contracts with the Gas Board.
Held: He was accountable for the profit. Where a fiduciary obtains a benefit in breach of his fiduciary duty, he is liable to account even if the beneficiary could not itself have obtained that benefit or opportunity. A company director owes a fiduciary duty to report relevant information of concern to the company: ‘Information which came to [the director] while he was managing director and which was of concern to [the company] and was relevant for [the company] to know, was information which it was his duty to pass on to [the company] because between himself and [the company] a fiduciary relationship existed . . ‘ and ‘Therefore, I feel impelled to the conclusion that when the defendant embarked on this course of conduct of getting information . . using that information and preparing those documents . . and sending them off . . , he was guilty of putting himself into the position in which his duty to his employers, the plaintiffs, and his own private interests conflicted and conflicted grievously. There being the fiduciary relationship I have described, it seems to me plain that it was his duty once he got this information to pass it to his employers and not to guard it for his own personal purposes and profit. He put himself into the position when his duty and his interests conflicted.’
References: [1972] 1 WLR 443
Judges: Roskill J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Crown Dilmun, Dilmun Investments Limited v Nicholas Sutton, Fulham River Projects Limited ChD 23-Jan-2004
    There was a contract for the sale of Craven Cottage football stadium, conditional upon the grant of non-onerous planning permissions. It was claimed that the contract had been obtained by the defendant employee in breach of his fiduciary duties to . .
    (Times 05-Feb-04, [2004] EWHC 52 (Ch), , [2004] 1 BCLC 468)
  • Cited – Fassihim, Liddiardrams, International Ltd, Isograph Ltd v Item Software (UK) Ltd CA 30-Sep-2004
    The first defendant (F) had been employed by a company involved in a distribution agreement. He had sought to set up a competing arrangement whilst a director of the claimant, and diverted a contract to his new company.
    Held: A company . .
    ([2004] EWCA Civ 1244, Times 21-Oct-04, , [2004] BCC 994, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep PN 17, [2005] ICR 450, [2005] 2 BCLC 91, [2004] IRLR 928)
  • Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
    The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
    (, [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch))
  • Cited – O’Donnell v Shanahan and Another CA 22-Jul-2009
    The claimant appealed against dismissal of her petition for an order for the defendants to purchase her shares at a fair value, saying that they had acted unfairly toward her. Her co-directors had acquired, for another company of which they were . .
    (, [2009] EWCA Civ 751, Times 21-Aug-09)
  • Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
    Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
    (, [2006] EWCA Civ 1735, [2007] FSR 16, [2007] IRLR 126)
  • Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
    The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
    (, [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm), [2011] ArbLR 55)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192208